Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:37:50.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SOIL PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND COCOYAM YIELD UNDER DIFFERENT TILLAGE SYSTEMS IN A TROPICAL ALFISOL

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2011

A. O. ADEKIYA ,
S. O. OJENIYI  and
T. M. AGBEDE
A. O. ADEKIYA
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Crop and Pest Management, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
S. O. OJENIYI
Affiliation:
Department of Soil, Crop and Pest Management, Federal University of Technology, P.M.B. 704, Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria
T. M. AGBEDE*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Technology, Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, P.M.B. 1019, Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria
*
§Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Experimental data on tillage requirement of cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) are needed to identify the most suitable tillage methods for managing the fragile Alfisols of the humid tropics to ensure sustained productivity. Hence, five tillage methods were compared as to their effects on soil physical and chemical properties, and growth and yield of cocoyam on an Alfisol at Owo in the forest-savanna transition zone of southwest Nigeria. The experiment consisted of five tillage methods: manual clearing (MC), manual ridging (MR), manual mounding (MM), ploughing + harrowing (P + H) and ploughing + harrowing twice (P + 2 H) were used for three years at two sites in a randomized complete block design with three replications. In the first two years (2007 and 2008), P + H produced the least soil bulk density and highest growth and yield, whereas in the third year (2009), MC produced the lowest soil bulk density and best performance of cocoyam. Manual clearing produced the best values of soil chemical properties in 2008 and 2009. Averaged over the three years, P + H, MR and MM had lower soil bulk density hence better growth and yield compared with P + 2 H and MC. Over the three years MC, MM, MR and P + H increased cocoyam cormel yield by 10, 21, 23 and 32%, respectively, over P + 2 H.The corresponding increases in corm yield were 7, 15, 13 and 21%, respectively. The multiple regressions revealed that bulk density and moisture content significantly influenced the yield of cocoyam. Soil chemical properties were not significant. Bulk density rather than soil chemical properties dictated the performance of cocoyam in an Alfisol of southwest Nigeria. Soil quality was degraded by P + 2H. For small farms, either MR or MM is recommended while P + H is recommended for large-scale farming of cocoyam.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 477 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Adekiya, A. O. and Ojeniyi, S. O. (2002). Evaluation of tomato growth and soil properties under methods of seedling bed preparation in an Alfisol in the rain forest zone of southwest Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research 64:275–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbede, T. M. (2006). Effect of tillage on soil properties and yam yield on an Alfisol in southwestern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research 86:1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbede, T. M. (2008). Nutrient availability and cocoyam yield under different tillage practices. Soil Tillage Research 99: 49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbede, T. M. and Ojeniyi, S. O. (2009). Tillage and poultry manure effects on soil fertility and sorghum yield in southwestern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research 104: 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agbede, T. M. and Adekiya, A. O. (2009). Tillage effects on soil properties and performance of sweet potato on an Alfisol in southwestern Nigeria. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3:561–568.Google Scholar
Akinrinde, E. A. and Obigbesan, G. O. (2000). Evaluation of the fertility status of selected soils for crop production in five ecological zones of Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of Soil Science Society of Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria, 279–288.Google Scholar
Anikwe, M. A. N., Mbah, C. A., Ezeaku, P. I. and Onyia, V. N. (2007). Tillage and plastic mulch effects on soil properties and growth and yield of cocoyam (Colocasia esculenta) on an Ultisol in southeastern Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research 93:264–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. R. (1999). The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th edn, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1996). Nitrogen-total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Chemical Methods, Part 3. 2nd edn, 1085–1121. (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) SSSA Book Series No. 5, ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. J. and Henshall, J. K. (1991). Bulk density. In Physical Methods of Soil Analysis, 329–366. (Eds Smith, K. A. and Mullin, C. E.). New York: Marcel Dekker.Google Scholar
Carter, M. R. (1993). Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
Ezumah, H. C. and Plucknett, D. L. (1982). Cultural studies on taro (Colocasia esculenta): age and moisture effects on growth and corm yield. Journal of Root Crops 8:17–26.Google Scholar
FAO (1998) World Reference Base of Soil Resources. World Soil Resources Report 84. Foods and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
Frank, K., Beegle, D. and Denning, I. (1998). Phosphorus. In Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region, 21–26. (Ed. Brown, J. R.) North Central Regional Research Publication No. 221 (revised) Missouri Agric. Exp. Stn. Columbia, MO, USA.Google Scholar
GENSTAT (1993). Genstat 5 Release 3.2 Reference Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ghosh, S. P., Ramanujam, T., Jos, J. S., Morrthy, S. M. and Nair, R. G. (1988). Tuber Crops. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company, New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Hendershot, W. H. and Lalande, H. (1993). Ion exchange and exchangeable cations. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. vol. 19, 167–176. (Ed. Carter, M. R.) Canadian Society of Soil Science, Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers..Google Scholar
Howeler, R. H., Ezumah, H. C. and Midmore, D. J. (1993). Tillage systems for root and tuber crops in the tropics. Soil Tillage Research 27:211–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulugalle, N. R., Lal, R. and Opara-Nadi, O. A. (1985). Effect of tillage system and mulch on soil properties and growth of yam (Dioscorea rotundata) and cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium) on an Ultisol. Journal of Root Crops 11:9–12.Google Scholar
Hulugalle, N. R., Palada, M. C. and Carsky, R. J. (1991). Effect of seedbed preparation method on soil properties and crop yield in a rice fallow of South-western Nigeria, In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of International Soil Tillage Research Organisation, 8–12 July, 1991, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Lal, R. (1987). Management the soils of sub-Saharan Africa. Science 236:1069–1076.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ndon, B. A., Ndulaka, N. H. and Ndaeyo, N. U. (2003). Stabilization of yield parameters and some nutrients components in cocoyam cultivars with time in Uyo, southeastern Nigeria. Global Journal of Agricultural Science 2:74–78.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. W. and Sommers, L. E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon and organic matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 3. 2nd edn, 961–1010. (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) SSSA Book Series No. 5, ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI., USA.Google Scholar
Ojeniyi, S. O. and Adekayode, F. O. (1999). Soil conditions and cowpea and maize yield produced by tillage methods in the rainforest zone of Nigeria. Soil Tillage Research 51:161–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onwueme, I. C. (1978). The Tropical Tuber Crops: Yams, Cassava, Sweet Potato and Cocoyams. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Osundare, B. (2004). Effects of fertilizer types and varying population on the performance of cocoyam. Moor Journal of Agricultural Research 5:7–12.Google Scholar
Pardales, J. R. Jr and Villamayor, F. G. Jr (1983). Cultural management studies on upland taro. Effects of cultivation systems on growth and yield of taro and incidence of associated weeds. Annals of Tropical Research 5:13–22.Google Scholar
Plucknett, D. L., de la Pena, R. S., Dela, S. and Obrero, F. (1970). Taro (Colocasia esculenta). Field Crops Abstract 23:413–423.Google Scholar
Plucknett, D. L., Ezumah, H. C. and de la Pena, R. S. (1973). Mechanization of taro (Colocasia esculenta) culture in Hawaii. In Proceedings of the 3th Symposium of International Society of Root Crops, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Sheldrick, B. and Hand Wang, C. (1993). Particle-size distribution. In Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis, 499–511. (Ed. Carter, M. R.) Canadian Society of Soil Science, Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.Google Scholar
Smyth, A. J. and Montgomery, R. F. (1962). Soil and Land Use in Central Western Nigeria. Government Press, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
USDA. (2010). Soil Taxonomy. 11th edn. Agriculture Handbook, No. 436, United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service: Washington DC.Google Scholar
Villanueva, M. R. (1986). Technology for yam and taro production in southeast Asia. Radix 8:1–6.Google Scholar