Bolaji, T.

Chigemezu, C.

Enesi, R.

Hauser, S.

Jalloh, A.

Kreye, C.

Olojede, A.

Onasanya, O.

Onyekwere, I.

Pypers, Pieter

Salako, S.

Shola, E.

Tokula, M.

Vanlauwe, Bernard

CGSpace

www.iita.org   I   www.cgiar.org 4132IntroductionWithin the project African Cassava Agronomy Initiative (ACAI), we asked ourpartners working at the base with farmers for their priority agronomy questionsin cassava. One was cassava intercropping with maize, a common combinationin southern Nigeria. There was a need to increase cassava as well as maizeproductivity. Thus, for the 2016 crop, we tested step wise intensification optionsto provide decision support for site specific situations. We assumed lowplanting densities of cassava and maize ( 10 000 and 20 000 plants ha-1respectively) without fertilizer application as control. From here, we increasedplanting densities to 12 500 and 40 000 cassava and maize plants ha-1,followed by fertilizer application targeting the maize crop, and lastly fertilizerapplication targeting specifically cassava. These 4 plots were planted infarmers’ fields (Figure 1).Results - MaizePreliminary conclusionsYields for maize and cassava were very variable without apparent relationshipbetween the fertilizer effects in F1 and F2 and the maize crop performancewithout fertilizer application (D) (Figures 3 and 5).1) Increasing planting densities without fertilizer application (Figures 2 and 4)• for maize, cob numbers increased in most cases, but not dramatically• for cassava, in only about 50% of the cases was root yield increased=> not necessarily recommendable=> careful check of costs and returns needed2) Application of NPK and urea splits to the maize crop (Figures 2 and 4)• for maize, cob numbers increased in most cases• for cassava, yield also increased in most cases=> NPK application at planting of maize is likely recommendable whenmaize plays an important role=> the cassava targeted fertilizer regime will likely reduce maize yieldand cannot be recommended in its current form… and next stepsSite specific conditions - biophysical• Use statistical modelling to understand which site specific conditions allowfor intensification by increasing plant densities and/or application offertilizersSite specific conditions - economical• Assess the availability of fertilizers• Assess expected costs of additional inputs (especially fertilizers) andexpected prices of the produce (especially maize cobs which are often soldfresh and are an important source of cash early in the cropping season)Yield Responses in Cassava - Maize Intercropping Across Diverse Environments in Southern Nigeria Christine Kreye1, Charles Chigemezu2, Ejalonibu Shola2, Thanni Bolaji3, Rebecca Enesi1, Stefan Hauser1, Abdulai Jalloh1, Adeyemi Olojede2, Omolara Onasanya3, Innocent Onyekwere2, Pieter Pypers4, Felix Salako3, Mark Tokula2, Bernard Vanlauwe41) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Nigeria, 2) National Root Crops Research Institute (NRCRI), Nigeria3) Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta (FUNAAB), Nigeria, 4) International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), KenyaResults - CassavaCurrent - CP practice10K Cassava20K Maizenot fertilizedDensity - D12.5K Cassava40K Maizenot fertilizedFertilizer1 - F112.5 K Cassava40K MaizeN/P/K: 90/20/37 kg/habasal NPK+ 2 splits ureaFertilzer2 - F212.5 K Cassava40K MaizeN/P/K: 75/20/90 kg/ha3 WAP NPK+ 6WAP urea+ 10 WAP urea/MoP +16 WAP MoPACAI PartnersOYSCGAFigure 1. Layout of 3 intensification steps for cassava - maize intercropping  Figure 2. Cumulative frequency distributions for the effect of each intensification step on cob numbers m-2: 1) increase in planting densities, 2) targeting fertilizer at maize at high planting densities, 3) targeting fertilizer at cassava, 4) confirming effect of higher planting density and targeting fertilizer at maize over the control (CP; low density, no fertilizer); red lines indicate 95% confidence limits.     Figure 3. Boxplots of cob numbers m-2 for each treatment (left) and effect of fertilizer application to maize (green circles) and cassava (orange circles) on cob numbers m-2against cob numbers m-2 in the D plot (high density, no fertilizer).    Figure 4. Cumulative frequency distributions for the effect of each intensification step on fresh cassava root yield (t ha-1): 1) increase in planting densities, 2) targeting fertilizer at maize at high planting densities, 3) targeting fertilizer at cassava, 4) confirming effect of higher planting density and targeting fertilizer at maize over the control (CP; low density, no fertilizer); red lines indicate 95% confidence limits. Figure 5. Boxplots of fresh cassava root yield (t ha-1) for each treatment (left) and effect of fertilizer application to maize (green circles) and cassava (orange circles) on fresh root yield (t ha-1) against cob numbers m-2 in the D plot (high density, no fertilizer). 4132

Yield responses in cassava - maize intercropping across diverse environments in Southern Nigeria

https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/10568/91556/1/U17ProcKreyeYieldNothomDev.pdf

Yield responses in cassava - maize intercropping across diverse environments in Southern Nigeria

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CGSpace