cocos (2000-2002), 14, 87-96Printed in Sri Lanka

FEASIBILITY OF GROWING MEDICINAL PLANTS IN COCONUT LANDSOF THE WET ZONE OF SRI LANKA

H A J Gunathilake, L Arambewewela*, H Ratnayake and 8 Rajapakse

Coconut Research Institute, Lunuwile , Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT

There is a growing demand for plant materials for use in perfumery andayurvedic preparations. Although much research has been carried out onintercropping coconut lands, little attention has been given for medicinalplants.

Ten selected medicinal plants were tested at Walpita Estate in the LowCountry Wet Zone of Sri Lanka. Yield and chemical quality of the speciesgrown under coconut and in the open field were assessed.

Piper longum under coconut showed higher plant yield and piperine contentthan when grown in the open field. Kaempheria galanga and Plumbagoindica also showed the same trend. Yield difference of Adhathoda vasicaand Aloe vera under coconut and in open field was not significant. The otherspecies, Plectranthus spp, Solanum xanthocarpum, Hibiscus abelmoschus,Withania somnifera and Cassia angustifolia did not perform well in AERWL3 and require further evaluation in other agro-c1imatic regions.

INTRODUCTION

The Coconut Research Institute has been engaged in research onintercropping in coconut lands, with both annual and perennial crops suchas coffee , pepper, pineapple, ginger, etc., and has a considerable databaseand exper ience in this field (Gunathilake and Liyanage, 1996). However,lack of experience and knowledge on intercropping of medicinal plants incoconut lands is a serious drawback in popularising such crops.

8ri Lanka imports approximately Rs. 80-100 million worth of medicinal plantmaterials for use in perfumery and ayurvedic preparations. A majorcomponent of annual plant species such as Solanum xanthocarpum (8:Katuwelbatu), Cassia angustifolia (S: Senehekola), Withania somnifera (S:Ashawagandha), Piper longum (S: Tippili), Kaempferia galanga (S:Ingurupiyali) , Hibiscus abelmoschus (S: Kapukinissa) etc. The chemical

• Natural Product Division, ITI, Bauddhal oka Mawatha , Colombo 787

activity of some of the imported dried plant material is less than the desiredlevel due to long periods of storage and transportation before they are used.

The objectives of this work were to study the feasibility of growing several,hither to imported medicinal plants species under coconut and to assess thechemical quality of the produce cultivated under these conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was carried out at Walpita Estate, Kotadeniyawa in the AgroEcological Reagion WL3 where annual rainfall is approximately 2000 - 2200mm. The age of the Coconut plantation was 46 years and available sunlightwas approximately 60% under coconut, which was planted at 8.5 m x 8.5 mspacing (150 palms/ha). The soil was well drained and moderately deepBoralu series . (Sornasiri et al., 1994).

Selected medicinal plants listed in Table 1, were established in 4.0 m x 6.0m plots prepared in the center of the coconut square. The plots werearranged in a Complete Randomized Block Design with three replicates perspecies. At planting , 500 g of concentrated Super Phosphate was appliedto each plot followed by the application of 10 kg of dried cattle manure everythree months during the experimental period.

A similar experiment was conducted in an open area (without coconut) forcomparision. .

Growth and reproductive parameters were recorded monthly and sampleswere taken for assessment of yield and chemical quality at the end of thefirst and second years, after planting. Agrochemicals were not used for pestand disease control.

RESULTS

Yield

The yields obtained over the first year, both in the open and under coconutare presented in Table 2. Plectranthus spp (Iriweriya) failed to produce anyyield due to high mortality. Iriweriya plants underboth conditions (open andunder coconut) were susceptible to collar rot disease caused by Pythiumspp and succumbed after two months. Under coconut Piper longum (Tippili)produced two and half times the yield obtained in the open field.Kaempheria galanga (Ingurupiyali) also yielded more under coconut than inthe open. The yield of the other species tested was less under coconutthan in the open field .

. 88

Extrapolated yields for one ha of land in the open (10,000 m2) and under

coconut (excluding 2m radius for coconut manure circle - 6,600 m2) are

given in Table 3. It showed that Piper longum has yielded more undercoconut although the effective area is 2/3 under coconut. Kaempheriagalanga, Aloe vera, Plumbago indica, Adhathoda vasica and Withaniasomnifera continued to produce a yield in the second year also (Table 4).Except for Withania and Plumbago, the yields under coconut of the otherthree species during the second year were higher than during the first year(Table 4). Extrapolated fresh leaf yield of Aloe vera in the second year was12.6m.t.lcoconut ha (Table 5).

Chemical Quality

A chemical analysis of the medicinal plants/parts are presented in Table 6.Piper longum, Kaempheria galanga and Phumbago indica had higherconcentrations of the active chemical ingradient in plants grown undercoconut compared to those grown in the open. In contrast, Solanumxanthocarpum, Withania somnifera and Cassia angustifolia produced alower concentration of the active chemicals under coconut than in opensunlight.

Comparing yield and volatile oil content of Kaempheria in the first andsecond years, those two characters behaved inversely i.e. in the secondyear , yield was higher but volatile oil was lower (Table 6). While Aloe veraand Plumbago produced higher contents of chemicals in the second yearthan in the first year.

DISCUSSION

Piper longum and Kaempheria galanga performed well under coconutshowing their shade loving nature. These two species probably originatedunder shade in their natural habitats. The other species produced low yieldsunder coconut possibly due to competition above or below the ground level.As the supply of nutrients and water was abundant, it can be assumed thatthe yields were reduced due to insufficient sunlight. This was clearly evidentwith Solanum xanthocarpum, Hibiscus abelmoschus, Withania somniferaand Cassia angustifolia. Although the yield per plant of Aloe vera, Plumbagoindica and Adhathoda vasica under coconut was slightly reduced, theirperformance under coconut could be considered satisfactory. Aloe vera,Plumbago, Adhathoda, Kaempheria and Withania survived and carried overin to the second year after planting, as 'they are perennials. Aloe vera,Adhathoda and Kaempheria yielded fairly well in the second year. Plimbagocould be maintained up to the end of the second year its yield was reducedconsiderably.

89

In regard to both chemical quality and yield, Piper longum and Kaempheriaperformed well under coconut.

Yield and chemical content of Plumbeqo indica grown under coconutbehaved inversely, with the yield reduction being compensated by the betterquality of extracts showing that this plant is also adaptable to the coconutsituation.

Assessed in terms of yield and quality Solanum xanthocarpum, Hibiscusabelmoschus, Withania somnfera and Cassia angaustifolia failed to tolerateconditions under coconut in WL3. Plectranthus spp needs furtherinvestigation on its susceptibility to soil-borne diseases.

CONCLUSION

Piper longum, Kaempheria galanga and Plumbago indica are clearlymedicinal plants with a good potential to be developed as intercrops undercoconut in the wet zone due to their shade loving nature. Adhathoda vasicaand Aloe vera also show promise. The other species tested should beexperimented under different agro-c1imatic conditions for their adaptability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Financial support given by the Council for Agricultural Research Policy(CARP) is qratefully acknowledged. We are also qrateful to Mr. R M SRathnayake for initiating the programme, Mr. M A Dayawansa and Mr. RThambugala are also acknowledged for their help in conducting field trialsand chemical analyses.

REFERENCES

Gunathilake, H A J and Liyanage, M de S (1996). Multiple Cropping under

Coconut (In) Agroforestry for Sustainable Development in Sri Lanka.

(Eds. P A Huxley, D M S H K Ranasinghe)

Somasiri, L L W Nadarajah, N Amarasinghe, Land Gunathilake, H A J(1994). Land suitability Assessment of Coconut Growing Areas in theCoconut Triangle. Occasional Publication Series No.3, CoconutResearch Institute of Sri Lanka, December, 1994.

90

Tab

le1:

Th

esp

acin

gan

dd

ensi

tyo

fw

hic

hth

em

edic

inal

pla

nts

wer

ete

sted

Sci

enti

fic

Nam

eC

om

mo

nN

ame

Sp

acin

g(c

m)

Den

sity

Pla

nts

/ha

Pla

nts

/co

con

ut

ha*

Pip

er

long

umT

ippi

li75

x75

17,5

0011

,700

Kae

mph

eria

gala

nga

Ingu

rupi

yali

60x4

536

,000

24,0

00A

loe

vera

Kom

aric

a50

x30

66,0

0044

,000

Plu

mba

goin

dica

Rat

hnito

l60

x60

27,0

0018

,000

\0P

lect

rant

hus

spp

Iriw

eriy

a30

x30

111,

000

72,0

00S

olan

umK

atuw

elba

tu45

x15

142,

500

95,0

00xa

nth

oca

pu

mH

ibis

cus

Kap

ukin

issa

60x6

027

,000

18,0

00a

be

lmo

sch

um

With

ania

som

nife

raA

mu

kka

ra60

x30

54,0

0036

,000

Cas

sia

angu

stifo

liaS

eneh

ekol

a60

x30

54,0

0036

,000

Ad

ha

tho

da

vasi

caA

dhat

hoda

60x9

018

,000

12,0

00

Are

aex

clud

ing

2.0

mra

dius

for

coco

nut

man

ure

circ

le(e

ffect

ive

land

area

for

inte

rcro

ppin

gin

one

hect

are

ofco

conu

tis

6,6

00m

2)

Tab

le2:

Yie

ldin

gra

mp

erp

lan

to

ver

the

firs

tye

arin

the

op

enan

du

nd

erco

con

ut

Med

icin

alP

lan

tM

edic

inal

lyu

sefu

lp

art

Yie

ldat

1ye

araf

ter

pla

ntin

q(g

/pla

nt)

Op

enU

nd

erco

con

ut

Thi

ppili

Ber

ries

(drie

d)13

.4a

32.4

b+

241.

8In

guru

piya

liR

hyzo

me

(drie

d)39

.2'a

45

.2b

+15

.3K

omar

ica

,Le

aves

(fre

sh)

1719

a11

45.0

b-3

3.4

-.0

Rat

hnito

lR

oots

(drie

d)13

1.9

a86

.9b

-34.

1N

Adh

atod

aT

otal

plan

t(d

ried)

180.

0a

132.

5b

-26.

4K

atuw

elba

tu*

Tot

alpl

ant

(drie

d)24

.8a

10.1

b-5

9.3

Kap

ukin

issa

See

ds(d

ried)

27.0

a5.

1b

-81.

1A

muk

kara

Roo

ts(d

ried)

48.8

a15

.2b

-68.

9S

eneh

ekol

aLe

aves

(drie

d)4.

2a

1.3

b-6

9.0

Iriw

eriy

aS

hoot

s(d

ried)

nil

nil

*H

arve

sted

at5

Y2m

onth

saf

ter

plan

ting

(With

inco

lum

ns,

valu

essh

arin

ga

com

mon

lette

rdo

notd

iffer

sign

ifica

ntly

atP

=0.

05)

Tab

le3:

Ext

rap

ola

ted

yiel

do

fd

iffe

ren

tm

edic

inal

pla

nts

inth

eo

pen

and

un

de

rco

con

ut

Med

icin

alM

edic

inal

lyY

ield

at1

year

afte

r%

dif

fere

nce

pla

nts

use

ful

par

tp

lan

tin

gco

mp

ared

too

pen

Op

enU

nd

erco

con

ut

kg/h

akg

/co

con

ut

ha*

Thi

ppili

Ber

ries

(drie

d)23

5a

379

b+

61.1

\0In

guru

piya

liR

hyzo

me

(drie

d)1

,41

0a

1,08

4b

-22

.5'''')

Kom

aric

aLe

aves

(fre

sh)

.1

13

,45

4a

503

,800

b-5

5.6

Rat

hnito

lR

oots

(drie

d)3,

561

a1,

564

b-5

6.1

Ad

ha

tod

aT

otal

plan

t(d

ried

)3,

240

a1,

590

b-5

0.9

Kat

uwel

batu

Tot

alpl

ant

(drie

d)3,

534

a96

0b

-72.

8K

apuk

lnis

saS

eeds

(drie

d72

9a

92b

-87.

4A

mu

kka

raR

oots

(drie

d)2

,635

a54

7b

-79

.2S

en

eh

eko

laLe

aves

(drie

d)22

7a

47b

-79.

4

*A

rea

avai

labl

ea

fte

rex

clud

ing

2.0

mra

dius

for

coco

nu

tm

anur

eci

rcle

(With

inco

lum

n,v

alue

ssh

arin

ga

com

mo

nle

tter

dono

td

iffe

rsi

gnifi

cant

lyat

P=

0.05

)

Tab

le4:

Yie

ldin

gra

mp

erp

lan

tin

the

seco

nd

year

inth

eo

pen

and

un

der

coco

nu

t

Med

icin

alM

edic

inal

lyY

ield

(g/p

lan

t)%

dif

fere

nce

pla

nts

use

ful

par

tco

mp

ared

too

pen

Op

enU

nd

erIQ

coco

nu

t.;:.

.

Ingu

rupi

yali

Rhy

zom

e(d

ried)

62.7

a76

.6a

+30

.8K

omar

ica

Leav

es(f

resh

)2,

312.

8a

2,87

6.7

a+

24

.4R

athn

itol

Roo

ts(d

ried)

56.7

a59

.5a

-4.9

Adh

atod

aT

otal

plan

t(d

ried)

1,32

7.0

a1,

072.

2b

-19.

2A

muk

kara

Roo

ts(d

ried)

15.8

a6.

5b

-58.

9

(With

inco

lum

n,va

lues

shar

ing

aco

mm

onle

tter

dono

tdi

ffer

sign

ifica

ntly

atP

=O

,05)

Tab

le5:

Ext

rap

ola

ted

yiel

do

fse

vera

lm

edic

inal

pla

nts

inth

eye

araf

ter

pla

nti

ng

inth

eo

pen

and

un

der

coco

nu

t

Med

icin

alp

lan

tsM

edic

inal

lyu

sefu

lp

art

Yie

ldO

pen

kg/h

aU

nd

erco

con

ut

kg/c

oco

nu

th

a*

\0In

guru

piya

liR

hyzo

me

(drie

d)2,

254

a1,

839

bV

IK

omar

ica

Leav

es(f

resh

)15

2,6

44a

126,

573

bR

athn

itol

Ho

ots

(drie

d)1,

531

a1,

071

bA

dhat

oda

Tot

alpl

ant

(drie

d)23

,886

a12

,886

bA

muk

kara

Roo

ts(d

ried)

853

a23

4b

*A

rea

avai

labl

e,ex

clud

ing

afte

r2.

0m

radi

usfo

rco

conu

tm

anur

eci

rcle

(With

inco

lum

n,v

alue

ssh

arin

ga

com

mon

lette

rdo

not

diff

ersi

gnifi

cant

lyat

P=

0.0

5)

Tab

le6:

Ch

emic

als/

ing

red

ien

tsan

alys

iso

fm

edic

inal

pla

nts

Med

icin

alM

edic

inal

lyC

hem

ical

s/P

erce

nta

ge

pla

nts

imp

ort

ant

ing

red

ien

tsO

pen

Un

der

Co

con

ut

par

tsas

soci

ated

1'Y

AP

2Y

AP

1Y

AP

2YA

P

Thi

ppili

Ber

ries

Pip

erin

e0.

64-

0.8

2(d

ried

)In

guru

piya

liR

hyzo

me

Vot

atil

eoi

l7.

413.

258

.73

3.31

(drie

d)K

omar

ica

Leav

esF

resh

plan

t2.

356.

302

.23

6.40

(fre

sh)

juic

eR

athn

itol

Roo

tsT

otal

extr

act

14.7

28.8

622

.97

27.6

0

\0(d

ried)

-e0

\K

atuw

elba

tuW

ho

lepl

ant

Alk

alo

ids

in*1

.9*0

.81

.-(d

ried)

"root

sK

apuk

inis

saS

eeds

-n

.a.

n.a.

n.a

.n

.a.

(dri

e~.

Am

ukk

ara

Roo

tsA

lkal

oids

0.91

0.26

0.26

0.27

(drie

d)S

tere

ids

Se

ne

he

kola

Leav

esS

enno

side

1.50

-1.

20A

dhat

oda

Wh

ole

plan

tE

ssen

tial

eil

n.a.

n.a

.n

.a.

n.a.

(drie

d)

*S

am

ple

sco

llect

edat

5Y2

and

15m

onth

ofag

efo

r1

YA

Pan

d2

YA

Pre

spec

tivel

yn.

a-

not

ana

lyse

dY

AP

-ye

ars

afte

rpl

ant

ing