University of Nigeria Research Publications UDEALOR, Anselm Author PG/M.Sc/ Title Effect of Tobacco (Nicotians Tabacum L.) on the Early Growth and Development of Interplanted Cassava (Mainhot Esculenta Crantz) Faculty Agriculture Department Crop Science Date June, 1981 Signature
69
Embed
University of Nigeria · Tobacco on the Girth of Cassava stems with Time .. 22 4. Effect of Time of Interplanting Cassava through ... tho University of Nigeria Teaching and Research
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
University of Nigeria Research Publications
UDEALOR, Anselm
Aut
hor
PG/M.Sc/
Title
Effect of Tobacco (Nicotians Tabacum L.) on the Early Growth and Development of Interplanted Cassava (Mainhot Esculenta
Crantz)
Facu
lty
Agriculture
Dep
artm
ent
Crop Science
Dat
e
June, 1981
Sign
atur
e
EFFECT OF TOBACCO (Jlicotiana tabacum L.) ON THE
EARLY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF
INTERPLANTED CASSAVA
( ~ a n i h o t esculenta Crantz)
A Thesis P r e s e n t e d
BY
UDEALOR, ANSELM B .Sc . (HONS) (N IG)
I N PARTIAL FULFILKENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE I N THE
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF N IGERIA 1
NSUKKA
DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF N IGERIA
NSUKK A
JUNE 1981
i i CERTIFICATION BY SUPERVISOR
I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e work r e p o r t e d h e r e i n was
c a r r i e d out by A. Udealor , i n t h e Department o f
Crop Science, U n i v e r s i t y o f Nxger ia, Nsukka.
fi* . EZEOINWA
SUPERVISOR
iii
DEDICATION
To my Mother and w i f e
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE
C e r t i f i c a t i o n
Dedica t ion
Table of Con ten t s
Acknowlodgernent
List o f Tables
L i s t of F i g u r e s
Abs t rac t
I n t r o d u c t i o n
L i t e r a t u r e Review
M a t e r i a l s and Mothod
R e s u l t s and Discuss ion
Summary and Conclusion
References
. . ii
.. iii
. . i v
. . V
.. v i
. . v i i i
.. i x
. . 1
. . 3
.. 11
.. 15
. . 48
. . 50
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am s i n c e r e l y g r a t e f u l t o t h e D i r e c t o r and
Governing Board o f t h e N a t i o n a l Root Crop Resea rch
I n s t i t u t o , Umudike who s p o n s o r e d t h i s work.
I am a l s o i n d e b t e d t o my S u p e r v i s o r ,
P r o f e s s o r F.O.C. Ezedinma, Dean o f t h e F a c u l t y o f
A g r i c u l u t r e , f o r * h i s gu)ance, and u n t i r i n g a d v i c e d u r i n g
t h e d e s i g n i n g , e x e c u t i o n , a n a l y s i s and p r o d u c t i o n o f t h i s
work; t h e Head o f Department o f Crop S c i e n c e ,
Dr E.U, Okpala f o r p r o v i d i n g a l l m a t e r i a l s r e q u i r e d d u r i n g
t h e r e s e a r c h .
My t h a n k s a l s o go t o Dr. I.U. Obi , a L e c t u r e r i n t h e
Depar tment of Crop S c i e n c e , f o r h i s a d v i c e on s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a l y s i s and f o r r e a d i n g and c r i t i c i z i n g t h e - d r a f t ;
O r C. I l o b a , a L e c t u r e r i n t h e Depar tment o f Crop Sc ience ,
who a l s o c r i t i c i z e d t h e d r a f t and Dr J.E. Asiegbu a l s o a
L e c t u r e r i n t h e Depar tment f o r h i s o c c a s i o n a l s u g g e s t i o n s ,
I owe a l o t t o Mr B.C. Onaku, a f e i l o w g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t ,
w i t h o u t whose p r i c e l e s s h e l p t h e f i e l d work would have been
f e l t ; f l e s s r s . J.J. Or j i ekwe , J.I. Anunwa, D.G. I b e , T.O.S.
Okebugwu and o t h e r p e r s o n n e l s o f t h e Depar tment o f Crop
S c i e n c e who i n one way o r t h e o t h e r h e l p e d t h e a u t h o r i n
t h i s r e s e a r c h ,
F i n a l l y t h e a ~ t h o r w i s h e s t o t h a n k flr Mike C. Nwafor
who t y p e d t h e m a n u s c r i p t .
v i L i s t o f Tables
Tab le Page
1 E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava t h r o u g h
Tobacco on The H e i g h t o f Cassava With Time .. 18
2. E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava t h r o u g h
Tobacco on t h e l e n g t h o f t h e 5 t h I n t e r n o d e o f
Cassava wi th Time . C .. 21
3. E f f e c t o f T i m ~ of I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava t h r o u g h
Tobacco on t h e G i r t h o f Cassava stems wi th Time .. 22
4. E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava t h r o u g h
Tobacco on t h e Canopy Diameter o f Cassava w i t h
Time . . . . .. 24
5. E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e Number o f
Cassava Leaves With Time . . . . 26
6. E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through Tobacco
on t h e F resh Weight (g /p lan t ) o f Cassava
Storage Root a t 3 Months a f t e r P l a n t i n g and a t
2 Months a f t e r F i n a l Harves t o f Tobacco .. 33
7. E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on t h e F resh Weight (g /p lan t ) o f
Cassava Storage Roots a t 3 months a f t e r p l a n t i n g
and a t 2months a f t e r f i n o 1 h a r v e s t o f Tobacco .. 34 - L
8. E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n o f
D r y m a t t e r among v a r i o u s organs o f cassava t h r e e
months a f t e r p!. .nt ing . . . .
Table
v i i
Page
9, E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Dry f l a t t e r among v a r i o u s organs
o f Cassava t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g .. .. 38
10. E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Dry M a t t e r among v a r i o u s
organs o f cassava two months a f t e r f i n a l
tobacco h a r v e s t . . . . . . 39
11. E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e percentage o f
Dry f l a t t e r i n v a r i o u s organs o f cassava t h r e e
months a f t e r p l a n t i n g .. .. . . 41
12. E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e percentage o f
D ry f l a t t e r i n v a r i o u s organs o f cassava two
months a f t e r f i n a l h a r v e s t o f Tobacco . . .. 42
13, E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e
percentage o f D ry f l a t t e r i n v a r i o u s organs o f
cassava t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g . . .. 44
14, E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on t h e
percentage o f Dry f l a t t e r i n v a r i o u s organs o f
cassava two months a f t e r f i n a l h a r v e s t o f . *
Tobacco . . . . .. 45
L i s t o f F igures F igu re
v i i i
Page
E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on The Height o f Cassava .* 17
EfPect o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on The Length o f The 5 t h In te rnode
o f Cassava . . . .. 19
E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on The G i r t h o f Cassava Stem .. . 20
E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on The Leaf Area o f
Cassava + .. . 28
E f f e c t o f T ine o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on The Leaf Area Index
(LAI) o f Cassava . . .. .. 29
E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through 7'obacco on The Rate o f Increase o f
Leaf Area Index (LAI) o f Cassava .. .. 30
ABSTRACT
The e f f e c t o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava ( c u l t i v a r 60506)
t h r o u g h tobacco a t weekly i n t e r v a l s ove r f o u r weeks on
e a r l y g rowth and development o f cassava was s t u d i e d a t
t h o U n i v e r s i t y o f N i g e r i a Teaching and Research Farm,
L a t i t u d e 06'52 N.
Growth and y i e l d o f Tobacco were n o t a f f e c t e d by
i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava a t any o f t h e p l a n t i n g dat;-L-tudied.
Number o f stems developed by cassava was not a f f e c t e d by
i n t e r p l a n t i n g .o r t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g , b u t p l a n t h e i g h t ,
l e n g t h o f i n t e r n o d e s and stem g i r t h , decreased wi th
de layed i n t e r p l a n t i n g . I n t e r p l a n t e d cassava was more
, s p i n d l y w i t h l o n g e r i n t e r n o d e s t h a n s o l e c r o p cassava,
Leaf a rea development i n cassava was s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f f e c t e d b y t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g , with number o f l e a v e s
and l e a f a rea i n d i c e s b e i n g h i g h e r a t e a r l i e r t h a n l a t e r .
p l a n t i n g .
F r e s h we igh t and d r y m a t t e r y i e l d s o f s t o r a g e
r o o t s were reduced wi th de layed i n t e r p l a n t i n g o f cassava.
However, cassava appeared t o r e c o v e r f rom t h e adverse
c o m p e t i t i v e e f f e c t s s h o r t l y a f t e r t h e tobacco h a r v e s t
was completed. - c-
1
INTRODUCTION
Cassava (Manihot escu len ta Crantz) i s a long-season
r o o t crop, which i s s u i t e d t o mixed-cropping w i t h s h o r t
te rm crops. I n Southern N ige r i a , i t i s u s u a l l y grown i n
combinat ion w i t h o the r annual crops, Such as yams,
cocoyams, okra, melon and beans. Sometimes i t i s
i n t e r p l a n t e d through o i l palm, cocoa and o t h e r p e r e n n i e l
p l a n t a t i o n crops.
Tobacco ( ~ i c o t i a n a tabacum L.), on t h e o t h e r hand, is
a s h o r t term l e a f c rop u s u a l l y grown i n s o l e c u l t u r e .
Mixed c ropp ing i n v o l v i n g i n t e r c r o p p i n g and -
i n t e r p l a n t i n g has been a common p r a c t i c e i n t r o p i c a l c rop
product ion. Under r a i n - f ed c o n d i t i o n s i t p rov ides
s u b s t a n t i a l y i e l d advantages by ensur ing g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y
o f c rop y i e l d s over d i f f e r e n t seasons, w h i l e guard ing
a g a i n s t c rop f a i l u r e s a r i s i n g f rom such hazards ss pes t
and d isease a t tacks , weed i n f e s t i o n and adverse weather
cond i t i ons . Most farmers would n o t grow tobacco as pure
s tands because they have been used t o mixed cropping.
However, t h e r e i s evidence t h a t i f guaranteed a b e t t e r
c rop combination, many farmers would grow tobacco. I n
o rder t o persuade t h e farmers t o grow tobacco, t he re f
t h e N i g e r i a n Tobacco Company (N.T.C. ) has recommendec
i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava through tobacco a f t e r t h e 8 t h I
harvest .
The o b j e c t i v e o f t h i s study, therefore, was t o
determine the mutual e f f e c t s of cassava and tobacco
when cassava was i n t e r p l a n t s d a t var ious dates a f t e r
t ransp lan t i ng tobacco.
3
L I T E R A T U R E REVIEW
I n t e r c r o p p i n g , which i n v o l v e s t h e growing o f more
t h a n ona c r o p s i m u l t a n e o u s l y on t h o same p i e c e o f l a n d
( ~ i l l e y , 1 9 7 9 ) , is now r e c o g n i s e d a s a p o t e n t i a l
b e n e f i c i a l s y s t e m of c r o p p r o d u c t i o n . Accord ing t o
W i l l e y (1979) i n t e r c r o p p i n g p r o v i d e s g r e a t e r s t a b i l i t y o f
y i e l d s o v e r d i f f e r e n t s e a s o n s and h i g h e r y i e l d s i n 8 g i v e n
s e a s o n . The obse rved y i o l d a d v a n t a g e s have been a t t r i b u t e d
t o b e t t e r u s e o f g rowth r e s o u r c e s . W i l l e y (1975) s u g g e s t e d
t h a t y i e l d a d v a n t a g e s o c c u r because component c r o p s i n a
m i x t u r e complement e a c h o t h e r and t h e r e b y make b e t t e r
o v e r a l l u s e of g rowth r e s o u r c e s t h a n when t h e y a r e grown
s e p a r a t e l y , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t component c r o p s d o n o t compete
a l i k e f o r e x a c t l y t h o same p r o d u c t i o n r e s o u r c e s . Thus,
i n t e r c r o p c o m p e t i t i o n i s l e s s t h a n i n t r a c r o p c o m p e t i t k m .
Also y i e l d ad*"an tages c o u l d be a t t r i b u t e d t o b e t t e r
c o n t r o l o f weeds ( L i t s i n g e r and Moody 1975; Rao and S h e t t y
1977) , as w a l l as b e t t e r p e s t and d i s e a s e c o n t r o l
(A iye r , 1949 Baker and Norman, 1976) .
I n t e r c r o p p i n g a d v a n t a g e s o c c u r where t h e component
c r o p s d i f f e r , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e i r g rowth p a t t e r n s , s u c h
a s when t h e i r m a t u r i t y times a r e d i f f e r e n t ( ~ n d r e s 1972;
K r a n t z e e t a l . , 1976; Os i ru and Willey, 1972; W i l l e y and
O s i r u 1972) . Thus, t h e compenent c r o p s make t h e i r major
demands on t h e resources a t d i f f e r e n t t imes. Therefore,
maximis ing i n t e r c r o p p i n g advantages would i n v o l v e rnaxirnising
t h e degree of comp lemen ta r i b between t h e components and
m in im i s i ng i n t e r c r o p compet i t i on .
W i l l e y (1979), however l i s t e d some y i e l d disadvantages
which c o u l d a r i s e from adverse compe t i t i ve e f f e c t s o r
th rough p r a c t i c a l management, such as where t h e component
c rops r e q u i r e d i f f e r e n t sources, t imes and r a t e s o f
f e r t i l i z e r and b i o c i d e app l i ca t i ons .
Determinat ion o f y i e l d advantages i n v o l v e s t h e
comparison o f an i n t e r c r o p p i n g s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e
components a re competing w i t h each o the r aga ins t a
s i t u a t i o n i n which they a re not . Such comparisons take
i n t o account t he compe t i t i ve r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e commonest
o f which i s where one componant y i e l d s l e s s and t h e o t h e r
more t han o x p ~ c t e d , The compe t i t i ve a b i l i t y o f the
component crops, i n t h i s case, d i f f e r markedly. W i l l e y
(1979) termed t h i s compensation.
GROWTH CHAHACTERISTICS OF CASSAVA
Cassava o r i g i n a t e d i n Nor th-eas t B r a z i l (Rogers , 1963)
and i s now c u l t i v a t e d i n a l l t r o p i c a l r e g i o n s a f t h e wor ld ,
The p l a n t grows a s a s h r u b w i t h t h e stem r e a c h i n g h e i g h t s
of f o u r metres i n some c u l t i v a r s o r one metre i n dwarf
t y p e s (~nwueme , 1978). The l e n g t h o f t h e i n t e r n o d e s v a r i e s
w i t h c u l t i v a r s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , b e i n g s h o r t e r
d u r i n g a d v e r s e t h a n f a v o u r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s (Onwuome, 1978) .
B ranch ing h a b i t o f c a s s a v a , a l s o shows c u l t i v a r d i f f e r e n c e s .
Some c u l t i v a r s d e v e l o p t h r e e b r a n c h e s s i m u l t a n a o u s l y a t a
few c e n t i m o t o r s from t h e ground. Each o f t h o s e b r a n c h e s
t h e n grows and p roduces t h r c c b r a n c h e s a t c . ones, 1959) .
I n a t h e r c u l t i v a r s however, t h e r e is less r e g u l a r i t y i n
b r a n c h i n g h a b i t ,
Tha l o a v c s o f c a s s a v a a r e d e c i d u o u s and s p i r a l l y
a r r a n g e d on t h ~ stem, The l e a f p e t i o l e v a r i e s i n l e n g t h
b u t i s l o n g e r t h a n t h e l amina which i.5 s i m p l e b u t d e e p l y
pa lmate . T h e r e may bo 5-7 l e a f - l o b e s p c r l o a f and e a c h
l e a f measures a b o u t 4-20 c n l o n g and 1-6 cm wide
(Onwueme, 1978) . Cours (1951) q u o t e d by Hunt e t e l . -- (1977) showed t h a t l e a f a r o a o f c a s s o v a i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y
a t f i r s t and l a t e r d e c l i n e d d u r i n g a d v e r s e p e r i o d s .
Anon ( 1 973 ) , and Cock ( 1 976) howevcr. showed s i m i l a r
r e d u c t i o n i n l e a f a r o a unde r s t a b l e c l i m a t e w h i l e Hunt
et -- a l . (1977) c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e is i n h e r e n t t e n d e n c y
f o r the l e a f area o f cassava t o d e c l i n e i n l a t e r growth
stages.
Jennings (1959) and Anon (1972) showed t h a t s m a l l
l eaves have s h o r t expansion pe r i ods which may bo assoc ia ted
w i t h l onge r l i f e , Deep shading markedly reduces l e a f l i f e
i n cassava, Hence s h o r t e r l e a f - l i f e d u r i n g pe r i ods o f
r a p i d l e a f expansion may r e f l e c t more, mutua l shading
(Hunt e t al,, 1977). Sinha and N a i r (1971) showed t h a t
h i g h l e a f area f o l l o w s l a r g e l e a f number and consequent ly
h i g h l e a f area dura t ion ,
Number o f s to rage r o o t s i s g e n e r a l l y f i x e d e a r l y i n t h e
growth c y c l e o f cassava (Cours, 1951 quoted by Hunt e t a 1 - -'?
1977; O r i o l i , e t ,*t a1 1 9 6 7 ) ~ Beck (1960) r epo r ted s i x months
w h i l e Anon (1973) s t a t e d t h a t t h e number o f s to rage r o o t s is
f i x e d w i t h i n t h e f i r s t t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g , The
number o f stems pe r p l a n t may a f f e c t t h e numbcr o f s to rage
roo ts , Eny i (1972a, 1972b) showed t h a t p l a n t w i t h more than
one shoot produced more s to rage r o o t s t han p l a n t s w i t h o n l y
one shoot, Cassava e x h i b i t s a phas ic p a r t i t i o n i n g o f d r y
m a t t e r (Loomis and Rapaport, 1977). Dry ma t t e r p a r t i t i o n i n g
t o t h e t u b e r s v a r i e s f rom none a t e a r l y stages o f growth t o
about 80% a t 14 months o f growth, Zandstfa (5979) showed
t h a t t h e h i g h e s t t o t a l d r y ma t t e r production occurred a t
four months, a f t e r v h i c h i t declined; and the highest d r y
7
m a t t c r c o n t e n t s of r o o t s occur red a t s i x months. He a l s o
observed t h a t pe rcen tage d r y m a t t e r accumulated i n t h e
r o o t s i n c r e a s e d r a p i d l y up t o seven months a f t e r p l a n t i n g .
He t h e n concluded t h a t r o o t p roduc t ion does n o t r e a c h a
s u b s t a n t i a l l e v a 1 u n t i l t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g .
Reac t ion o f Cassava t o o t h e r Crops
Some workers have shown t h a t c a s s a v a i s h i g h l y
s e n s i t i v e t o compe t i t ion a t e a r l y s t a g e s of development
( D o l l and P i e d r a h i t a , 1974; Anon, 1976). During t h i s s t a g e ,
however, l i g h t and o t h e r r e s o u r c e s a r e poor ly u t i l i z e d by
c a s s a v a i n monoculture, hence Anon (1976) sugges ted t h a t
i n t e r c r o p p i n g c a s s a v a wi th a f a s t , ground c o v e r i n g s h o r t
te rm c r o p c o u l d improve t h e c r o p p i n g sys tem's t o t a l y i e l d
pe r h e c t a r e per year .
Cassava a c h i e v e s comple te c o v e r of t h o ground a t t h r e e
t o t h r e e and h a l f months a f t e r p l a n t i n g (Anon, 1976;
Thung and Cock, 1979; flohan Kumar and H r i s h i , 1979).
Because c a s s a v a l a t e r deve lops a c l o s e d canopy which
s u p p r e s s e s t h e growth of t h e o t h e r c r o p s , it is u s u a l l y
p l a n t e d a s a s o l e c r o p o r a s an i n t e r - c r o p (Zands t ra ;
1979). I n t h e l a t e r c a s e it is t h e l a s t c r o p i n t h e
r o t a t i o n (Okigbo, 1971).
Cassava i s i n t e r - p l a n t e d th rough many o t h e r c r o p s ,
such a s maize, rice, taro ( ~ a l o c a s i a e s c u l e n t a ) and sweet
p o t a t o (floreno and Har t , 1979); tobacco ( p o r t 0 e t a 1 1979), - -*,
8
yam okra, melon, T e l f a i r i a occ identa l i s , beans, o i l palm
and rubber (Ezei lo, 1979).
Anon (1978), and Nohan Kumar and H r i s h i (1979) showed
t h a t when cassava was intor-cropped w i t h other crops, the
he igh t o f cassava was increased p r o p o r t i o n a l l y t o the
he igh t o f t he other component, For example, Nohan Kumar
and H r i s h i (1979) showed t h a t t he he igh t o f cassava i n
cassava/maize mix tu re was greater than i n *cassava/bean
mixture. This was probably due t o mutual shading and
compet i t ion f o r l i g h t . Therefore,cnssava he igh t i n mixed
c u l t u r e i s dependent on the growth form o f t he associated
crops.
Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n q
I n many p a r t s o f the t rop i cs , cassava can be p lan ted
whenever s o i l moisture cond i t ions permit. According t o
E z e i l o (1979), cassava i s p lan tsd a t any t ime du r ing t h e
r a i n y season. I n i n te rc ropp ing systems i n v o l v i n g cassava,
however, i t might be necessary t o ad jus t t h e t imo o f
p l a n t i n g cassava r e l a t i v e t o t h e op t ima l t ime o f p i a n t i n g
a candidate i n te rc rop . However, simultaneous p l a n t i n g o f
cassava and maize has been sham t o g i v e s a t i s f a c t m y y i e l d s -. *
o f cossava (Okigbo, 1977). Anon (1976) showed t h o t
i n te rc rdpp ing a legume (bean) through cassava geve higher
f i n a l . y i e lds o f cassava. Although t h e y i e l d o f in te rc ropped
cassava was l ess than so le crop y i e l d a t 100 days a f t e r
p lan t ing , the y i e l d difference was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced a t
180 days a f t e r p lant ing. Leihner (1979) suggested t h a t
,although shor t per iods of compet i t ion f o r l i g h t might n o t
a f fec t cassava y ie lds , prolonged shading by a legume might
reduce cassava y i e l d s considerably. Thus, optimum growth
and subsequent h igh y i e l d s o f cassava would depend upon
t h e a b i l i t y o f tho cassava t o d i sp lay i t s canopy above the
associated crops.
Relay i n te rc ropp ing o f cassava and other annuals has
been suggested. When cassava was i n t e r p l a n t e d through some
annuals l i k e tctbacco (por t0 e t al., 1979; Chiow, 1979),
groundnut, sorghum, long boan (Chew, 1979) s a t i s f a c t o r y
y i o l d advantages werz obtained. However, when these annuals
were i n t e r p l a n t e d through mature stands o f cassava, t h e i r
y i e l d s ware poor. This probably cou ld be a t t r i bu+ed t o
poor soed l ing esbablishmont o f the in te rc rops , s ince i n
matur ing cassava p lo ts , t h e compet i t ion f o r space and
n u t r i e n t s would be too severe f o r normal establishment
and growth of t h e i n t e r p l a n t e d annual.
Zandstra (1 979), compared th ree cassava in te rc ropp ing
pa t te rns w i t h so le crops and showed t h a t t o t a l dry mat ter - - y i a l d was reduced where cassava was mixed w i t h o ther crops,
even though harvest. index o f cassava was h igher f o r a l l
in te rc ropped s i t u a t i o n s than f o r so le crop.
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f . Tobacco Growth
Tobacco o r i g i n a t e d i n c e n t r a l and s o u t h e r n America b u t
is now grown i n most t r o p i c a l a r e a s o f t h e world
( ~ c C o n t s and Wltz , 1967) . Tobacco is a f a s t growing a n n u a l
c r o p which m a t u r e s w i t h i n 100-120 d a y s from t r a n s p l a n t i n g ,
b u t may m a t u r e f a s t e r (80-90 d a y s ) a t h i g h e r mean t e m p e r a t u r e s
(Garne r , 1946) . Tobacco m a i n t a i n s enormous l e a f a r e a , t h e
number and s i z e o f l e a v e s depend on c u l t i v a r and growing
c o n d i t i o n s . Under f o v o u r a b l e c o n d i t i o n s , new r o o t s a p p e a r
w i t h i n f o u r d a y s a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g b u t , no a p p r e c i a b l e
i n c r e a s e i n d r y we igh t of above ground p a r t s o c c u r s , t h e
ma jo r i n c r e a s e o c c u r i n g from t h e 4 t h t o t h e 8 t h week a f t e r
t r a n s p l a n t i n g (IYcCant and Woltz , 1967) .
R e a c t i o n o f Tobacco t o O the r Crop9
T h e r e is v e r y l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n on i n t e r c r o p n i n g
s y s t e m i n v o l v i n g tobacco . Chew (1979) , however, r e p o r t e d
t h a t when t o b a c c o was r e l a y - p l a n t e d i n matura c a s s a v a
s t a n d s , t h e y i e l d o f t o b a c c o was v e r y poor . He a t t r i b u t e d
t h i s t o poor s e e d l i n g e s t a b l i s h m e n t ,
The p r e s e n t s t u d y would e v a l u a t o t h o c u r r e n t
recornrnendod p r a c t i c o of i n t e r p l a n k i n g c a s s a v a t h r o u g h t o b a c c o
a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g the e i g h t h l e a f o f t o b a c c o , w h i l e a s s e s s i n g
t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l mixed-cropping p r a c t i c e o f p l a n t i n g a l l c r o p s
i n a m i x t u r e s i rnu l t an , ~ u s l y o r w i t h i n a s h o r t i n t e r v a l ,
MAlERIALS AND METHOD 11
The exper iment was conducted a t t h e F a c u l t y of
A g r i c u l t u r e Teaching and Research farm, U n i v e r s i t y o f
N i g e r i a , Nsukka ( ~ a t i t u d e 06052'~, l o n g i t u d e 07024' and
a l t i t u d e 400m above mean sea. l e v e l ) . '.The t o t a l r a i n f a l l
d u r i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l p e r i o d ( ~ u n e t o October) was
1,249.8rnm and mean maximum and minimum tempsra tu res were
2 8 . 0 ~ ~ and 21 . ~ O C r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Cassava c u l t i v a r 60506 and tobacco v a r i e t y 'Spe igh t '
were used. A l l t h e tobacco s e e d l i n g w e r e t r a n s p l a n t e d
s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a t 4-5 l e a f stage, w h i l e cassava was
i n t e r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h tobacco a t one weekly i n t e r v a l s
s t a r t i n g f r o m t h e d a t e o f t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco. The
t r e a t m e n t s c o n s i s t e d o f :
Cassava and tobacco p l a n t e d s imu l taneous ly .
Cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h tobacco one week
a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco.
Cassava i n t a r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h tobacco two weeks
a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco.
Cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h tobaccn t h r e o week3
a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco.
Cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h tobacco a t t h e e i g h t h
l e a f h a r v e s t o f tobacco (i.e. 8 weeks a f t e r
t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco ( c o n t r o l ) .
So le cassava p l a n t e d a t each i n t e r p l a n t i n g date.
S o l e tobacco.
There were eleven treatment combinations arrerrped i n a
randomised complete b lock (RCB) design and r e p l i c a t e d fou r
times, The p l o t s i z e was 5m x 5m.
Tobacco seedl ings,raised i n the nursery f o r two months,
were t ransplanted a t a un i fo rm recommended spacing o f 0.5m x
l m o r 20,000 p l a n t s per hectare, Uniform lenghts o f cassava
cu t t i ngs , each 22cm, were p lon tsd i n a s l a n t i n g p o s i t i o n i n an
East-West p o s i t i o n a t a un i fo rm recommended spacing o f
l m x I m o r 10,000 p l a n t s per hectare. Mix tu re popu la t ion was
equiva lent t o 30,000 p l a n t s per hectare.
NTC typo A f e r t i l i z e r mixture conta in ing 12:12:1?:2:
Nitrogen-phosphorous - Potassium - Magnesium oxide ( ~ P ~ m g o )
was app l ied t o tobacco t e n days a f t e r t ransp lan t i ng a t a r a t e
o f 600kg/ha, Cassava a l so received a b lanket a p p l i c a t i o n o f
15:15:15: NPK f e r t i l i z e r a t a r a t e o f 400kg/ha a t f ou r weeks
a f t e r each p lan t ing . Tobacco was sprayed w i t h a mixture o f
284g/ha o r t h i n e (an i n s e c t i c i d e ) and 180g/ha oP Benlate
(Benomyl metmyl l - (butylcarbomyl) 2 benzimidazo/carbamate)
(a fung ic ide) a t weekly i n t e r v a l s s t a r t i n g from 4 weeks a f t e r
t ransp lan t ing ,
Non-destructive sampling was done a t bi-weekly
i n t e r v a l s . Leaf sreo was determined by l i n e a r measurements
i n s i t u . This involved taking t h e product o f t he l eng th
and l a r g e s t breadth o? t he median lobe o f each palmate
l ea f and co r rec t ing f o r the l ea f a rea using the equation
LA = 0 , 4 0 7 b + 11.38 (spencer, l962), where
LA = correc ted leaf a rea , l a = leaF rectangular
a rea x number of leaves, 0.407 and 11.38 a r e regression
cons tants . For tobacco the product of length and
l a r g e s t breadth was corrected t o t r u e l ea f area using the
equation LA = 0.69LW + 4.2 f o r rectangular a rea
exceeding 2,581 cm2 and LA = 0.66LW + 0.02 f o r thoss l e s s
than 2,581 cm2 (Te jiwani - e t -* a 1 1957), where
LA = correc ted l ea f a rea , LW = length x breadth,
4.2, 0.60, 0.65 2nd 0.02 a re regression cons tants .
The number of leaves, p lan t he ight , canopy diameter,
l ength of the 5th intarnode and stem g i r t h were measured
on cassava a t two weekly in t e rva l s . In tobacco, t he
number of leaves, p lan t height and canopy diameter were
me8'red a t the same i n t e r v a l s .
Harvesting 01' tobacco s t a r t e d a t swan weeks and was
completed a t exac t ly 12 weeks (84 days) from date of
t ransplant ing . Fresh and dry weights of leaves, and t o t a l
dry weight were determined a t each harves t and a t f i n a l
harves t t he weights were pooled. Two sample 'harves ts
of cassava were taken a t t h ree months a f t e r p lan t ing and
again a t two months a f t e r f i n a l harves t of tobacco.
Number and f r e s h weight of s torage roo t s , dry ue ights of
stems, leaves , s torage roots anchor roots snd o r i g i n a l
stem cutt ings were determined a t each harvest. Crop
growth rates wero determined using the equation
E = W2 - W1 ( ~ a t s o n , i l 9 5 8 ) , where F = the mean crop I+%? I 42
T2 - TI
growth rote between one and two woeks, W, and W2 = Dry
weight a t Times TI and T2, respectively.
A l l r e su l t s were analysed statistically and compared
using F i shert B Least S igni f icant Difference (F-LSD) a t 5%
l e v e l of probability (Carmer and Swanson, 1973).
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n q Cassava on Tobacco
N e i t h e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g n o r t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g
. cassava e x e r t e d any s i g n i f i c a n t i n f l u e n c e on t h e number
o f leaves, l e a f area, l e a f a rea index, p l a n t h e i g h t and
d r y w e i g h t o f tobacco-leaves. T h i s n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t
e f f e c t o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava suggested t h a t tobacco,
wh ich i s a f a s t g rowing l e a f crop, m i g h t compete
s u c c e s s f u l l y w i th cassava i n mixed s tands p r o v i d e d t h o
tobacco s e e d l i n g s have been c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d and
p r o p e r l y t r a n s p l a n t e d . I n t h a t respec t , t h e e f f e c t o f
tobacco on t h e a s s o c i a t e d c r o p becomes more i m p o r t a n t
t h a n t h e e f f e c t of t h e i n t e r p l a n t e d c r o p on t h e tobacco.
V e q e t a t i v e Growth o f Cassava
The number of stems p e r p l a n t was n o t a f f e c t e d by
i n t e r p l a n t i n g n o r t i m e of i n t e r p l a n t i n g . T h i s is t o be
expected s i n c e l e n g t h and o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e p l a n t e d
c u t t i n g s were un i fo rm. Hunt -- e t a l . (1977) and
Onwueme (1978) had shown t h a t t h e number o f stems
developed by cassava was dependent on t h e l e n g t h and
o r i e n t a t i o n of t h e c u t t i n g s ,
* C
However, i n t e r p l a n t i n g and t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d t h e h e i g h t , l e n g t h o f t h e 5 t h
i n t e r n o d e and g i r t h o f cassava stems, Cassava p l a n t e d <
alone was sho r te r than cassava i n t e r p l o n t e d through
tobacco ( ~ i g u r e I ) , w h i l e cassava p lan ted a t t he same
t ime w i t h tobacco was s i g n i f i c a n t l y t a l l e r t han cassava
i n t e r p l a n t e d l a t e r (Table 1). The increases i n t h e
h e i g h t o f i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava appeared t o d e r i v e f rom
s i g n i f i c a n t increases i n the l e n g t h o f t h e in te rnodes
( ~ i g u r e 2) and r e d u c t i o n i n stem g i r t h (F igure 3). Thus,
i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava appeared s p i n d l y and e t i o l a t e d . The
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n p l a n t h e i g h t i n response t o
i n t e r p l a n t i n g and t ime o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g , however, d i d n o t
p e r s i s t a t two months a f t e r ha rves t i ng tobacco. Th i s
suggests t h a t cassava i n t o r p l a n t e d through tobacco cou ld
recover q u i c k l y from e t i o l a t i o n caused by compet i t i on
f rom tobacco.
The e f f e c t o f t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g on the l e n g t h
o f t h e 5 t h i n te rnode d i d n o t become s i g n i f i c a n t u n t i l
t h e e i g h t h week a f t e r p l a n t i n g a able 2). S i m i l a r l y ,
t he re were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e g i r t h o f t h e
5 t h in te rnode u n t i l t h e t e n t h week a f t e r p l a n t i n g
(Table 3). Cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d a t t h e same t ime with
tobacco developed longer and t h i c k e r in te rnodes t han
subsequent i n t e r p l a n t i n g s . The d i f f e r e n c e s i n he ight ,
l e n g t h and g i r t h o f t h e 5 t h in te rnodes o f cassava i n
r e l a t i o n t o t ime o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g cou ld be a t t r i b u t e d t o
g rea te r compe t i t i on f rom f u l l y es tab l i shed tobacco.
1 I 1 1 1
4 6 8 1 0 1 2
S a m p l i n g D a t e ( W e e k s )
- Tobacco/Cossovo lnterplonting
, sole Cassava
FIG. I : E F F E C T O F iNTERPLANTlNG CASSAVA THROUGH TOBACCO ON T H E HEIGHT O F CASSAVA . -
Table I: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on t h e He igh t (cm) o f Cassava
with Time.
Sampling Dates (weeks)
P l a n t i n q Dates (weeks) 4 6 8 I 0 12
3 10.3 22.9 37.3 48.7 60.0
A t 8 t h l e a f Harvest 12.5 27.3 27.4 38.6 50.7
F-LSD 0.05 1.5 3.8 5,6 5.5 6,O
Sampling Dates (Week.)
0 - Tobacco /Carrova Interplantin
FIG. 2 : EFFECT O F INTERPLANTING CASSAVA THROUGH TOBACCO ON THE LENGTH OF 5th. INTERNODE OF CASSAVA
xxw Sole Cossovo
4 6 8 1 0 2
Sampling D a t e ( W e e k s 1
FIG. 3 : EFFECT OF liUTERi>LANTING CASSAiI .4 THROt'GH TCBACCO O N THE GiRTH OF CASS4VA STEM
2 1
Tab le 2: E f f e c t a? Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on The Lang th o f Inkernode (cm)
o f Cassava k i t h Tirne.
Sarnplinq Date (weeks)
P l a n t i n q Da te ( ~ e e k s ) 4 6 8 10 12
A t 0th leaf Harves t 1.5 2.1 2.9 3.0 3.1
F-LSD 0.05 NS NS NS 0.7 1.0
Table 3: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on The Gir th o f Cassava Stems
(cm) With Time.
Samplinq Date (weeks)
P l a n t i n g Date (Weeks) 4 6 8 10 12
A t 8 t h Leaf Harvest 1.8 2.3 2,8 3.9 4.0
F-LSD 0.05 MS If6 6 0.3 0.5
The more s t u r d # y s h o o t s of l a t e r t h a n e a r l i e r i n t e r p l a n t e d
cassava could be a t t r i b u t e d i n p a r t t o reduced c o m p e t i t i o n
f o l l o w i n g t h e h a r v e s t i n g of tobacco which s t a r t e d much
e a r l i e r i n t h e growth c y c l e of l a t e r t h a n e a r l i e r
i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava . T h i s probably caused t h e observed
s l i g h t i n c r e a s e s wi th t ime i n t h e h e i g h t , l e n g t h and
g i r t h of t h e 5 t h i n t e r n o d e i n l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a
and l a r g e i n c r e a s e s i n e a r l i e r i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava .
L a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g of cassava th rough tobacco
r e s u l t e d i n dec reased canopy d iamete r of c a s s a v a a able 4)
which cou ld ba dua t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t ime of i n t e r p l a n t i n g
r a t h e r t h a n i n t e r p l a n t i n g p e r s e .
The h e i g h t of cassava was p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t J y
c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e h e i g h t of tobacco ( r = 0.91) and l e n g t h
o f 5 t h i n t e r n o d e ( r = 0.65), b u t n e g a t i v e l y and
s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h g i r t h of s tem ( r = - 0.74).
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between l e n g t h of
i n t e r n o d a and s tem g i r t h (r = 0.26). P l a n t h e i g h t ,
l e n g t h and g i r t h of 5 t h i n t e r n o d e appeared t o v a r y w i t h
t h e h e i g h t of tobacco. Thus, an i n c r e a s e i n t h e h e i g h t
of tobacco would causo t h e a s s o c i a t e d cassava t o grow
t a l l and s p i n d l y due t o shad ing by tobacco. S i m i l a r
r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d by Nohan Kumar and H r i s h i (1979),
who showed t h a t t h e h e i g h t of i n t e r c r o p p e d cassava was
Table 4: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco an The Canopy Diameter (cm)
o f Cassava with Time.
Samplinq Date (weeks)
P l a n t i n g Date (weeks) 4 6 8 10 12
0 25.5 51.0 72.3 95.0 116.4
1 22.8 42.2 76.6 81.6 90.3
2 22.4 48.3 52.0 62.9 69,7
3 24.3 44.0 56.0 71.1 77,5
A t 8 t h Leaf Harvest 22.3 45.1 50.8 62.2 68,8
F-LSD 0.05 N.S. M.S 6.0 7.4 9.1
p r o p o r t i o n a l t o t h e h e i g h t s of t h e a s s o c i a t e d c rop . Thus,
c a s s a v a a t t a i n e d g r e a t e r h e i g h t i n cassava /maize t h a n i n
ca s sava /bean m i x t u r e . No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n
between i n t e r p l a n t i n g and time of i n t e r p l a n t i n g was
o b s e r v e d a t a l l s ampl ing d a t e s .
Leaf Area Development i n Cassava
The number of l e a v e s d i d n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y
i n t h e s o l e and i n t e r p l n n t e d c a s s a v a . Time o f
i n t e r p l a n t i n g , however, s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d t h e number
o f l e a v e s deve loped by c a s s a v a ( T a b l e 5). E a r l i e r
i n t e r p l o n t e d c a s s a v a , namely t h o s e p l a n t e d a t t h e
same time and one week a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g t o b a c c o ,
p roduced more l e a v e s t h a n t h o s e p l a n t e d a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g
t h e e i g h t h l e a f o f t obacco . The re was a t e n d e n c y f o r
c a s s a v a l e a f f o r m a t i o n t o be r e p r e s s e d by t h e p r e s e n c e of
t o b a c c o l e a v e s . A f t e r e v e r y t o b a c c o h a r v e s t t h e r e was
a f l u s h of new l e a v e s i n t h e e a r l y p l a n t e d c a s s a v a ,
L a t e r i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a produced l e a v e s a t a s l o w e r
ra te t h a n t h e e a r l i e r p l a n t e d c o u n t e r p a r t s .
I n t e r p l a n t i n g d i d n o t e x e r t a n y significant e f f e c t
on t h e l e a f a r e a and l o a f area i n d e x OF cassava,
Z a n d s t r a (1979) showed t h a t l e a f area o f u n d e r s t o r e y
c r o p s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced by i n t e r c r o p p i n g , I n
t h i s e x p e r i m e n t , s e q u e n t i a l h a r v e s t i n g o f ma tu re t o b a c c o
2 6
Table 5: E f f e c t o f Time I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on The Number o f Cassava Leaves With
Time,
S a m p P i n ~ Date (weeks) 2 Months A f t e r
P l a n t i n g Date(weeks) 4 6 8 10 12 Tobacco Harvest
0 21. 40 62 69 93 100
A t 0 t h Leaf Harvest 9 16 24 37 50 6 3
F-LSD 0.05 2.7 4.5 6e4 8e3 10.3 17.0
27
leaves s t a r t e d when cassava was o n l y 0-7 weeks o ld . Th is
reduced t he shade o f tobacco on t he under s t o r e y cassava
a t a t ime when heavy shading has been shown t a be very
c r i t i c a l t o cassava ( D o l l and P ieddrah i ta , 1974),
Time o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g , however, s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f fec ted l e a f area (F igure 4) and l e a f area index (LAI)
( ~ i g u r e 5 ) . Both l e a f area and l e a f area index decreased
as t ime o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g was delayed, Leaf area i ndex
o f a l l t reatments cont inued t o ioc rease d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d
o f s t u d i e s except t h a t o f the cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d one
week a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco, t h e l e a f area index o f
which peaked a t 1,65 a t twe lve weeks a f t e r p l a n t i n g
(F igure 5). Th is cou ld be due t o sampling e r ro r . Anon
(1976) r epo r ted a peak l e a f area index o f 3 a t 4 months
a f t e r p l a n t i n g . F i gu re 6 shows t h a t t he r a t e o f i nc rease
i n LA1 inc reased r a p i d l y i n t he f i r s t t h r e e months and
then dec l i ned sharp ly , Thus, i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava
through tobacco delayed t he t ime t o a t t a i n t h e peak LA1
p a r t i c u l a r l y when i n t o r p l a n t e d f rom t h r e e weeks a f t e r
t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco.
LA1 of cassava p l an ted a t t h e same t ime w i t h tobacco
inc reased a t t he h i ghes t r a te , w h i l e LA1 o f cassava
i n t e r p l a n t e d a t t h e 8 t h l e a f ha rves t o f tobacco inc reased
a t t h e s lowest r a t e .
* Week After Transplanting Tobacco
+- O Week / / - I
0 0 2 Weeks
4 6 $ ib lh 114 16 lb Z!O
Sompling Date ( Weeks
FIG. 4 : EFFECT OF TIME OF INTERPLANTING CASSAVA THROUGH TOBACCO ON THE LEAF AREA ( L A ) OF CASSAVA.
Week After Transplanting Tobaccc - 0 Week - I Weeks - 2 Weeks
.+--- 4 3 Weeks
*---.-a At 8!h. lea? harvest
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Sampling D a l e (Weeks )
FIG. 5 : EFFECT OF TIME OF INTERPLANTWG CASSAVA THROUGH TOBACCO ON THE LEAF AREA INDEX ( L A I ) OF CASSAVA
Week After Transplanting Tobacco
+-- - -q 3 I'
D- - - --4 At 8 t h . ieaf harvest
I I I 1 6 8 10 12 2 Months after tobacco
harvest Sampling Date (Weeks)
FIG. 6 : EFFECT OF TIME OF INTERPLANTING CASSAVA THROUGH TOBACCO ON
THE RATE OF lNCREASE IN LEAF AREA INDEX ( L A 1 ) T -
Top Growth Rete of Cassava a t Two Months A f t e r H a r v e s t i n q
Tobacco
Two months a f t e r t h e f i n a l h a r v e s t of t o b a c c o , t h e
, t o p growth r a t e of i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a was 25% g r e a t e r
t h a n t h a t of s o l e c a s s a v a . T h i s s u g g e s t s a s t r o n g
t endency by c a s s a v a t o r e c o v e r from c o m p e t i t i o n a f t e r
h a r v e s t i n g t h e a s s o c i a t e d tobacco . The f a v o u r a b l e
e f f e c t s of e a r l y i n t e r p l a n t i n g a p p e a r e d t o p e r s i s t even
a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g tobacco . Hence, growth r a t e o f c a s s a v a
a f t e r t o b a c c o had been c o m p l e t e l y h a r v e s t e d was l e s s i n
l a t e r , t h a n i n e a r l i e r i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a . Top growth
rate was 18.39 mo2 weokg' when c a s s a v a was p l a n t e d a t t h e
same time a s t obacco . T h i s d i m i n i s h e d by 38.9, 41.1,
45.6 and 65.6 p e r c e n t when c a s s a v a was i n t e r p l a n t e d one ,
two and t h r e e weeks a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g t o b a c c o
8 t h l e a f h a r v e s t , r e s p e c t i v e l y .
Number of S t o r a q e Roots
I n t e r p l a n t i n g and time of i n t e r p l a n t i n g d i d n o t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e number o f s t o r a g e r o o t s o f
c a s s a v a a t t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g n o r a t two months
a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g t o b a c c o , T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e number
of s t o r a g e r o o t s o f c a s s a v a i s de te rmined m o s t l y by t h e
g e n e t i c c o n s t i t u t i o n r a t h e r t h a n t h e growing c o n d i t i o n s
o f t h e c r o p (Hunt e t a l . , 1977) .
32
F r e s h Weiqht o f Roots
R e s u l t s p resen ted i n t a b l e 6 show t h a t b o t h
i n t e r p l a n t i n g and t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y
a f f e c t e d t h e f r e s h we igh t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s a t t h r e e
months a f t e r p l a n t i n g . Two months a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g
tobacco, however, o n l y t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g a f f e c t e d
f r e s h we ight o f s to rage r o o t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y . A t t h r e e
months a f t e r p l a n t i n g , t h e f r e s h we igh t o f s t o r a g e
r o o t s was 62.5 p e r c e n t g r e a t e r i n t h e s o l e t h a n i n t h e
i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava. A t two months a f t a r h a r v e s t i n g
tobacco, however, t h e d i f f e r e n c e was o n l y 3.8 p e r c e n t
(Tab le 6). T h i s f u r t h e r r e f l e c t s t h e r a p i d t o p growth
o f cassava a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g tobacco and f u r t h e r suggests
t h e a b i l i t y o f cassava t o r e c o v e r f o l l o w i n g t h e
c o m p l e t i o n o f tobacco ha rves t .
F resh we igh t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s was g r e a t e r when
cassava was p l a n t e d s i m u l t a n e o u s l y w i t h tobacco t h a n
when i n t e r p l a n t e d a t any t i m e a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco
( table 7). A t t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g t h e f r e s h
w e i g h t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s when cassava was p l a n t e d a t t h e
same t i m e wi th tobacco was 2 0 0 g / ~ l a n t . T h i s was reduced
by 20, 60, 70 and 80 p e r c e n t when cassava was
i n t e r p l a n t e d one, two, t h r e e and e i g h t weeks, a f t e r
t r a n s p l a n t i n g tobacco r e s p e c t i v e l y . A t two months
a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g tobacco, however, t h e f r e s h w e i g h t o f
s t o r a g e r o o t s was 970g/plant f o r s imul taneous p l a n t i n g ,
Table 6: E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava Through
Tobacco on The Fresh Weight (g /p lant ) o f
Cassava Storage Roots A t 3 Months A f t e r
P l a n t i n g And 2 Months A f t e r F i n a l Harvest
o f Tobacco.
3 Months A f t e r 2 Months A f t e r F i n a l P l a n t i n q Hervest o f Tobacco
Sole 130 530
~assava /~obacco I n t e r p l a n t
F-LSD 0.05 48.0 N.S
Table 7: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g Cassava
Through Tobacco on The Fresh Weight ( d p l a n t )
of Cassava Storage Roots A t 3 Months A f t e r
P l a n t i n g and A t 2 Months A f t e r F i n a l Harvest
o f Tobacco.
3 Months A f t e r 2 Months After F i n a l P l a n t i n q Date (Weeks) P l a n t i n q Harvest o f Tobacco
A t 8 t h Leaf Harvest 40 180
F-LSD 0.05 30.6 210
and t h i s decreased by 34.0, 55.7, 59.8 and 81.4 percent
whon cassava was p lanted one, two, th ree and e i g h t weeks,
a f t e r t ransp lan t i ng tobacco respec t ive ly . Thus, t he
advantage o f e a r l i e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g pe rs i s ted even a f t e r
harves t ing tobacco. The poor y i e l d o f storage r o o t s
obtained from cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d a f t e r t he e i g h t l e a f
harvest, t h a t i s e i g h t weeks a f t e r t ransp lan t i ng
tobacco, was a d i r e c t consequence o f i t s poor growth and
development. Chew (1979) and Por t0 -- e t a l . (1979)
had repor ted t h a t cassava gave s a t i s f a c t o r y y i e l d s when
p lanted i n mature stands o f tobacco, al though these authors
d i d n o t q u a n t i f y t h e i r resu l t s . The performance o f t h e
crop a t t h i s t i m e may no t be a good i n d i c a t o r o f f i n a l
y i e l d bu t i f the adverse e f f e c t o f l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g
pe rs i s t s , i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava through tobacco a f t e r
harves t ing the e igh th l e a f would l i k e l y reduce f i n a l
y i e l d o f storage roots.
Dry Matter Yie lds
There was no s i g n i f i c a n t response t o i n t e r p l a n t i n g
i n t h e t o t a l d ry mat ter y i e l d o f cassava a t bo th three
months a f t e r p l a n t i n g and two months a f t e r tobacco
harvest. The t o t a l d ry matter y i e l d o f i n t e r p l a n t e d
cassava was on ly 10 2er cent l e s s than t h a t o f so le
cassava. Zandstra (1979) had repor ted s i m i l a r a f f e c t s o f
i n t e r p l a n t i n g on t o t a l d r y m a t t e r y i e l d o f c a s s a v a .
Watson (1956) p o i n t e d o u t t h a t t h e main f a c t o r s l e a d i n g
t o v e r y g r e a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n d r y m a t t e r a c c u m u l a t i o n i n
p l a n t s i s t h e r a t e o f e x t e n s i o n i n leaf s u r f a c e , which
i n c l u d e s s i z e of i n d i v i d u a l l e a v e s , and r a t e of p r o d u c t i o n
o f new l e a v e s . As r e p o r t e d e a r l i e r , b o t h l e a f a r e a and
r a t e o f p r o d u c t i o n o f new l e a v e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t i n s o l e and i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a .
R e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l e 8 show t h a t i n t e r p l a n t i n g
d i d n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t t h e d r y matter c o n t e n t s o f
t h e s t e m s and p l a n t e d c u t t i n g s a t t h r e e months, and l a t e r
s a m p l i n g d a t e . A t t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g more d r y
m a t t e r was accumula t ed i n t h e l e a v e s (+27%) and s t o r a g e
r o o t s (+53%), i n s o l e t h a n i n t h e i n t e r p l a n t e d c a s s a v a ,
These d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t , however, obse rved a t two
months a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g tobacco .
R e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 9 and 10 show t h a t time
o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d b o t h t o t a l d r y
matter y i e l d and d r y matter p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o stems
l e a v e s , s t o r a g e r o o t s and p l a n t e d c u t t i n g s . I n a l l
i n s t a n c e s e a r l i e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g r e s u l t e d i n h i g h e r d r y
matter y i e l d a t b o t h s ampl ing d a t e s . The r e s u l t s a l s o
show t h a t d r y w e i g h t s of s t o r a g e r o o t s and p l a n t e d c u t t i n g s
were sti l l i n c r e a s i r 3 a t t h e 2 0 t h week a f t e r p l a n t i n g ,
Table 8: E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on The D i s t r i b u t i o n
of Dry f la t te r Among Various Organs o f Cassava
Three Months A f t e r P lant ing.
(q/p&ant)
Storage T o t a l Stem Leaves Root ;.Cuthinqs
Sole cassava 166.8 28.9 69.7 41.7 45.6
~assava/~obacco
I n t e r p l a n t 149.3 31.5 50.8 19.6 46.6
F-LSD 0.05 NbS, N.Sb 13.8 14.3 0.6
Table 9: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on The
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Dry f l a t t e r Among Various
Organs o f Cassava A t Three Months A f t e r
P lant ing.
(s/plant)
P l a n t i n g Date Storage
( ~ e e k a ) Total Stern Leaves Roots Cut t ings
A t 8 t h l e a f Harvest 109.2 18.4 38.8 8 7 47.3
F-LSD 0.05 24.3 7,9 8.7 9.0 7m1
Table 10: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on The
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Dry Mat ter Among Various Orgens
o f Cassava Two Months A f t e r F i n a l Tobacco
Harvest .
(q/plant)
P lan t i ng Date Storage
(Weeks) T o t a l Stem Leaves Roots Cu t t i nss
0 686.0 169.8 132.7 304.1 98,5
1 350.6 138.7 73.4 246.8 75.7
2 322.0 62.2 60.7 126.4 72.7
A t 8 t h l e a f
harvest 166.3 34.2 43.6 46.4 56.1
F-LSD 0 .05 48.5 9.5 10.0 38 .7 7 5
Ezedinma -- e t a l . (1981) had repor ted t h a t y i e l d o f storage
r o o t s and o l d stock (planted cu t t i ngs ) increased s t e a d i l y
up t o the 12 th month and then decl ined - a r e s u l t uh ich
suggests t h a t t he p lanted c u t t i n g s could be an
a l t e r n a t i v e s ink f o r assimi lates.
A t th ree months a f t e r p lant ing, cassava had
accumulated l i t t l e d ry mat ter i n tho storage r o o t s
compared w i t h the shoots. But a t two months a f t e r f i n a l
harvest o f tobacco more d ry matter had accumulated i n
the r o o t s than i n the shoots. This supports the phasic
S p e r t i t i o n i n g of d ry matter i n cassava reported* Loomis '?
and Rapaport (1977). Anon (1976) had pointed out t h a t
a h i g h LA1 would r e s u l t i n l i t t l e r o o t weight increase,
as a l l ava i l ab le carbohydrates would be d i ve r ted t o t h e
shoot. A low LAI, on the other hand, would cause more
dry matter t o accumulate i n the storage roo ts . Leaf
area index dur ing the f i r s t three months o f growth
increased r a p i d l y but a t two months a f t e r f i n a l harvest
o f tobacco, LA1 had s t a r t e d t o dec l ine
These events suggest balance o f growth
and roo t .
There were no r e a l d i f f e rences i n
sharp ly (Figure 6).
between t'he shoot
t he propor,kion o f
the d ry weight of ?he var ious organs o f so le and i n t e r p l a n t e d
cassava ( ~ a b l e s 11 and 12). Time o f in te rp lank ing , however,
appeared t o in f luence the p ropor t i on o f d ry weight i n these
4 1
Table 11: E f f e c t o f i n t a r p l a n t i n g on The Percentage o f
Dry f l a t t e r i n Various Organs o f Cassava Three
Months A f t e r P lant ing.
Percentage Dry Mat ter Storage
T o t a l Stem Leaves Roots Cut t inqs
Sole cassava 166.6 16.4 35.5 17.8 30,6
Tobacco/~assava 5
.- I n t e r p l a n t 149.3 19,4 34.0 14.8 34.8
Table 12: E f f e c t o f I n t o r p l a n t i n g on t h o Percen tage o f
Dry Mat ter i n Var ious Organs of C ~ s s a v a Two
Months A f t e r Fino1 Harves t of Tobacco.
Pe rcen tage Dry f l a t t e r
S t o r a g e T o t a l Stem Leaves Roots C u t t i n g s
S o l e Cassava 384.0 21.1 20.2 41.9 22,5
~ o b a c c o / ~ a s s a v a
I n t e r p l a n t 345.5 23.7 22.7 42.0 23.4
43
o r g a n s a t t h r e e months a f t e r t o b a c c o h a r v e s t ( T a b l e 13),
and a t 2 months a f t e r f i n a l t o b a c c o h a r v u s t ( T a b l e 14).
P e r c e n t a g e o f d r y rnn t tor i n stem, l e a f and s t o r a g e r o o t s
decreased w i t h l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g , w h i l e p e r c e n t a g e o f
d r y m a t t e r i n t h e c u t t i n g i n c r e a s e d w i t h l a t e r
i n t e r p l e n t i n g . Thus, growing c a s s a v a t h r o u g h t o b a c c o
might n o t a f f e c t d r y m a t t e r p a r t i t i o n i n g i n c a s s a v a , b u t
t h i s would depend on t h e time o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g c a s s a v a ,
I n t e r p l a n t i n g c a s s a v a much l a t e r a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g
t o b a c c o , namely t h r e e weeks t o o i g h t weeks ( i .e , a t e i g h t h
l e a f h a r v e s t ) would c a u s e most of t h e assimilates t o be
t e i z w b y t h e p l a n t e d c u t t i n g s t h u s r e s u l t i n g i n l ower d r y
m a t t e r p a r t i t i o n i i n c j t o t h o s t o r a g o r o o t s .
R e s u l t s p r e s e n t e d i n t a b l o s 10-13 show c l e a r l y a n
e v i d e n c e o f p h a s i c deployement o f d r y m a t t s r i n c a s s a v a .
Whereas a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e t o t a l d r y m a t t e r was
dep loyed i n s h o o t a t t h r e e months a f t e r p l a n t i n g , t h e r e
was s p e c t a c u l a r b u i l d up o f d r y m a t t e r i n t h e r o o t s a t
two months a f t e r f i n a l h a r v e s t of t o b e c c o .
The number of l e a v e s was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h number o f r o o t s b u t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y and p o s i t i v e l y
c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e f r e s h w e i g h t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s
( r = 0.65). Thus, p l a n t s w i t h more l e a v e s had h i g h e r
y i e l d o f s t o r a g e r o o t s . Top growth r a t e o f c a s s a v a a t
44
Table 13: E f f e c t o f Time ~f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on the
Percentage o f Dry B a t t e r i n Various Organs
of Cassava Three Months A f t e r P lant ing.
Percentnqe Dry f l a t t e r
P l a n t i n g Date Storage (weeks) T o t a l Stem Leaves Roots Cut t inqs
0 264 22.0 39.5 24,O 15,O
A t 6 t h leaf Harvest 109.2 15.5 32.0 0.7 45.0
45
Table 14: E f f e c t o f Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g on The
Percentage o f Dry Ma t t e r i n Var ious Organs
of Cassava Two Months A f t e r F i n a l Harvest
o f Tobacco. . .
Percentaqe Dry Ma t t e r
Mean T o t a l Storage Dry w t . Stem Leaves Roots C u t t i n q s
A t 8 t h l e a f Harvest 166.3 20.6 26.2 28,O 33.8
two months a f t e r h a r v e s t i n g t o b a c c o was n o t c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h number o f s t o r a g e r o o t s . T h i s c o n f i r m s t h a t t h e
number o f s t o r a g e r o o t s t o be deve loped is g e n e t i c a l l y
c o n t r o l l e d . However, t o p growth r a t e was p o s i t i v e l y
c o r r e l a t e d w i t h f r e s h we igh t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s . When
c a s s a v a was i n t e r p l a n t e d t h r o u g h t o b a c c o a t d i f f e r e n t
d a t e s , t h e f r e s h w e i g h t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s d e c r e a s e d w i t h
la ter i n t e r p l a n t i n g . S i m i l a r l y t o p growth r a t e o f
c a s s a v a a t two months a f t e r f i n a l t o b a c c o h a r v e s t
d e c r e a s e d w i t h l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g .
Number o f s t o r a g e r o o t s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y and
p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e y i e l d of s t o r a g e r o o t s
( r = 0,53), b u t g r e a t e r number of r o o t s p e r p l a n t t e n d e d
t o d e c r e a s e t h e w e i g h t o f i n d i v i d u a l r o o t s . The d r y
w e i g h t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s was p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y
c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e t o t a l d r y m a t t e r y i e l d o f c a s s a v a ,
Boerboom (1978) and Wi l l i ams (1974) had r e p o r t e d s i m i l a r
r e l a t i o n s h i p between d r y w e i g h t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s and t o t a l
d r y we igh t . T h i s s u g g e s t s t h a t b u l k i n g r a t e had k e p t pace
w i t h t h e c r o p growth r a t e (Hoerboom, 1978) o r t h a t g r e a t e r
d r y m a t t e r c o u l d be a n e f f e c t o f s t o r a g e r o o t s on t h e
l e a v o s , s i n c e g r e a t e r a c t i v i t y may l e a d t o a f a s t e r ra te
of p h o t o s y n t h e s i s , (Wi l l i ams 1974) . The f i r s t o f t h e two
e x p l a n a t i o n s was more e v i d e n t i n t h i s c a s e s i n c e t r e a t m e n t s
w i t h h i g h e r t o p growth r a t e accumula t ed h i g h e r d r y matter
i n t h e s t o r a g e r o o t s .
I t was a l s o o b s e r v e d t h a t t o t a l d r y w e i g h t was
p o s i t i v e l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h d r y w e i g h t s
o f stems ( r = 0.89). O t h e r worke r s ( ~ i g h o l t , 1935
q u o t e d by Boerboom,l978; Cours , 1951 quo ted by
Boerboorn, 1978 ; Hunt, 1974) have r e p o r t e d similar
r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s t e m s and l e a v e s w i t h t o t a l d r y
we igh t . Thus, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o t a l d r y m a t t e r
o v e r stems, l e a v e s , and s t o r a g e r o o t s is uni form.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Growth and y i e l d o f tobacco were n o t a f f e c t e d by
i n t e r p l a n t i n g nor by t i m e o f i n t e r p l a n t i n g cassava
through tobacco.
I n t e r p l a n t i n g o f cassava through tobacco increased
p l a n t h e i g h t and l e n g t h o f t h e i n te rnode bu t decreased
t h e g i r t h o f cassava stems. Delayed i n t e r p l a n t i n g
reduced p l a n t he ight , l e n g t h o f i n t e rnodes and stem
g i r t h o f cassava,
Number o f leaves, l e a f area and l e a f area index were
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i m i l a r i n s o l e and i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava
b u t l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g tended t o reduce these parameters.
A t t h ree months a f t e r p l an t i ng , f r e s h weight o f
s to rage r o o t s was l e s s i n i n t e r p l a n t e d t han s o l s cassava,
b u t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e disappeared s h o r t l y a f t e r f i n a l
tobacco harvest , The r e d u c t i o n i n f r e s h weight o f
cassava w i t h delayed i n t e r p l a n t i n g , however, p e r s i s t e d
even a f t e r tobacco had been complete ly harvest ,
T o t a l d r y ma t t e r produced by cassava decreased
w i t h delayed i n t e r p l a n t i n g , b u t was no t a f f ec ted by
i n t e r p l a n t i n g . Dry ma t t e r p a r t i t i o n i n g t o v a r i o u s
organs o f cassava decreased w i t h l a t e r i n t e r p l a n t i n g ,
There was lower d r y ma t t e r i n t h e s torage r o o t s o f
i n t e r p l a n t e d cassava a t t h ree months a f t e r p l an t i ng , bu t
t h i s d i f f e r e n c e disappeared two months a f t e r ha rves t i ng
tobacco,
Cassava c o u l d be grown w i t h t o b a c c o i n mixed s t a n d s
w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l a d v a n t a g e p rov ided t h e two c r o p s a r e
grown s i m u l t a n e n u s l y , Cassava i n t e r p l a n t e d n o t l a t e r
t h a n one week a f t e r t r a n s p l a n t i n g t o b a c c o would produce
s i m i l a r r e s u l t s . However, more wcrk is r e q u i r e d t o
d e t e r m i n e t h e r e a c t i o n s of c a s s a v a and t o b a c c o when t h e
fo rmer i s p l a n t e d b e f o r e t r a n s p l a n t i n g t h e l a t t e r .
REFERENCES
Aiyer , A. K . Y .N . ( 1949) : Mixed c ropp ing i n I n d i a ,
I n d i a n 3. Agric. S c i . - 19, 439-543.
Andrews, D, J (1972) : I n t e r c r o p p i n g wi th Sorghum
i n N i g e r i a , Exp, Aqric. 8, 139-150.
Anon ( 1 972) : Cassava Prosram Review conference
p r o c e e d i a q s , Centro I n t e r n a t i o n a l de A q r i c u l t u r a
t r o p i c a l (CIAT) . C a l i Columbia.
Anon, (1973) : Annual Report. Centro I n t e r n a t i o n a l
d e A q r i c u l t u r a Trop iza l . C a l i Columbia pp. 60-118.
Anon. (1976): Cassava Produc t ion System Proqram Annual
Report . CIAT p. 1-12.
Anon. (1976): Annual Report f u r 1977, Centro
I n t e r n a t i o n a l de A q r i c u l t u r a T r o p i c s l . C a l i
Columbia (cIAT) 49-50.
Baker, E.F. I. and Norman, U.N. (1975) : Cropp!ng
Systems i n Northcrn Niger i a . J1n) Proceedinqs
of C r o m i n a Svstems Worksho~ IRU. Los Eianos, 3 ~ 4 - 6 1 .
Beck, B,D.A. (1960) : Cassava t r i a l s on Moor P l a n t a t i o n .
Report oP t h e Department of A q r i c u l t u r e Research,
N i g e r i a 1958-1959, pp.11.
Boerboom, B.W.S. (1978) : A model of d r y mat to r
d i s t r i b u t i o n i n cassava ( ~ a n i h o t e scu len ta Cran tz ) . Neth, J. Aqric, S c i . 26(3), 267-277. -
10. Carmer, S.G. and Swanson, M.R. (1973): An
evaluat ion of Ten Pairwise mult iple comparison
procedure by Monte Callo Method.
J . Amer. S t a t . Assoc. - 68(341), 66-76.
1 1. Chew, W. Y . (1979) : Cassava intercropping pa t t e rns and
p rac t i ces i n Malaysia. (1n) Intercroppinq w i t h
Cassava. - Proceedinqs of An In te rna t iona l Workshoe
held a t Trivandrum. India 27 Nov. - Dec. 1978,
43-48.
12. Cock, J.H. (1976) : Charac te r i s t i c s of high yielding
cassava v a r i e t i e s , Exp. Aqric. - 12, 135-143.
13. Doll, J.D. and Piedrahi ta , W. (1974): Rargen d e
Se lec t iv i l ad de var ios herbicides en Layuea.
Revista Cornalfi. I ? ( I ) , 14-19.
14. Enyi, B.A.C. (1972 a) : The e f f e c t of spacing on growth,
development and y ie ld of simple and mult iple shoot
p lan t s of cassava (Ranihot e s c u l m t a ~ r a n t z ) , I. Root tuber yield and a t t r i b u t e s . East African
Aqr icul tura l and Forestry Journal. - 38, 27-54.
15. Enyi, B.A.C. (1972b): Effect of shoot number and time
of plant ing on growth development and y ie ld of
cassava (Ranihot esculenta ~ r a n t z ) , Hort . Sci. 47,
157-466.
16. Ezedinma, F .O.C., I b o O.G. and Onwuchuruba, A. I. (1981) :
Performance o f cassava i n r e l a t i o n t o t ime o f p l a n t i n g
and harves t ing . (1n) T r o p i c a l Root Crops: Research
S t r a t e g i e s For The 1980s. Proceedings o f The F i r s t
T r i e n n i a l Root Crops Symposium o f The I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Soc ie ty For T r o p i c a l Root Crops - A f r i c a Branch.
8 - 12 Seet. - 1980, Ibadan - N ige r i a . 111 - 115.
17. Eze i lo , W.N.O. (1979) : I n t e r c r o p p i n g with cassava i n
Af r ica . (1n) I n t e r c r o p p i n s w i t h Cassava Proceedinqs
o f An I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop h e l d a t Trivandrum.
I n d i a 27 Nov. 1 Oec. 1978, 49-56.
18. Garner, W.W. (1946) : The p roduc t i on o f Tobacco. The
B lecks ton Company, Toronto, pp. 516.
19. Hunt, L.A. (1974): Growth phys io logy o f f lanihot . I n t e r n a l
Report, Department of Crop Science, U n i v e r s i t w
Guelph. Guelph, On ta r i o Canada.
20. Hunt, L.A.: Wholey, D.W. and Cock, J.H. (1977): Growth
phys io l ogy of cassava ( f l an iho t escu len ta ~ r a n t z ) . F i e l d Crop Abat. 30, (2) 77-91, -
21. Jennings, D.L. (1959): A u s e f u l pa ren t f o r cassava
breeding, E u p y t i c a . 8. 157-162.
22. Jones, W.O. (1959) : Manioc i n Af r ica . S tan fo rd U n i v e r s i t y
Press - Stanford. 315 pp.
23, Krantze, B.A.; Virmani, S.M.: Sardar, S, and Ra0,M.R.
(1976) 1 I n t e r c r o p p i n q f o r increased and more s t a b l e
a g r i c u l t u r a l p roduc t ion i n t h e semi-ar id t r o p i c s .
(1n) Symposium on I n te r c ropp inq i n Semi-Arid Areas.
( ~ r o c a e d i n ~ s ) . Morogoro, Tanzania 10-12 May.
24. Leihnsr, D. E. (1 979) : Agronomic cons ide ra t i ons i n
cassava i n t e r c r o p p i n g research. (In)
I n t e r c r o p p i n q with Cassava. Proceedinqs o f an
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop h e l d a t Tr ivandr ium. I nd ia ,
27 Now. - 1 Dec, 1978; 103-,,12.
25. L i t s i n g e r , J.A. and Moody, K. (1975): I n t e g r a t e d pes t
management i n m u l t i p l e c ropp ing systems.
(1n) M u l t i p l e Croppinq Symposium. (Proceodincp) . American Soc ie ty o f Aqronomy Annual Meeting.
K n o x v i l l e , Tennessae, 24-29 August.
26. Loomis, B.S. and Rapoport, H. (1977): P r o d u c t i v i t y
of r o o t crops. 11n) Cock Jo Maclyntyre. R. and
Graham, M ed. Proceedings oP The Four th Symposium
o f t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Soc ie ty f o r T r o p i c a l Root
Crops He ld A t C IAT Cal i *Columbia .I07 August 1976,
Ottawa, ~ n t e r n a t i o n a l Development Research
Centre - IDDC 000c. 70-84.
27, McCants, C.B. and Woltz,W.G. (1967): Growth and
M i n e r a l n u t i i t i o n o f Tobacco. Adv. Aqron. 2,
21 1-265.
54
28. Mohan Kurnar, C.R. and H r i s h i , N. (1979) : In te r c ropp -
i n g systems i n Kara la State, Ind ia . (1n)
I n t e r c r o p p i n q w i t h Cassava. ( ~ r o c e o d i n q s )
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop Held A t Trivandrum. I n d i a
27 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1978. 37-33.
Moreno, R,A. and Har t , R,D, (1979) : I n t e r c r o p p i n g
w i t h cassava i n C e n t r a l America. (1n) In te rc ropp-
i n q w i t h Cassava. Prooeedinqs o f An I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Workshop Held A t Trivandrum. I n d i a . 27 Nov. - 1
Dec. 1978. 17-24.
Okigbo, B.N. (1971): E f f e c t o f p l a n t i n g da te on t h e
y i e l d and genera l performanca o f t h e cassava.
(I. u t i l i s s i m a ~ o h l ) . N iqe r i an Aqr ic. 3. ~ ( 2 ) ,
115-122.
Okigbo, B.N, (1977): P r e l i m i n a r y cassava i n t e r c r o p p -
i n g t r i a l s , F23:st NAFPF N a t i o n a l Cassava Workshop
Held A t Urnudike 1977.
32. Onwuome, I .C . (1 978) : The T r o p i c a l Tuber
CropsC John Wi ley and Sons. ~ o r o n r t o a @- ,
33. Osiru, O.S.O. and W i l l ey , R,W. (1972): S tud ies on
m ix tu res o f dwarf sorqhum end beans (Phaseolus
m) b o t h p a r t i c u l a r re fe rence t o plant
popu la t ion . .I. Aoric..$ci,, Camb. - 79,(3) 531-540,
34, O r i o l i , G.A.; Mctgilner, 3.; Dar t ra , W + L ; and
Semienchuk, P.A. 1967: Accum~la~tion de materka
seca N.P.K. yea on Manihot esculenta. Bonplandia.
2, 175-182. .
35, P o r t o , M.C.M.; Pedro, A.A , , Pedro, L,P.fl, and Raymundo,
F.S. (1 979) : Cassava i n t e r c r o p p i n g i n e r a z i l . ( ~ n )
I n t e r c r o p p i n q wi th cassava . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Workshop
Held A t Trivandrum. ( ~ r o c e e d i n ~ s ) , Ind ia . 27
Nov. - 1 Oec. 1978, 25-34.
36, Rao, M.R. and S h e t t y , S.V.R. (1977): Some b i o l o g i c a l
a s p e c t s of i n t e r c r o p p i n g sys tems on c r o p weed
balance . (1n) Weed Sc ience Conference Workshop i n
I n d i a ( ~ r o c e o d i n q s ) , Andhrs Pradash A q r i c u l t u r a l
U n i v e r s i t y , Hyderabad. I n d i a , 12020th Jan.
37, Rogors, D.J. (1963): S t u d i e s of Manihot e s c u l e n t a
( ~ r a n t z ) (Cassava) and r e l a t e d s p e c i e s , - Bul l .
Torrev I&&, IP, 43-54.
38, Sinha , S.K. and Nair , T,U.R., (1971): Leaf a r e a d u r i n g
growth and y i o l d i n g c a p a c i t y o f cassava . I n d i a n 3,
Gen.And P l a n t Breedinq, 31, 16-20, - 39, Spencer , H. (1962): Rapid method of e s t i m a t i n g t h e l e a f
a r e a of c a s s a v a (f lanihot u t i l i s s i m ~ ( ~ o h l ) u s i n g
l i n e a r measurement. Trop. Agric. - 39 ( 2 ) , 147-1 52.
40, Te jwani, K.G. ; Ramakrishma, C,K,; Kurup, 0 . and Ven
Katnrarnan, K, V. ( 1 957) : Measurements o f l e a f a r e a
Tobncco, Ind ian J. Asr ic , - 2 ( 1 ) , 36-39.
41, Thung, M., and Cock, J.H. (1979): M u l t i p l e c ropp ing
c a s s a v a and f i e l d beans. S t a t u s of p r e s e n t work
at the International Centre ?or Tropical Agriculture
(CIAT) . (1n) Intercroppinq with Cassava,
International Workshop (proceedings) Held at 1 *
Trivandrum, India, 27 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1978, 7-16. - 42, Watson, D.J. (1956) : Leaf growth in relation to crop
yield. (In) The Growth of Leaves, Proceedinqs 3rd
Easter School. In Aqricultural Science, University
of Nottinqham, Ed, F.L. flilthorpe, London,
Butterworths. 178-191.
43. Watson, D. 3. (1 958) : Dependence of net assimilation on
leaf area index. Ann, Bot. 22, 37-54, - -
44, Willey, R.W. (1975): The use of shade in coffee, cocoa
and tea. &rt. Abst. 45, 791-798. - 45, Willey, R.W. (1979) : Intercropping. Its importance and
Research needs. 1. Competition and yield
advantages. Field Crop Abst. - 3 2 ( 1 ) , 1-10.
46, Willey, R e W . and Osiru, D.S.O. (1972): Studies on
Mixtures of Maize and beans (~htiseolua vulqaris)
with particular reference to plant population.
3. Aqric. Sci, Cambridge, 29, 519-529.
47, Williams, C ,No (1974) : Growth and productivity of
Tapioca (Ma - utilisima) . Development and yield o f *
tubers. Exp. Aqric, - 10(1), 9-16,
57
48. Zands t ra , H . G . (1979) : Cassava i n t e r c r o p p i n g Research:
Aqrocl i rna t ic and b i o l o g i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s ,
( ~ n ) 1 6 t e r c r o ~ ~ i n ~ w i t h Cassava.
I n t s r n a t i o n a l Workshop ( ~ r o c e e d i n g s ) Held a t
Trivandrurn. I n d i a , 27 Nov. - 1 Dec. 1978,
Appendix I
E f f e c t o f I n te rp lan t ing and Time o f In te rp lan t ing
Cassava Through Tobacco on The Number o f Tobacco
Leaves h a r v e s t d
- - - -- - - - -
P l a n t i n date B Number o f ~ e a v e s / ~ l a n t (Weeks
Sole Tobacco 24
F-LSD N.S.
.. .. Appendix I 1
E f f e c t o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g and Time o f I n t e r p l a n t i n g