Response of white yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir.) to different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers at Ikenne and Ibadan, southwest Nigeria

Response of white yam (Dioscorea

rotundata Poir.) to different levels of

organo-mineral fertilizers at Ikenne

and Ibadan, southwest Nigeria

Lawal O. Isiaq

2

Introduction

• Yams (Dioscorea spp.) are importantstaple food crop widely cultivated inWest Africa, Southeast Asia and theCaribbean.

• The poor tuber yields are attributable todeclining soil fertility & inability offarmers to use inorganic fertilizers.

• It therefore becomes exigent to sourcefor cheaper alternatives to inorganicfertilizers.

3

• Several studies have shown that yams respondwell to application of organic fertilizers

• Combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizersin crop production is more beneficial than singleuse

• Combination of organic and inorganic inputs thatallows 50% cost reduction is one option validatedthrough the Balanced Nutrient ManagementSystems project

• Dearth of information exists on the use ofcompost with or without NPK fertilizer on yamproduction vis-à-vis the detailed composition ofmanure and the environmental conditions of thearea where the results were obtained.

4

Objectives

Evaluate:

Performance

N, P and K uptake and use efficiency

Residual soil nutrients after cropping

Tuber storability

of white yam grown with different levels

of organo-mineral fertilizers.

Evaluate soil N, P and K content over

time in sole yam cropping system

5

Materials and Methods

• Field trials were conducted at Ikenne (Longitude3o 42’E and Latitude 6o 54’N) and Ibadan(longitude 3o 54’E and latitude 7o 30’N) in 2004and 2005.

• Pre-cropping soil and organic fertilizers usedwere chemically analyzed to determine nutrientcontents.

Organic fertilizer Grade B (Composted cowdung plus sorted city refuse): Pacesetter Fertilizer Company, Bodija, Ibadan

Chemical fertilizer N. P. K. 12-12-12 (150 Kg/ha,300 Kg/ha and 450 kg /ha) was formulated fromurea, triple superphosphate and muriate ofpotash.

6

• Experimental design was a split plot arranged

in randomized complete block X 4 reps.

• Four white yam land races (Cultivar ‘Adaka’,

‘Amula’, ‘Danacha’ and ‘Omiefun ) were used

as test crop.

• Yam setts (60 g) were planted for each of 2

seasons at a spacing of 1 m X 0.5 m, 25 m2 plot

size (50 plants/plot)

Fertilizer treatments (Table 1) were applied one

month after shoot emergence in grooves 10-15

cm from the base of each plant

7

• Data Analysis

• GLM procedure of SAS (Version 9.1) was

used to determine ANOVA

• Significant treatment means were

separated using the Duncan Multiple

Range Test or the least significant

difference (LSD) at 5% level of significant.

8

Table 1: N P K contents of the fertilizer materials

Treatments N P K

(Kg/ha)

1) No fertilizer (control) 0 0 0

2) 2.5 t/ha Organic Fertilizer 32 13 32

3) 5.0 t/ha Organic Fertilizer 64 26 64

4) 150 kg/ha NPK12-12-12 18 18 18

5) 300 kg/ha NPK12-12-12 36 36 36

6) 450 kg/haNPK12-12-12 54 54 54

7) 1.75 t/haOF+150 kg/ha NPK 32 23 36

8) 2.5 t/haOF+150 kg/ha NPK 56 31 56

9) 2.5 t/haOF+300 kg/ha NPK 64 49 68

10) 5.0 t/haOF+300Kg/haNPK 96 62 98

9

Table 2. Pre-planting soil chemical and physical properties

in the experimental sites in 2004 and 2005

2004 2005

Soil Properties Ikenne Ibadan Ikenne Ibadan

pH (H2O)(1:1) 5.7 5.5 5.9 6.0

PH (KCl) (1:1) 4.1 5.0 4.7 5.4

Nitrogen (g/Kg) 1.58 0.87 1.08 1.06

Phosphorus (Mg/Kg) 15.7 6.18 8.43 16.36

Potassium (Cmol/Kg) 0.38 0.17 0.15 0.28

Calcium (Cmol/Kg) 1.47 1.65 4.81 1.82

Magnesium (Cmol/Kg) 0.32 1.50 1.05 0.45

Sodium (Cmol/Kg) 0.34 0.16 0.08 0.12

Organic carbon 0.67 0.38 0.62 0.35

CEC 3.68 2.92 3.68 2.92

Sand (%) 74 78 73 76

Silt (%) 10 10 10 11

Clay (%) 16 12 17 13

Classification (USDA 1994) Typic

paleudalfs

Sandy loam

Oxic Kandiustalf

Sandy loam

Typic paleudalfs

Sandy loam

Oxic

Kandiustalf

Sandy loam

10

Table 3: chemical properties of Organic fertilizer

Nitrogen (%) 1.09

Phosphorus (%) 0.70

Potassium (%) 1.27

Calcium (%) 0.48

Magnesium (%) 3.06

Sodium (%) 0.75

Iron (mgkg-1) 95.00

Copper (mgkg-1) 39.45

Zinc (mgkg-1) 286

Manganese (mgkg-1) 330

11

• Expt. 1: Estimation of growth and yield of

white yam grown with different levels of

organo- mineral fertilizer

• Data Collection:

• Length of vines, number of leaves, number of

vine branches and dry matter accumulation at

monthly interval on 5 sample plants/plot;

• leaf area index estimated;

• Tuber weight estimated at harvest

12

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

4 8 12 16

Vin

e len

gth

(cm

)

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer

2.5t/haOF

5.0t/haOF

150Kg/haNPK

300Kg/haNPK

450Kg/haNPK

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK

Fig. 1: Effect of different levels of organic based fertilizers on

vine length of four clones of white yam in Ikenne and Ibadan

2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

RESULTS:- EXPT: Growth parameters

13

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

4 8 12 16

Nu

mb

er o

f l

ea

ve

s

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer

2.5t/haOF

5.0t/haOF

150Kg/haNPK

300Kg/haNPK

450Kg/haNPK

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK

Fig. 3: Effect of different levels of organic based fertilizers on

Number of leaves of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne and

Ibadan 2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

14

2.45

2.50

2.55

2.60

2.65

2.70

4 8 12 16

Le

af a

re

a in

de

x

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer2.5t/haOF5.0t/haOF150Kg/haNPK300Kg/haNPK450Kg/haNPK1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK

Fig. 5: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers

on leaf area index of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne

and Ibadan 2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

15

Table 3: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers on tuber yield

of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne and Ibadan 2004 and 2005

Tuber yield (t /ha)

2004 2005

Fertilizer treatments Ikenne Ibadan Ikenne Ibadan

No fertilizer 18.46ab 8.21d 8.08e 10.58d

2.5tha-1OF 19.88ab 10.06cd 9.36de 11.38cd

5.0tha-1 OF 22.60a 10.95bc 12.37bc 13.26bc

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 20.69ab 10.68bc 11.88cd 12.31bcd

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 21.31a 11.36bc 12.53bc 14.14b

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 19.20a 15.91a 17.34a 19.84a

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 19.14ab 10.94bc 12.24bc 14.11b

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 20.58a 11.86bc 16.60b 17.94ab

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 21.65a 13.46ab 17.94a 20.43a

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 21.98a 15.97a 18.22a 20.72a

Means in the column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT

16

2004 2005

Fertilizer treatments

Ikenne

%Incre

ase

/control Ibadan

%Increa

se

/control Ikenne

%Increa

se

/control Ibadan

%Increa

se

/control

No fertilizer 18.46 - 8.21 - 8.08

-

10.58

-

2.5tha-1OF 19.88 7.8 10.06 22.4 9.36 15.8 11.38 16.6

5.0tha-1 OF 22.60 22.6 10.95 33.42 12.37 52.54 13.26 28.93

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 20.69 12.2 10.03 30.2 11.88 47.0 12.31 16.7

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 21.31 15.4 11.36 38.5 12.53 55.0 14.14 33.7

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 19.20 25.8 15.91 94.2 17.34 14.9 19.84 87.9

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 19.14 3.7 10.94 33.2 12.84 58.9 14.11 33.7

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 20.58 11.5 11.86 44.9 16.60 118.8 17.94 29.2

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 21.65 17.4 13.46 64.4 17.94 121.7 20.43 93.6

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 21.98 29.9 15.97 94.6 18.22 125.8 20.72 96.2

Table4: Relative tuber yield of fertilized white yam plots over the unfertilized

(control)

17

Table 5: Ikenne 2004 Yield: Cultivar X fertilizer interaction

Fertilizer Adaka Amula Danacha Omiefun

Fertilizer

means

No fertilizer 17.20 15.05 16.88 14.95 16.02

2.5tha-1OF 20.55 20.75 15.20 23.00 19.88

5.0tha-1 OF 23.45 21.00 19.65 26.30 22.60

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 14.10 23.30 15.90 29.45 20.69

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 21.45 22.20 19.05 22.55 21.31

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 19.95 22.50 14.75 19.60 19.20

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 16.50 23.25 18.15 18.65 19.14

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 20.60 24.20 17.80 19.70 20.58

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 22.00 20.65 23.95 20.00 21.65

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 21.25 22.40 17.00 19.25 19.98

Variety means 19.71 21.53 17.83 21.35

SE ± F-test

Cultivar 1.11 Cultivar 0.0717 NS

Fertilizer 1.76 Fertilizer 0.4075 NS

Cultivar*fertilizer 0.8536 NS

18

Table 6: Ibadan 2004 yield: Cultivar X fertilizer interaction

Fertilizer Treatments

Adaka Amula Danacha Omiefun

Fertilizer

means

No fertilizer 8.20 9.60 7.35 8.68 8.46

2.5tha-1OF 6.90 7.25 10.05 8.90 8.28

5.0tha-1 OF 11.90 11.70 10.70 8.70 11.75

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 13.60 8.20 5.85 13.85 10.38

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 11.60 14.75 11.00 8.10 11.36

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 10.00 11.50 11.90 14.80 12.05

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK8.85 8.70 11.75 13.20 10.63

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 8.80 11.15 7.10 10.80 11.46

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 11.70 11.45 12.96 10.35 12.61

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 10.80 12.78 11.20 9.95 11.98

Variety means 10.24 10.71 9.99 10.73

SE± F-test

Cultivar 0.59 Cultivar 0.7645 NS

Fertilizer 0.94 Fertilizer 0.0561 *

Cult. X Fert. 0.1443 NS

19

• Expt. 2: Evaluation of N, P and K uptake and use

efficiency of white yam plants grown with different

levels of organic- based fertilizers

Nutrient uptake = nutrient conc. (g) X Dry matter

• The fertilizer NUE was estimated according to the

procedure by Moll et al, 1982.

-NUE = Tuber yield / Native + fertilizer N

-Where NUE = Nutrient use efficiency in gkg-1.

• same procedure was also used to calculate P and

K use efficiency.

20

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer2.5t/haOF

5.0t/haOF150kg/haNPK

300kg/haNPK450kg/haNPK

1.75t/haOF+150kg/haNPK2.5t/haOF+150kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+300kg/haNPK5.0t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

Fig. 9: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizer on nitrogen

uptake of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne and Ibadan 2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

4 8 12 16

N u

ptak

e (

g/p

lan

t)

21

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

4 8 12 16

P u

pta

ke

(g

/pla

nt)

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer

2.5t/haOF5.0t/haOF

150kg/haNPK

300kg/haNPK450kg/haNPK

1.75t/haOF+150kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+150kg/haNPK2.5t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

5.0t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

Fig. 11: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizer on Phosphorus

uptake of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne and Ibadan 2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

22

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

4 8 12 16

K u

pta

ke

(g

/pla

nt)

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer

2.5t/haOF

5.0t/haOF

150kg/haNPK

300kg/haNPK

450kg/haNPK

1.75t/haOF+150kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+150kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

5.0t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

Fig. 9: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizer on Potassium

uptake of four cultivars of white yam at Ikenne and Ibadan 2004

Weeks after fertilizer application

IKENNE IBADAN

23

Table 7: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers on Nutrient

use efficiency of four white yam cultivars in Ikenne and Ibadan 2004.

Nutrient use efficiency (g/kg)

IKENNE 2004 IBADAN 2004

Fertilizer Treatments N P K N P K

No Fertilizer

2.5t/haOrganic Fertilizer

5.0t/haOrganic Fertilizer

150Kg/ha NPK12-12-12

300Kg/ha NPK12-12-12

450Kg/haNPK12-12-12

1.75t/haOF+150Kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+150Kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+300Kg/haNPK

5.0t/haOF+300Kg/haNPK

SE

29.82 29.44 34.37 26.75 36.69 25.75

14.75 17.25 15.31 6.38 10.63 6.44

9.75 13.63 8.69 4.75 8.38 4.13

26.31 15.31 28.25 13.75 10.69 14.31

14.19 10.50 14.63 7.69 6.88 7.81

8.69 6.88 8.88 4.69 4.38 4.81

14.31 12.31 13.25 8.06 9.00 7.31

9.00 11.06 10.31 4.13 6.38 4.75

8.31 8.38 8.06 4.31 5.00 3.94

5.38 6.50 5.00 2.44 3.25 2.25

4.77 1.48 4.58 8.10 1.34 4.40

24

• Expt. 3: Evaluation of Soil mineral N, P and K content in yam cropping system.

• Soil samples (ten cores per sub-plot) taken at 0-30 cm depth at monthly intervals were processed using the procedure described by Murphy and Riley (1962), Vander paauw et al., (1971) and Inskeep and Bloom (1984). The amount (Y) of Mineral N, P or K in Kg/ha was calculated using the formular:

• Y = C * T * BD * D * 10

DW

Where C = mineral N (NO3-N and NH4-N), P or K concentration in (µg/g)

T = total amount of extract used (cm3),

BD = bulk density of soil in the profile (Kgm-3)

25

D = depth of soil sampled (m),

DW = oven dried weight of soil sample (g) and

10 = conversion factor to kg/ha.

The summation of NO3-N and NH4-N content will give

the available soil mineral N. Mineral P and K content

was also be determined by calculation.

Residual soil nutrients after the cropping of yams was

also determined thus:

• Ten core per plot were taken around the spots where

yam tubers were harvested,

• These were bulked together processed and taken to

laboratory for Physico-chemical analyses for essential

nutrients.

26

Fig. 11: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers on soil nitrogen content

in soils over time in yam based cropping system at Ikenne and Ibadan 2004.

IKENNE IBADAN

Weeks after fertilizer application

4 8 12 16

No fertilizer

2.5t/haOF5.0t/haOF

150kg/haNPK300kg/haNPK

450kg/haNPK1.75t/haOF+150kg/haNPK

2.5t/haOF+150kg/haNPK2.5t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

5.0t/haOF+300kg/haNPK

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

4 8 12 16

So

il N

(kg

/ha)

27

Table10: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers on

residual effect of nutrients on soil after cultivation of white yam in

Ikenne 2004

Ikenne 2004 Residual Soil Nutrient

Fertilizer Treatment pH(

H2O)Org.C N P K Ca Mg Na Fe Zn

% Mg/kg Cmol/kg Mg/kg

Pre-planting 5.70 0.67 0.14 10.70 0.38 1.47 0.32 0.34 69.9 0.83

No fertilizer 5.76 1.02 0.12 11.18 0.20 2.07 0.50 0.19 117.65 1.02

2.5tha-1OF 5.78 1.23 0.16 16.98 0.46 1.79 0.53 0.17 109.79 1.63

5.0tha-1 OF 5.80 1.41 0.37 19.46 0.65 2.14 0.51 0.28 147.01 1.95

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 5.78 1.35 0.17 19.39 0.17 1.90 0.48 0.28 128.56 1.99

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 5.79 1.37 0.18 22.70 0.24 2.43 0.84 0.22 122.14 1.02

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 5.74 1.24 0.17 17.81 0.17 2.10 0.51 0.20 129.06 2.65

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 5.76 1.33 0.19 20.06 0.29 2.20 0.57 0.23 157.37 2.52

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 5.80 2.26 0.27 32.35 0.41 2.11 0.51 0.19 163.30 2.86

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 5.89 3.36 0.29 35.67 0.51 2.47 0.58 0.23 175.52 1.47

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 5.88 4.41 0.39 24.48 0.76 2.25 0.53 0.21 146.07 1.87

SE ± 0.05 0.05 0.01 3.32 0.02 0.14 0.04 0.02 14.21 1.07

28

Table 11: Effect of different levels of organo-mineral fertilizers on

residual effect of nutrients on soil after cultivation of white yam in Ibadan

2004

Ibadan 2004 Residual Soil Nutrient

Fertilizer Treatment

pH(

H20) Org.

C

N P K Ca Mg Na Fe Zn

% Mg/kg Cmol/kg Mg/kg

Pre-planting 5.00 0.38 0.17 0.17 0.17 1.65 1.50 0.16 60.10 0.57

No fertilizer 6.17 1.40 0.23 10.15 0.14 4.13 1.35 0.23 441.01 4.40

2.5tha-1OF 6.15 2.97 0.21 12.96 0.35 3.74 1.16 0.17 453.41 4.82

5.0tha-1 OF 6.23 4.15 0.22 13.80 0.58 4.02 1.27 0.24 428.75 3.56

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 6.12 2.01 0.22 9.88 0.17 3.89 1.17 0.30 431.40 4.34

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 6.45 2.36 0.24 10.66 0.21 4.71 1.32 0.35 378.04 2.91

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 6.40 2.22 0.22 11.53 0.15 4.65 1.32 0.27 394.37 3.43

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 6.10 2.04 0.24 12.68 0.30 4.09 1.58 0.29 372.84 3.47

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 5.95 3.90 0.22 12.89 0.46 3.95 1.27 0.24 423.11 3.11

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 6.54 4.20 0.23 16.59 0.69 5.03 1.31 0.22 430.83 3.89

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 6.08 5.12 0.22 18.63 0.85 3.92 1.25 0.20 447.46 4.30

SE ± 0.13 0.11 0.01 2.92 0.02 0.23 0.06 0.04 19.82 0.30

29

• Expt. 4: Evaluation of Shelf life of yam tubers

from plants treated with organo-mineral

fertilizers

• Six healthy tubers from each plots were

selected, bagged, tagged and weighed.

• These were put in rectangular plastic basket

and kept on the shelves of the yam barn for

data collection

• initial weight of tubers before and during

storage were measured.

30

Table 12: Effect of different levels of organic based fertilizers on weight

loss of four cloness of white yam in Ikenne 2004

Fertilizer treatments Initial Wt

(kg)

4WAS*

Wt (kg) Wtloss(%)

16WAS

Wt (kg) Wtloss(%)

No fertilizer 4.85 4.61 4.81 2.94 18.88

2.5tha-1OF 5.33 5.05 5.18 3.16 19.33

5.0tha-1 OF 5.44 5.16 4.91 3.23 19.17

150kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 5.43 5.15 5.02 3.23 18.95

300kgha-1NPK 12-12-12 5.89 5.61 4.72 3.56 19.24

450kgha-1NPK12-12-12 5.10 4.84 5.14 3.03 19.19

1.75tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 5.38 5.11 5.01 3.12 19.60

2.5tha-1OF+150kgha-1NPK 5.33 5.06 4.98 3.10 19.73

2.5tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 5.46 5.20 4.85 3.34 18.19

5.0tha-1OF+300kgha-1NPK 5.28 5.02 4.90 3.10 20.28

SE ± 0.46 0.44 0.14 0.27 0.51

31

Summary & Conclusion Of all the treatment combinations; Organo-mineral

fertilizers at 5.0t/ha OF + 300kg/ha NPK gave the best

performance followed by 2.5t/haOF + 300 kg/ha NPK,

then 450 kg/ha NPK and 5.0 t/ha OF.

Although nutrient uptake and crop performance

increases with increase fert. rate; 5.0t/ha OF +

300kg/ha NPK, 2.5t/haOF +300kgNPK and 2.5t/haOF

+150kgNPK gave similar result.

NPK use efficiency decreases with increasing fertilizer

rates. Thus plots with no fertilization had the highest

NPK use efficiency.

32

Soil NPK contents decreases with advancing

age of plant and increases latter towards

harvesting.

Residual soil nutrients in experimental plots

increases with increasing organic matter

content of fertilizer materials.

Storage assessment of yam tubers indicated

no significant difference in tubers grown with

the different fertilizer materials.

.

33

Acknowledgements

• Almighty ALLAH

• My profound gratitude to my supervisors:

• Prof. G.0. Adeoye

• Dr Robert Asiedu (IITA)

• IITA Yam breeding Unit Staff.

• IARSAF-IITA

• Family and friends

34