Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMutsaers, H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorEzumah, H.en_US
dc.contributor.authorOsiru, D.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2018-12-19T07:01:26Zen_US
dc.date.available2018-12-19T07:01:26Zen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10568/98679en_US
dc.titleCassava based intercropping: a reviewen_US
cg.authorship.typesCGIAR and developing country instituteen_US
cg.subject.iitaCROP SYSTEMSen_US
cg.subject.iitaPLANT BREEDINGen_US
cg.subject.iitaCASSAVAen_US
cg.subject.iitaAGRONOMYen_US
cg.subject.iitaPOST-HARVESTING TECHNOLOGYen_US
dcterms.abstractThis paper reviews intercropping research for a particular case: cassava-based crop combinations. Cassava is dominated in combination with maize while it is the dominating species in combination with low-growing species. Combinations with maize or legumes show a real biological advantage over the sole crops reflected in (modified) Area × Time Equivalency ratio (ATER) values above unity. This is not the case with sweet potatoes. Success of maize+cassava mixtures depends on time and rate of recovery of cassava after maize harvest. Biological advantage tends to disappear when maize yield exceeds about 3.5 t ha−1. Under growing conditions or practices which result in high maize yield, intercropping cassava with maize is not biologically advantageous Biological advantage of intercropping with legumes decreases with the legumes' growth duration, which should not exceed 90 days. Physiological traits of cassava for successful intercropping with maize or with legumes are probably not the same, but their nature is not clear. Moderate early vigour and a high partitioning of dry matter to the storage roots after harvest of the associated crops seem important in both cases. Cassava breeding for sole cropping has resulted in varieties with good performance in intercropping. Whether varieties can be selected with better adaptation to intercropping cannot be concluded from the literature. Dry-matter distribution, in particular after harvest of the associated crop, seems important but more growth analytical studies are required. Usefulness of currently available crop models in the study of intercropping is doubtful.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsLimited Accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationMutsaers, H., Ezumah, H. & Osiru, D. (1993). Cassava-based intercropping: a review. Field Crops Research, 34(3-4), 431-457.en_US
dcterms.issued1993en_US
dcterms.languageenen_US
dcterms.subjectintercroppingen_US
dcterms.subjectsole croppingen_US
dcterms.subjectharvestingen_US
dcterms.subjectcassavaen_US
dcterms.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInternational Institute of Tropical Agricultureen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationInstitut de Recherche Agricole pour le Développement, Cameroonen_US
cg.contributor.affiliationMakerere Universityen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(93)90125-7en_US
cg.isijournalISI Journalen_US
cg.coverage.regionAfricaen_US
cg.coverage.regionWestern Africaen_US
cg.coverage.regionCentral Africaen_US
cg.coverage.regionEastern Africaen_US
cg.coverage.countryNigeriaen_US
cg.coverage.countryCameroonen_US
cg.coverage.countryUgandaen_US
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2NGen_US
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2CMen_US
cg.coverage.iso3166-alpha2UGen_US
cg.reviewStatusPeer Reviewen_US
cg.issn0378-4290en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record