Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T16:33:42.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Density Related Yield Functions for Coconut (Cocos nucifera): an Empirical Estimation Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

N. T. M. H. De Silva  and
C. A. Tisdell
N. T. M. H. De Silva
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, N.S.W. 2308, Australia
C. A. Tisdell
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, University of Newcastle, N.S.W. 2308, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Obtaining yield–density relationships for perennials is difficult. Apart from the long time span involved, problems are also posed by the different types of uncertainty associated with field experimentation. Consequently researchers have explored alternative means. This study uses survey data as an alternative. The data show sufficient variability around the density which is regarded as optimal for Typica variety of coconut (158 palms ha−1) to be of value for estimating its yield–density function. A quadratic function gives a good fit to the data. Results suggest that the yield maximizing density of variety Typica form typica is relatively insensitive to the influence of fertilizer practices adopted by farmers and to variations by agroclimatic sub-regions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 259 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balakrishnamurthi, T. S. (1969). Isotope studies on efficiency of fertilizer utilization by coconut palms. Ceylon Coconut Quarterly 20:111–122.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. (1966). The effect of plant spacing on yield of bulb onions. Journal of Horticultural Science 41:145–153.Google Scholar
Bleasdale, & Nelder, (1960). Plant population and crop yield. Nature 188:342–345.Google Scholar
Carmer, S. G. & Jackobs, J. A. (1965). An experimental model for predicting optimum plant density and maximum corn yield. Agronomy Journal 57:241–244.Google Scholar
Chasen, S. (1979). Bivariate scatter plots. In Biomedical Computer Programs: P-Series, 217–221 (Eds Dixon, W. J. and Brown, M. B.). Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Child, R. (1964). Coconuts. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Child, R. (1974). Coconuts (second edition). London: Longmans.Google Scholar
CRISL, (1980). The manuring of adult coconut palms. In Coconut Research Institute, Leaflet No. 36. Revised Edition, pp. 10.Google Scholar
Daniel, C. & Wood, F. S. (1971). Fitting Equations to Data. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
De Silva, M. A. T. & Abeywardena, V. (1970). Studies on leaf growth. Ceylon Coconut Planters' Review 4:1–6.Google Scholar
De Silva, N. T. M. H. (1976). Fertilizer response in coconut: An analysis incorporating temporal effects. Masters thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
De Silva, N. T. M. H., van Tilburg, P. & Lok, S. H. (1978). Conditions and Management on Coconut Lands in Kalutara, Galle and Matara Districts. Report submitted to the Ministry of Plantation Industries of Sri Lanka, FAO/UNDP (SRL/75/76).Google Scholar
Draper, N. R. & Smith, H. (1966). Applied Regression Analysis, 86–99 and 134–141. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Frémond, Y., Zéller, R. & De Nuce De Lamothe, M. (1966). Le Cocotier. Paris: Maisonneuve and Larose.Google Scholar
Gunst, R. F. & Mason, R. L. (1980). Regression Analysis and its Application, 220–259. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Harvey, A. M. (1983). Growth, Volume and Value Production on Patula Pine in a Free Growth Spacing Trial. Technical Paper 33. Queensland: Department of Forestry.Google Scholar
Kira, T. K., Ogawa, H. & Sakazaki, N. (1963). Interspecific competition among higher plants. I: Competition-yield-density interrelationship in regularly dispersed populations. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka, Series D 4:1–16.Google Scholar
Manthriratne, M. A. P. (1978). The choice of planting material and methods in a national replanting programme. Ceylon Coconut Quarterly 29:103–112.Google Scholar
Manthriratne, M. A. P. & Abeywardena, V. (1979). Planting densities and planting systems for coconut, Cocos nucifers L., 2. Study of yield characters and the economics of planting at different densities. Ceylon Coconut Quarterly 30:107–115.Google Scholar
Mead, R. (1970). Plant density and crop yield. Applied Statistics 19:64–81.Google Scholar
Menon, K. P. V. & Pandalai, R. K. (1958). The Coconut Palm: A Monograph. Erankulam: Indian Central Coconut Committee.Google Scholar
Perera, U. V. H. & Ranbanda, L. (1981). Report of the Survey on the Removal of Senile and Excess Coconut Palms under Subsidy Schemes in the District of Matara, 3–6. Colombo: Coconut Development Authority.Google Scholar
Ryan, J. G. & Perrin, R. K. (1973). The Estimation and Use of a Generalized Response Function for Potatoes in the Sierra of Peru. Technical Bulletin No. 214. North Carolina: Agricultural Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Smith, R. W. (1971). The optimum spacing for coconuts. In Cocoa and Coconuts in Malaysia. (Eds Wsatie, R. L. and Earp, D. A.). Kuala Lumpur: Incorporated Society of Planters.Google Scholar
Tisdell, C. A. (1984). Biological law of tolerance, average biomass and production in a variable uncontrolled environment. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 9:99–109.Google Scholar
Tisdell, C. A. & De Silva, N. T. M. H. (1984). The economic spacing of trees and other crops. European Review of Agricultural Economics 10:281–293.Google Scholar
Wijeweera, B. S., Jayawardena, A. S. & Esparathesan, S. (1979). The policy framework applicable to the coconut industry. Colombo.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Heath, S. B. (1969). The quantitative relationships between population and crop yield. Advances in Agronomy 21:281–321.Google Scholar