Abstract
Banana is a major food and cash crop in Uganda, particularly in the central and southwestern regions. However, production is still below attainable yields and at the same time declining due to a number of reasons, with low soil fertility being paramount. Few farmers use inorganic fertilizers, with majority of them relying mainly on organic supplements including integration of trees/shrubs. However, trees and shrubs exist on banana farms in undefined numbers and composition, with no spacing and canopy management recommendations. Also, there is limited information on farmers' knowledge on these systems. A survey was, therefore, conducted on 70 randomly selected farms in Kiboga district, central Uganda to assess farmers' knowledge of, as well as identify trees and shrubs species and banana cultivars in their agro-ecologies. A total of 1,558 trees and shrubs belonging to 40 species and 21 families were recorded in the study area (52 trees/shrubs per banana plantation). These were dominated by Jackfruit, Artocarpus heterophyllus (15%), Natal fig, Ficus natalensis (10%), Albizia, Albizia coriaria (10%) and mango, Mangifera indica (9%). Further, 1,779 banana mats belonging to nine (9) cultivars and three (3) genome groups were observed growing underneath these four commonest tree species (2.6 banana mats per tree). The highest number of banana mats was observed growing underneath F. natalensis (54%) and A. coriaria (42%). Most (87%) observed banana cultivars belonged to the cooking East African Highland Banana (Musa AAA-EAHB) and dominated by Ndibwabalangira (21%). Farmers reported 25 benefits they derive from banana-trees/shrubs integration; with shade and firewood (38%), as well as income and timber (35%) being the main benefits reported. They also reported that the highest percentage of benefits was derived from F. natalensis (44%) and A. coriaria (32%). Of the four (4) most prevalent tree species, A. coriaria (100%) and F. natalensis (96%) were reported as good companion plant to bananas, whereas, A. heterophyllus (99%) and M. indica (97%) were regarded as bad companion plants. Farmers preferred a tree that allows light penetration (96%), is compatible with bananas and other crops (87%) and has easily decomposable leaves (83%). Therefore, F. natalensis and A. coriaria should be integrated in banana agrosystems for soil fertility improvement whereas; A. heterophyllus and M. indica be planted on farm boundaries. However, the best-bet spacing and pruning regimes for these trees should be determined to minimize the negative attributes as much as possible.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 20
Claim · model-written summary
The surveyed banana plantations contained 1,558 trees and shrubs across 40 species and 21 families.
Verbatim
e0“A total of 1,558 trees and shrubs belonging to 40 species and 21 families were recorded in the study area (52 trees/shrubs per banana plantation)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Jackfruit was the most frequent tree at 15%.
Verbatim
e0“Jackfruit, Artocarpus heterophyllus (15%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Natal fig represented 10% of recorded trees and shrubs.
Verbatim
e0“Natal fig, Ficus natalensis (10%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Albizia coriaria represented 10% of recorded trees and shrubs.
Verbatim
e0“Albizia, Albizia coriaria (10%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mango represented 9% of recorded trees and shrubs.
Verbatim
e0“mango, Mangifera indica (9%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The four commonest tree species had 1,779 banana mats underneath them, spanning nine cultivars and three genome groups.
Verbatim
e0“1,779 banana mats belonging to nine (9) cultivars and three (3) genome groups were observed growing underneath these four commonest tree species (2.6 banana mats per tree)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
F. natalensis had the highest share of banana mats beneath it, 54%.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- F. natalensis
Ficus natalensise0other - Outcome
- banana matse1
- Value
- 54%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F. natalensis (54%)”
e1“1,779 banana mats belonging to nine (9) cultivars and three (3) genome groups were observed growing underneath these four commonest tree species”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
A. coriaria had 42% of banana mats beneath it.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- A. coriariaAlbizia coriariae0other
- Outcome
- banana matse1
- Value
- 42%e0
Verbatim
e0“A. coriaria (42%)”
e1“1,779 banana mats belonging to nine (9) cultivars and three (3) genome groups were observed growing underneath these four commonest tree species”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Most observed banana cultivars were cooking East African Highland Banana, at 87%.
Verbatim
e0“Most (87%) observed banana cultivars belonged to the cooking East African Highland Banana (Musa AAA-EAHB)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Ndibwabalangira was the dominant cultivar at 21%.
Verbatim
e0“dominated by Ndibwabalangira (21%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers reported 25 benefits of banana and tree integration; shade and firewood made up 38%.
Verbatim
e0“Farmers reported 25 benefits they derive from banana-trees/shrubs integration; with shade and firewood (38%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Income and timber represented 35% of reported benefits.
Verbatim
e0“income and timber (35%)”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers attributed 44% of benefits to F. natalensis.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- F. natalensisFicus natalensise0other
- Outcome
- benefitse1
- Value
- 44%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“F. natalensis (44%)”
e1“highest percentage of benefits was derived from F. natalensis”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers attributed 32% of benefits to A. coriaria.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- A. coriariaAlbizia coriariae0other
- Outcome
- benefitse1
- Value
- 32%e0
Verbatim
e0“A. coriaria (32%)”
e1“highest percentage of benefits was derived from F. natalensis”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers rated A. coriaria as a good companion to bananas at 100%.
- Taxon
- bananase0
- Interactor
- A. coriariaAlbizia coriariae0other
- Outcome
- good companion plante0
- Value
- 100%e0
Verbatim
e0“A. coriaria (100%) and F. natalensis (96%) were reported as good companion plant to bananas”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers rated F. natalensis as a good banana companion at 96%.
- Taxon
- bananase0
- Interactor
- F. natalensisFicus natalensise0other
- Outcome
- good companion plante0
- Value
- 96%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A. coriaria (100%) and F. natalensis (96%) were reported as good companion plant to bananas”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers rated A. heterophyllus a bad banana companion at 99%.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- A. heterophyllus
Artocarpus heterophylluse0other - Outcome
- bad companion plantse0
- Value
- 99%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A. heterophyllus (99%) and M. indica (97%) were regarded as bad companion plants”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers rated M. indica a bad banana companion at 97%.
- Taxon
- bananat0
- Interactor
- M. indica
_from_India.jpg?width=60)
Mangifera indicae0other - Outcome
- bad companion plantse0
- Value
- 97%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_from_India.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“A. heterophyllus (99%) and M. indica (97%) were regarded as bad companion plants”
t0“banana (Musa sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Farmers preferred trees that allow light penetration, are compatible with crops, and have decomposable leaves, at 96%, 87%, and 83%, respectively.
Verbatim
e0“Farmers preferred a tree that allows light penetration (96%), is compatible with bananas and other crops (87%) and has easily decomposable leaves (83%)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend integrating F. natalensis and A. coriaria into banana systems for soil fertility while placing A. heterophyllus and M. indica at farm boundaries, with spacing and pruning to be determined.
Verbatim
e0“F. natalensis and A. coriaria should be integrated in banana agrosystems for soil fertility improvement whereas; A. heterophyllus and M. indica be planted on farm boundaries. However, the best-bet spacing and pruning regimes for these trees should be determined”