Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T06:19:38.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Grain Yield Potential of Some Diverse Maize (Zea mays L.) Morphotypes Intercropped with Cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

J. A. Ayuk-Takem
Affiliation:
Institute of Agronomic Research, Bambui, PO Box 80, Bamenda, Cameroon and Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
H. R. Chhedda
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Summary

Three maize cultivars, BACOA, SAW and COCA, were evaluated when intercropped with cocoyams at a density of 50 000 maize plants and 10 000 cocoyam stands ha−1. BACOA which matures in 120 days, and SAW (130 days) transmitted significantly more light to the lower canopy than COCA, which has spreading leaves and matures in 150 days. Relative yields for BACOA, SAW and COCA in pure stands were 72, 100 and 85%, respectively, while those for cocoyams in BACOA/cocoyam, SAW/cocoyam and COCA/cocoyam mixtures were 82, 58 and 54%, respectively, showing that COCA significantly suppressed the yield of cocoyam when intercropped.

Yields of a COCA type with erect leaves increased as plant density increased from 20 000 to 50 000 plants ha−1 in pure stands, while yields of COCA with spreading leaves increased as plant density increased from 20 000 to 40 000 plants ha−1 but decreased when plant population increased to 50 000 plants ha−1. When COCA with erect leaves was intercropped with cocoyams, cocoyam tuber yields were fairly stable and maize yields continued to increase significantly as plant density increased from 20 000 to 50 000 plants ha−1, whereas the yields of COCA with spreading leaves and cocoyams were greatly reduced when intercropped and when the plant population increased from 20 000 to 50 000 plants ha−1.

Type
Research Article
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

Anon. (1976). Cameroon Fourth Five-Year Economic Social and Cultural Development Plan (1976–1981), 385526.Google Scholar
Ayuk-Takem, J. A. (1971). Effects of row spacings and genes controlling leaf angles on agronomic performances of four maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. M.Sc. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Ayuk-Takem, J. A. (1980). Progress report of maize (Zea mays L.) research activities in Cameroon. Revue Science et Technique 1:6577.Google Scholar
Boli, Z. B. (1979). Essai de culture associée (maïs-macabo). Rapport Annuel de la Station IRA de Deschang: 3640.Google Scholar
Brink, R. A. (1933). Heritable characters in maize. XLVI-Liguleless-2. Journal of Heredity 24:325326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emerson, R. A. (1912). The inheritance of the ligule and auricles of com leaves. Nebraska Agricultural Experimental Station Report 25:8188.Google Scholar
IITA, (1979). International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, Annual Report 1979: 26–27.Google Scholar
Lyonga, S. N. (1979). Collection, selection and agronomic studies on edible yams (Dioscorea spp.), in Cameroon. Cahiers de I'Onarest 2:519.Google Scholar
Lyonga, S. N. (1980). Cocoyam production in Cameroon. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Taro and Cocoyams. IFS Provisional Report No. 5.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. & Torrie, J. H. (1960). Principles and Practices of Statistics with Special References to Biological Sciences, 194205. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T. & Miller, D. A. (1978). Relative yield totals and yield components of intercropped sorghum and soyabeans. Agronomy Journal 70:287291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T., Babalola, O. & Aken'Ova, M. E. (1981). Intercropping morphologically different types of maize with cowpeas: L.E.R. and growth attributes of associated cowpeas. Experimental Agriculture 17:407413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar