Abstract
An integrated weed management study involving crop spacing, cassava variety, and weed control methods for managing M. invisa in cassava farms was conducted at Umudike, Southeastern Nigeria, over two cropping seasons. The experiment employed a split-split plot arrangement in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Main plot treatments consisted of three plant spacings: 1 m × 0.6 m (S1), 1 m × 0.8 m (S2), and 1 m × 1 m (S3). Two cassava varieties with contrasting morphologies were used as sub-plots: sparse branching TME 419 (V1) and profuse branching NR 8082 (V2). Sub-sub-plot treatments included four weed control methods: hoe weeding at 4, 8, and 12 weeks after planting (WAP) (W1); pre-emergence herbicide (Primextra G. 660 SC at 2.5 kg a.i./ha) applied 1 day after planting (DAP) plus hand weeding at 12 and 16 WAP (W2); pre-emergence herbicide plus post-emergence herbicide (Envoke at 7 g a.i./ha) at 8 WAP (W3); and a weedy control (W0). Data were analyzed using ANOVA, and treatment means were separated using LSD at 5% significance level. Results showed that cassava height was not significantly affected by weed control methods or spacing. TME 419 produced thicker stems than NR 8082. Leaf area of TME 419 decreased with reduced spacing, while NR 8082 increased with reduced spacing. Highest fresh root yields were obtained at 1 m × 0.8 m and 1 m × 0.6 m, indicating these spacings are suitable for relatively fertile soils in Southeastern Nigeria.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava height was not significantly affected by weed control methods.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae0 - Treatment
- weed control methodse0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cassava height was not significantly affected by weed control methods or spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava height was not significantly affected by spacing.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- spacinge0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cassava height was not significantly affected by weed control methods or spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
TME 419 had thicker stems than NR 8082.
Verbatim
e0“TME 419 produced thicker stems than NR 8082”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area of TME 419 decreased with reduced spacing.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Leaf area of TME 419 decreased with reduced spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area of NR 8082 increased with reduced spacing.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“NR 8082 increased with reduced spacing”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest fresh root yield occurred at 1 m × 0.8 m spacing.
Verbatim
e0“Highest fresh root yields were obtained at 1 m × 0.8 m and 1 m × 0.6 m”
Claim · model-written summary
The highest fresh root yield occurred at 1 m × 0.6 m spacing.
Verbatim
e0“Highest fresh root yields were obtained at 1 m × 0.8 m and 1 m × 0.6 m”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend those spacings for relatively fertile soils in southeastern Nigeria.
Verbatim
e0“these spacings are suitable for relatively fertile soils in Southeastern Nigeria”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · growth · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →density · growth · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.