Full terms and conditions of use:

Transcription

1 This article was downloaded by: [CIMAP Central Institute of Medicinal & Aromatic Plants] On: 03 February 2013, At: 21:19 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: Registered office: Mortimer House, Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: Production potential and economics of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) under intercropping system Man Singh a, Aparbal Singh a, Saudan Singh a, R. S. Tripathi a & D. D. Patra a a Agronomy and Soil Science Division, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, , India Version of record first published: 16 Jun To cite this article: Man Singh, Aparbal Singh, Saudan Singh, R. S. Tripathi & D. D. Patra (2011): Production potential and economics of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) under intercropping system, Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 57:6, To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

2 Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science Vol. 57, No. 6, September 2011, Production potential and economics of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) under intercropping system Man Singh*, Aparbal Singh, Saudan Singh, R.S. Tripathi and D.D. Patra Agronomy and Soil Science Division, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow , India (Received 15 October 2009; final version received 12 March 2010) A field experiment was conducted for two years, and during July March at the research farm of the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow to study the compatibility, productivity and economics of intercropping in safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum Santapau & Fernandes). Vegetable crops viz cowpea, okra and bottle gourd, maize for grain, long duration pigeon pea, sweet basil in first year at their full and half population were intercropped with full population of safed musli in additive series. In the second year okra and sweet basil were replaced by lablab bean and sacred basil, respectively. Results of two years experiments showed that intercropping of pigeon pea and bottle gourd with musli were advantageous in terms of overall yield, land equivalent ratio (), monetary advantage and economic return. The most appropriate combinations to realize the maximum advantage from intercropping were half plant population of bottle gourd grown at cm or cm spacing and pigeon pea grown at cm spacing with musli. These combinations gave additional yield of t ha 71 of bottle gourd and 6.51 t ha 71 grain of pigeon pea (2-year mean) without significantly reducing the root yield of musli. Keywords: safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum); intercropping; yield; land equivalent ratio (); net return Introduction Safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum Santapau & Fernandes), a plant of family Liliaceae, growing naturally in the Arawali hills of India, has a great internal demand and export potential. Dried roots of the plant are considered as one of the most important drugs in Indian systems of medicine (Ayurvedic, Unani and Siddha) due to its aphrodisiac and sex tonic properties. Because of great therapeutic importance, safed musli tubers are the major constituents of more than 100 Ayurvedic preparations (Oudhia 2000). Since a long time wild growing plants have been the major source of supply to drug industries in the country. However, the continued exploitation of natural resources has resulted in a fast depletion of its population in Indian forests. The commercial cultivation of the crop in farmers fields has been started recently. Production technology for the cultivation of safed musli has been reported by Kothari and Singh (2003), Singh and Chauhan (2003) and Singh et al. (2004). But there is meagre information on intercropping with safed *Corresponding author. mansingh_2003@yahoo.co.in ISSN print/issn online Ó 2011 Taylor & Francis DOI: /

3 670 M. Singh et al. musli (Bordia et al., 1995). It is a slow growing and short stature plant and in natural habitats is found growing under partial shade. Musli has been considered as a potential intercrop under different agroforestry systems (Chadhar and Sharma 1996). Its active growing period is during the rainy season (July to September), and during winter plants remain dormant and only roots remain in the soil for hardening. These conditions provide ample scope for intercropping with suitable crops during rainy and winter seasons. Keeping the above in view the present investigation was carried out to study the yield potential and economics of safed musli-based intercropping systems. Materials and methods Experimental site A field experiment was conducted for two years, and during July March at the research farm of the Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, Lucknow, India situated at N latitude, E longitude with an elevation of about 120 m above mean sea level and characterized in the long term by a semi-arid and subtropical type of climate. The soil (ph 7.9) of the experimental field was a sandy loam (Typic Ustifluvent) having organic carbon 0.3%, available N (alkaline KMnO 4 extractable N) 148 kg ha 71, available P (0.5 M Na HCO 3 extractable) 15.0 kg ha 71 and available K (1M NH 4 OAc extractable) 156 kg ha 71. Treatment and experimental design Vegetable crops viz. cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. cv. Rituraj in first year and Pusa Komal in second), okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. cv. Arka) and bottle gourd (Lagenaria ciceraria Mol. Standl. cv. Pusa long); cereal: maize (Zea mays L. cv. Hybrid Kanchan) for grain; pulse: long duration pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L. cv. Bahar) and aromatic crop: sweet basil (Ocimum basillicum L. cv. Vikarsudha.) in first year at their full and half population were intercropped with full population of C. borivilianum in additive series. In second year okra and sweet basil were replaced by lablab bean (Dolichos lablab L. cv. Prasad) and sacred basil (Ocimum sanctum L. cv.cim-ayu), respectively. Sole crop of safed musli and intercrops were also grown for comparison (Table 1). A total of 13 treatments (Tables 2 and 3) with three replications were tested in a randomized block design; the individual plot size was of m. Raising of crops Safed musli tubers having 2 3 fingers with small portion of crown were planted on ridges 30 cm apart both in sole and intercropping system on 4 and 15 July during 2004 and 2005, respectively. Thirty-day-old seedlings of basil were also planted in furrows simultaneously with musli in sole and intercropping systems. Other intercrops were also sown on the same day in furrows. The details of spacing and harvesting schedule of safed musli and different intercrops are given in Table 1. Farmyard manure (0.6% N, 0.25% P and 0.5% K) at 10 t ha 71 was incorporated into the soil 15 days prior to planting of safed musli every year. Every year basal dressing of 25 kg N ha 71 through urea, 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha 71 through single super phosphate and 60 kg K 2 Oha 71 through muriate of potash was done before

4 Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 671 Table 1. Plant spacing and harvesting schedule of musli and intercrops during and cropping seasons. Treatments Row to row Spacing (cm) Plant to plant Harvesting schedule Pigeon pea (PP) sole March end Maize (M) sole Sept Okra (OK) sole* Sept to 21 Nov Lablab beans (B) sole** Sept to 23 Dec Cowpea (CP) sole Sept to 15 Oct* Aug** Bottle gourd (BG) sole 100* 100* 18 Sept to 22 Nov* 120** 90** 23 Sept to 18 Dec** Sweet basil (SB) sole* Sept Sacred basil (SB) sole** Oct Safed musli (SM) sole 30* 21* 3 6 April and intercropped 30** 15** SM þ PP F March end SM þ M F Sept SM þ OK F* to 21 Nov SM þ B F** Sept to 23 Dec SM þ CP F Sept to 15 Oct* Aug** SM þ BG F 100* 100* 18 Sept to 22 Nov* 120** 90** 23 Sept to 18 Dec** SM þ SB F* Sept SM þ SB F** Oct SM þ PP H March end SM þ M H Sept SM þ OK H* Sept to 21 Nov SM þ B H** Sept to 23 Dec SM þ CP H Sept to 15 Oct* Aug** SM þ BG H 200* 100* 18 Sept to 22 Nov* 120** 180** 23 Sept to 18 Dec** SM þ SB H* Sept SM þ SB H** Oct *During ; **During ; Date of planting 15 July 2004 (2004 5); 4 July 2005 (2005 6); F Full population; H Half population. last ploughing both in sole and intercropping treatments. 25 kg N ha 71 through urea was top dressed 30 days after planting in sole and intercropping treatments, except sole cowpea, pigeon pea and lablab bean. Plant sampling and biometric observations The observations on root weight plant 71, number of fingers plant 71 and length of fingers were recorded from three plants in each plot. Two hundred gram fresh roots from each plot were washed in water, peeled and dried in shade to obtain dry matter content. To determine dry root yield, fresh root yield was multiplied by dry matter content as percentage of fresh weight as follows: Dry root yield ¼ Fresh root yield Dry matter content ð% Þ = 100 ð1þ

5 672 M. Singh et al. Assessing of intercropping advantages Intercropping advantage in terms of land equivalent ratio () and relative net return were calculated. The was used to quantify the land use efficiency. It was calculated by the formula developed by Mead and Willey (1980). ¼ Yab=Yaa þ Yba=Ybb ð2þ Yab and Yba are yield of crop a and b in intercropping, Yaa and Ybb are the yield of crop a and b in sole cropping. Economics of various treatments were calculated taking into account the current costs of inputs and produce. Net return ¼ Gross return Cost of cultivation Statistical analysis The analysis of variance was done in randomized block design for various observations recorded during experimentation as described by Panse and Sukhatme (1967). The results were presented at 5% level of significance (p ¼ 0.05). The critical difference (CD) values were calculated to compare the various treatment means. Results and discussion Yield attributes of safed musli Number of roots per plant, root length and root yield per plant were higher in sole safed musli and those intercropped with full and half population of pigeon pea and bottle gourd and half population of sweet basil and maize. Lowest values were recorded when musli was intercropped with full population of cowpea followed by cowpea with half population and full population of okra, sweet basil and maize in first year (Table 2). Whereas, in second year only root yield per plant was lower when full and half population of maize and full population of cowpea were intercropped with musli (Table 3). This might be due to slow growth of pigeon pea and bottle gourd in initial stages, which created only partial shade and did not compete for nutrients and moisture with musli because of deep root system of pigeon pea and wider spacing of bottle gourd. The drastic reduction in yield attributes of musli, especially in first year, were due to overshading of musli plants by cowpea as the cultivar Rituraj was fast growing and spreading type and sweet basil, okra and maize fiercely competed with musli for nutrients and moisture. Root yield of safed musli In general, musli yield was lower during than in Delayed planting and wider plant spacing are considered to be the reasons for lower yield in the first year than in second (Table 1). Root yield of safed musli intercropped with full and half population of pigeon pea and bottle gourd during both the year and half population of sweet basil and maize in first year and full and half population of lablab bean and sacred basil and half population of cowpea in second year were at par with sole crop. This could be attributed to partial shading environment created ð3þ

6 Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 673 Table 2. Yield attributes and root yield of safed musli and intercrops under sole and intercropping system (2004 5). Treatments No. of roots plant 71 Root length (cm) Root yield (g plant 71 ) Dry root yield (kg ha 71 ) Inter crop yield (t ha 71 ) Pigeon pea (PP) sole 4.21 Maize (M) sole 1.00 Okra (OK) sole 8.17 Cow pea (CP) sole 4.23 Bottle gourd (BG) sole Sweet basil (SB) sole Safed musli (SM) sole SM þ PP F SM þ M F SM þ OK F SM þ CP F SM þ BG F SM þ SB F SM þ PP H SM þ M H SM þ OK H SM þ CP H SM þ BG H SM þ SB H CD (p ¼ 0.05) F Full population; H Half population. Table 3. Yield attributes and yield of safed musli and intercrops under sole and intercropping system (2005 6). Treatments No. of roots plant 71 Root length (cm) Root yield (g plant 71 ) Dry root yield (kg ha 71 ) Intercrop yield (t ha 71 ) Pigeon pea (PP) sole 4.09 Maize (M) sole 1.50 Lablab bean (B) sole 0.90 Cow pea (CP) sole 0.63 Bottle gourd (BG) sole Sacred basil (SB) sole 2.22 Safed musli (SM) sole SM þ PP F SM þ M F SM þ B F SM þ CP F SM þ BG F SM þ SB F SM þ PP H SM þ M H SM þ B H SM þ CP H SM þ BG H SM þ SBH CD (p ¼ 0.05) F Full population; H Half population.

7 674 M. Singh et al. by intercrops. Chouhan and Joshi (2000) also did not notice any reduction in musli root yield due to intercropping of kharif and rabi season crops. In first year, intercropping of full population of cowpea caused maximum (80%) reduction in safed musli root yield followed by cowpea half population and full population of okra, sweet basil and maize, which caused 61, 60, 53 and 37% reduction in musli yield, respectively (Table 2). In second year intercropping of full and half population of maize and full population of cowpea caused significant i.e. 17, 13 and 13% reduction in musli yield, respectively (Table 3). Ayuk-Takem and Chhedda (1985) also reported drastic reduction in cocoyam yield when intercropped with late maturing robust maize variety. The drastic reduction in root yield of musli in first year due to cowpea intercropping was due to overshading of musli plants by cowpea as the cultivar was fast growing and spreading type and sweet basil, okra and maize fiercely competed with musli for nutrients and moisture and created more shade resulting in drastic reduction in yield attributes; root length, number of roots and root yield per plant. Intercrop yield Of the intercrops, okra at its full population gave 30% higher yield as compared with sole crop closely followed by pigeon pea full population, which yielded 24% higher grain yield than sole crop in first year. At 50% (half) population, yield of all the intercrops were 50% or more compared with that of the sole crops, maximum 116% recorded from cowpea followed by 105% from pigeon pea (Table 2). This showed that short stature musli plants did not compete with intercrops for above- and underground resources. During second year, intercropping of full population of pigeon pea produced maximum 14% higher grain yield than sole crop followed by lablab bean, which gave 8% higher yield than sole crop. Pigeon pea intercropped at 50% population with musli produced 5% higher grain yield than sole crop. Abbas et al. (1995) and Singh et al. (1998) also recorded 84% and 80% grain yield of pigeon pea at 50% population intercropped with maize and palmarosa, respectively. The lowest 44% and 22% yield was obtained from cowpea at full and half population, respectively as compared with sole crop (Table 3). It was due to high soil moisture, which induced chlorosis in leaves resulting in poor pod formation as all the intercrops were sown in furrows and sole crops were sown in flat beds. Land equivalent ratio () All intercropping treatments gave greater than 1.0 during both years (Table 4). The largest (2.16) was obtained from the combination of musli with full population of pigeon pea followed by musli in combination with half (50%) population of pigeon pea ( ¼ 2.06). In second year highest (2.15) was obtained from the combination of musli with full population of lablab bean followed by musli in combination with full and half population of pigeon pea having of 2.07 and 2.03, respectively. The greater value of (4 2.0) in the above combinations was due to higher relative yield of component crops because musli did not compete for under- and aboveground resources due to its short-stature plants, and pigeon pea plants grew slow up to September end (active growth period of musli) and lablab bean cultivar was prostrate type and provided partial shade on musli plants, which favoured musli growth. Lowest of 1.25 and 1.27 in first year

8 Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 675 Table 4. Land equivalent ratio () under sole and intercropping system Treatments Safed musli intercrop Total Safed musli intercrop Total Pigeon pea (PP) sole Maize (M) sole Okra (OK)*/ Bean (B)** sole Cow pea (CP) sole Bottle gourd (BG) sole Sweet basil (SB)* / Sacred basil (SB)**sole Safed musli (SM) sole SM þ PP F SM þ M F SM þ OK*/ B** F SM þ CP F SM þ BG F SM þ SB*/ SB** F SM þ PP H SM þ M H SM þ OK*/ B** H SM þ CP H SM þ BG H SM þ SB*/ SB** H *During ; **During ; F Full population; H Half population. and 1.17 and 1.31 in second year were recorded from the combination of musli with half and full population of cowpea, respectively. Net economic return In general, net return in sole as well as intercropped musli was lower during than in (Figures 1 and 2). This was attributed to considerably lower (550%) root yield of musli in the first year than in second. Intercropping of full and half population of pigeon pea and bottle gourd during both years and half population of sweet basil in first year, full and half population of lablab bean and half population of sacred basil in second year gave more net return than sole musli. In first year, maximum net return (177,500 Rs ha 71 ) was obtained from intercropping of half population of pigeon pea with musli followed by 175,000 Rs ha 71 from the combination of musli plus full population of pigeon pea, as against 80,500 Rs ha 71 obtained from sole musli. Cowpea and okra did not favour the growth and yield of musli resulting in a negative return from the intercropping system; the highest negative return (Loss) of 95,000 Rs ha 71 occurred when musli was intercropped with full population of cowpea followed by 41,100 and 39,300 Rs ha 71 net loss recorded with the combination of full and half population of okra with musli, respectively. In second year highest net return of 402,000 Rs ha 71 was obtained from the combination of musli plus full population of bottle gourd followed by 399,000, 369,300 and 349,600 Rs ha 71 from the combination of half

9 676 M. Singh et al. Figure 1. Cost of cultivation, gross and net returns under sole and intercropping during PP pigeon pea; M maize; OK okra; CP cowpea; BG bottle gourd; SB sweet basil; SM safed musli (S) sole crop; (F) full population; (H) half population of intercrop. Figure 2. Cost of cultivation, gross and net returns under sole and intercropping during PP pigeon pea; M maize; B lablab bean; CP cowpea; BG bottle gourd; SB sacred basil; SM safed musli; (S) sole crop; (F) full population; (H) half population of intercrop. population of bottle gourd, half and full population of pigeon pea with musli, respectively. Lowest net return of 209,500 Rs ha 71 was obtained from the combination of full population of maize with musli followed by 217,800 and

10 Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science ,800 Rs ha 71 obtained from intercropping of full population of cowpea and half population of maize with musli, respectively. Conclusions The results of the present study show that intercropping of pigeon pea and bottle gourd with musli was advantageous in terms of overall yield, land use efficiency (), monetary advantage and economic return. Pigeon pea and bottle gourd did not have any adverse effect on growth and yield of musli. Equal or more yield of musli under intercropping with pigeon pea and bottle gourd indicate that these crops do not compete with musli for underground resources such as nutrients and moisture and a certain degree of shade (30 40%) is helpful for the growth and root production of musli. The most appropriate combinations to realize the maximum advantage from intercropping were half plant population of bottle gourd grown at cm or cm spacing and pigeon pea grown at cm spacing with musli. These combinations gave a bonus yield of t ha 71 of bottle gourd and 6.51 t ha 71 grain of pigeon pea (2-year mean) as compared with sole musli without significantly reducing the root yield of musli. Wherever market facilities exist, growers may be advised to grow bottle gourd as an intercrop with musli. Otherwise late maturing pigeon pea should be intercropped to improve the productivity, land utilization efficiency and economic return from musli cultivation. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Director, Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic plants, Lucknow for providing facilities and U.P. Council of Agriculture research (UPCAR), Lucknow for partial funding of the project. References Abbas M, Tomar SS, Nigam KB Maize (Zea mays) based cropping system with pulse under rainfed conditions. Indian J Agric Sci. 65: Ayuk-Takem JA, Chhedda HR Grain yield potential of some diverse maize (Zea mays L.) morphotypes intercropped with cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagitifolium). Expl Agric. 21: Bordia PC, Joshi A, Simlot MM Safed musli. In: Chadha KL, Gupta R, editors. Medicinal and aromatic plants. Advances in horticulture, Vol. 2. New Delhi: Malhotra Publishing House. p Chadhar SK, Sharma MC Survival and yield of four medicinal plant species grown under the plantations of bhataland. Vaniki-Sandesh 20:3 5. Chouhan GS, Joshi A Performance of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) under various cropping systems based on kharif and rabi intercrops. Extended Summary National Symposium on Agronomy: Challenges and Strategies for the New Millennium; November. p Kothari SK, Singh K Production techniques for the cultivation of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum). J Hort Sci Biotechnol. 78: Mead R, Willey RW The concept of land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields from intercropping. Expl Agric. 6: Oudhia P Problems perceived by safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) growers of Chattishgah (India) region: A study. J Medicinal Aromatic Plant Sci. 22, 4A/23, 1 A: Panse VG, Sukhatme PV Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: ICAR. Singh A, Chauhan HS Safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum) distribution, biodiversity and cultivation. J Medicinal Aromatic Plant Sci. 25:

11 678 M. Singh et al. Singh A, Singh M, Singh K Productivity and economic viability of palmarosa pigeon pea intercropping in the sub-tropical climate of North India. J Agri Sci. (Camb). 130: Singh A, Singh S, Patra DD, Singh M, Arya SJK, Khanuja SPS Cultivation and production technologies of safed musli (Chlorophytum borivilianum). J Medicinal Aromatic Plant Sci. 26:70 76.