Abstract
A study conducted in forested areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo focused on four cassava varieties differing on their typical habits (high, low, and medium branching, as well as erect or unbranched trait). The varieties under study were subjected to four treatments: Topping, Thinning, Combination of topping and thinning, and Control (no topping or thinning), carried out after two months post-transplantation. Topping was about breaking the apical dominance by cutting off the cassava Pekoe plus four young and unfolded leaves, while thinning implied knocking off small stems in favor of the single most robust stem of the plant. Statistical analyses showed significant differences, as regards the behavior of the varieties that underwent topping. Nonetheless, positive effects from topping are dependent on cassava varieties and to their ability to generate new branches from dormant axillary buds. Among involved varieties, greater shoot emergence was noticed on medium-branching Nsansi upon knocking off the terminal bud. Topping happened to elicit a positive outcome on the production of tuberous roots, exemplified by a nearly 39% increase in yield. Besides, reduction of canopy volume through thinning resulted in about 11% decrease in yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava varieties responded differently to topping.
- Taxon
- Cassava
Manihot esculentat0 - Treatment
- toppinge0
- Outcome
- behavior of the varietiese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant differences, as regards the behavior of the varieties that underwent topping”
t0“Cassava Varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping effects depended on variety and capacity to produce new branches from dormant buds.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Material
- cassava varietiese0
- Organ / stage
- dormant axillary budse0
- Outcome
- positive effects from toppinge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“positive effects from topping are dependent on cassava varieties and to their ability to generate new branches from dormant axillary buds”
Claim · model-written summary
Nsansi had greater shoot emergence after terminal-bud removal.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Material
- Nsansie0
- Treatment
- knocking off the terminal bude0
- Outcome
- shoot emergencee0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“greater shoot emergence was noticed on medium-branching Nsansi upon knocking off the terminal bud”
t0“Cassava Varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Topping increased tuberous-root yield by nearly 39%.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentat0
- Organ / stage
- tuberous rootse0
- Treatment
- Toppinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- nearly 39%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Topping happened to elicit a positive outcome on the production of tuberous roots, exemplified by a nearly 39% increase in yield”
t0“Cassava Varieties”
Claim · model-written summary
Thinning reduced yield by about 11%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction of canopy volume through thinning resulted in about 11% decrease in yield”
t0“Cassava Varieties”
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 →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.