Effect of cutting orientation on the growth and yield of cassava (Manihot esculenta crantz) In Obio akpa, Akwa Ibom State
Main Article Content
Abstract
The field experiment was carried out at Teaching and Research Farm of Akwa Ibom State University, Obio Akpa Campus in 2019 to evaluate the effect of planting orientations on growth and yield of two Cassava varieties. The experiment was a 2 x 3 factorial laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design. The treatments consisted of two cassava varieties (TMS 07/0593 and TMS 07/01368) and three planting orientations (1800, 450 and 300) making a total of 10 treatment combination which were replicated thrice. Data were collected on the following growth and yield attributes; and subjected to statistical analysis using analysis of variance. Means were compared using Fisher’s Least Significant Difference (FSLD) at 0.05 probability level. Result showed that TMS 01/01368 row 98.61cm at 10 months after planting (MAP) whole TMS 07/0593 was 130.77 cm at 10 MAP. TMS 01/1368 had larger leaf area of 136.60 and 138.55cm2 at 8 and 10 MAP while TMS 07/0593 had 90.71 and 101.30 cm2 respectively. TMS 01/136 had 4.05 stems per stand while TMS 07/0593 had 1.62 stems per stand. Comparing the storage root yield, TMS 01/368 had 35.70 t/ha storage yield while TMS 07/0593 had 22.60 t/ha. TMS 01/136 had 37% greater
storage root yield compared to TMS 07/0593. Among the planting orientations, the results indicated significant difference (P<0.05) in all growth and yield parameters except in leaf area and height at first branching. Tallest plant at 10 MAP, 188.15 cm was recorded in 450 produced significant storage root yield of 34.20 t/ha, followed by 29.77t/ha from 300 orientations. The least 20.42 t/ha was recorded in the treatment of 1800 orientation. Farmers were advised to plant TMS 01/1368 at 1800 orientation for stem production. For storage root yield, farmers were advised to plant TMS 01/368 at 450 orientation.
Downloads
Article Details
Issue
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Carey, B. (2006). Gully erosion:.Fact sheetL81, Natural Resources Department. The state of Queensland. QNRM
Christopher, M. & Fink, A. H. (2005). Recent rainfall trends across tropical West Akata O. R. (2015): Influence organic manure on soil fertility, weed flora dynamics and performance of cassava in Uyo, Nigeria Ph.DThesis in Crop Production, University of Calabar, Calabar.
Amaner, D.R. (2011). Growth partitioning of crops in West Africa. pages 30-32.
Chantaprasan, B. & Wanapat, M. (2003) Effects of different harvest internals on Cassava foliage (Cassava hay) and root yield. Tropical Feed Resources and Development Center (TROFEREC)
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon kaen University, khonkaen 40002, Thailand. http://www.mekarn.org/msc200305/theses 05/chan-p/.pdf, accessed on 10 May, 2012.
Balagopalan, C. (2002). Cassava utilization in foods, feed and industry. Kerala, India: Sreekanyam Trivandrum.
Frederick, K., Douglas, M. & Opie, J. (2008). Soul Food from Africa pages 100-102
Godfrey AI, Ezekiel UU, Donatus Fu (2012) selection criteria for stem and Tuber yield in cassava
(Manihotesculentacrantz).Journal of American Science 8:1120 – 1124.
Nweke, F. I., Spencer, D. & Lynam, J. K. (2002). Cassava Transformation: Africa’s Best kept secret. East Langsing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
O. R. Akata, A. E. Uko, F. A. Nwagwu, N. U. Ndaeyo, A. O. Ikeh & D. M. Essang (2016). Weed Dynamics, Growth and yield of cassava (Manihot esculenta crantz) as influenced by organic
fertilizer sources and rates in an Ultisol. Journal of Basic and Applied Research International 18(2): 68-76.
Pypers, P., Sanginga J.M., Kasereka, B., Walangululu, M. & Vanlauwe, B. (2011). Increased productivity through integrated soil fertility management in cassava-legume intercropping. pages 40-44.
Ravi, V., Aked, J. & Blagopalam, C. (1996). Review on tropical root and tuber crops /. storage methods and quality changes. Critical Review in Food science and Nutrition 36: 661 – 709.