Abstract
Due to the long duration of cassava roots maturity, drought and disease problems, intercropping grain and legumes in cassava should be developed. To intercrop component crops, it is important to reduce cassavas’ canopy through the evaluation of the pruning effect on root yields. The study was aimed to determine the effects of different plant spacing and pruning methods on root yield and root yield parameters of cassava grown in Eastern part of Ethiopia. Cassava variety ‘Kello’ was used for the experiment as a test crop. Five cassava plant intra-row spacing (0.60, 0.80, 1.00, 1.20 and 1.40 m) were assigned to main plots while pruning methods (cutback, debranching and no pruning) were assigned to sub plots. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement with three replications. The result revealed that there were highly significant differences for number of roots per plant, root length, average root weight and unmarketable due to the effect of pruning, while significant differences was observed for total root yields due to intra-row spacing. There were also highly significant interaction effects for marketable and total root yields due to the effects of intra-row spacing and pruning. Cassava with no pruning recorded about, 21.9 and 25.7%, 10 and 26.4%, 17.2 and 19.9%, 43.5 and 58.7% over cassava with debranching and cutback for number of roots per plant, root diameter, root length and root weights, respectively. Cassava pruning and intra-row spacing also interacted and the highest root yield was recorded at 80 cm with cassava no pruning. Averagely, cassava with no pruning provided the highest marketable and total root yield by about 39.3 and 44.7%, 35.8 and 41.6% over cassava with debranching and cutback, respectively. Therefore, considering the land scarcity of the area intra-row plant spacing of 80 cm and cassava with no pruning was recommended for the study area and similar agro-ecology for land economy in eastern Harerghe zone.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Pruning affected cassava root number, length, weight and unmarketable roots.
- Taxon
- Cassava
Manihot esculentat0 - Treatment
- pruninge0
- Outcome
- number of roots per plant, root length, average root weight and unmarketablee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were highly significant differences for number of roots per plant, root length, average root weight and unmarketable due to the effect of pruning”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Intra-row spacing significantly affected total cassava root yield.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- intra-row spacinge0
- Outcome
- total root yieldse0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant differences was observed for total root yields due to intra-row spacing”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Spacing and pruning interacted significantly for marketable and total root yields.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Treatment
- intra-row spacing and pruninge0
- Outcome
- marketable and total root yieldse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“highly significant interaction effects for marketable and total root yields due to the effects of intra-row spacing and pruning”
t0“Cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning produced 21.9% more roots per plant than debranching and 25.7% more than cutback.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- number of roots per plante0
- Direction
- overe0
- Value
- 21.9 and 25.7%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava with no pruning recorded about, 21.9 and 25.7%, 10 and 26.4%, 17.2 and 19.9%, 43.5 and 58.7% over cassava with debranching and cutback for number of roots per plant, root diameter, root length and root weights, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning increased root diameter by 10% over debranching and 26.4% over cutback.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- root diametere0
- Direction
- overe0
- Value
- 10 and 26.4%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava with no pruning recorded about, 21.9 and 25.7%, 10 and 26.4%, 17.2 and 19.9%, 43.5 and 58.7% over cassava with debranching and cutback for number of roots per plant, root diameter, root length and root weights, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning increased root length by 17.2% over debranching and 19.9% over cutback.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- overe0
- Value
- 17.2 and 19.9%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava with no pruning recorded about, 21.9 and 25.7%, 10 and 26.4%, 17.2 and 19.9%, 43.5 and 58.7% over cassava with debranching and cutback for number of roots per plant, root diameter, root length and root weights, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning increased root weight by 43.5% over debranching and 58.7% over cutback.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- root weightse0
- Direction
- overe0
- Value
- 43.5 and 58.7%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava with no pruning recorded about, 21.9 and 25.7%, 10 and 26.4%, 17.2 and 19.9%, 43.5 and 58.7% over cassava with debranching and cutback for number of roots per plant, root diameter, root length and root weights, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest root yield occurred at 80 cm spacing without pruning.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- 80 cm with cassava no pruninge0
- Outcome
- root yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 80 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the highest root yield was recorded at 80 cm with cassava no pruning”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning raised marketable root yield by 39.3% over debranching and 44.7% over cutback.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- marketablee0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 39.3 and 44.7%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cassava with no pruning provided the highest marketable and total root yield by about 39.3 and 44.7%, 35.8 and 41.6% over cassava with debranching and cutback, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
No pruning raised total root yield by 35.8% over debranching and 41.6% over cutback.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- no pruninge0
- Outcome
- total root yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 35.8 and 41.6%e0
- Comparator
- debranching and cutbacke0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cassava with no pruning provided the highest marketable and total root yield by about 39.3 and 44.7%, 35.8 and 41.6% over cassava with debranching and cutback, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommended 80 cm intra-row spacing with no pruning for eastern Harerghe and similar agroecologies.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Outcome
- intra-row plant spacing of 80 cm and cassava with no pruninge0
- Setting
- eastern Harerghe zonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intra-row plant spacing of 80 cm and cassava with no pruning was recommended for the study area and similar agro-ecology for land economy in eastern Harerghe zone”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results differ
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →pruning · growth · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.