1. The response of cassava (Manihot esculenta) to spatial arrangement and to soybean intercrop
- Author
-
Shu Fukai, J.S. Tsay, and G.L. Wilson
- Subjects
Crop ,Dry weight ,Agronomy ,Yield (wine) ,Soil Science ,Sowing ,Growing season ,Dry matter ,Leaf area index ,Biology ,Agronomy and Crop Science ,Row - Abstract
Response of cassava to row spacing and plant population density (0.62 plants m−2 in 180-cm rows; 1.23 plants m−2 in 90-, 180-, 270-, and 270- plus 90-cm (i.e. paired rows); and 2.46 plants m−2 in 90- and 180-cm rows), and to soybean intercrop at two row spacings of cassava (90 and 270 cm) was studied at a high latitude (27°S) in south-east Queensland, Australia, where low temperature limits a growing season to 9 months. Detailed observations were made in sole crops on leaf canopy structure and light penetration in the three row spacings at the medium density to allow an estimation of light availability for an intercrop between cassava rows. The low plant density or the 270-cm row plants produced the lowest total dry matter and tuber yield at harvest, while the two higher densities or the two narrower rows produced similar total and tuber dry weight. Intercropped cassava produced a similar tuber yield to the sole crop at the corresponding spatial arrangement, but total dry matter was lower in the former. Leaf area index was similar among the 90-, 180- and 270-cm row spacings in sole crops throughout the growth period. However, leaf area was unevenly distributed horizontally for a longer time as row spacing increased. This resulted in light penetrating the inter-row space for a longer period in wider rows in sole crops, more than 50% full sunlight reaching soil level for 90, 120 and 130 days after planting in the 90-, 180- and 270-cm rows, respectively. This light environment would be available for an intercrop if cassava growth is not affected by the intercrop. The results for cassava intercropped with soybean show that in fact cassava growth was reduced by the associated soybean, and hence light available for the soybean growth would have been more than that estimated above.
- Published
- 1987
- Full Text
- View/download PDF