Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:26:43.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A labour-saving system of yam (Dioscorea spp.) production through weed control with herbicides, the elimination of staking, and cropping at high density

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. C. Onwueme  and
O. Fadayomi
I. C. Onwueme
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
O. Fadayomi
Affiliation:
Plant Science Department, University of Ife, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Experiments were made over a 3-year period in order to evolve a production package for yam that would eliminate the laborious operations of hand weeding and staking. First, nine herbicides were applied to yam plots before or after yam emergence. On the basis of weed control effectiveness and low phytotoxicity to yam plants, ametryne (2-(ethylamino)-4-(isopropylamino)-6-(methylthio)-S-triazine) was chosen for subsequent experimentation. Next, ametryne at 2, 4 or 6 kg/ha was applied to yam plots either immediately after planting, or with 1 kg/ha paraqviat (l, 1'-dimethyl-4,4'- bipyridinium ion) 3 weeks after planting. The delayed applications gave more effective weed control and higher yields than the early applications. For the delayed application, 4 and 6 kg ametryne/ha did not give significantly different yields, but yielded significantly more than 2 kg/ha. When a combination of ametryne at 4 kg/ha and paraquat at 1 kg/ha was applied 3, 6 or 9 weeks after planting, the weed control effectiveness was greatest at 6 weeks after planting while the 3- and 6-week applications did not give significantly different yields. Herbicide applied 9 weeks after planting gave the poorest weed control and the lowest yields.

Finally comparisons were made between the conventional staked, hand-weeded yam production, and a new production package in which the yams were not staked and weeds were controlled with ametryne (4 kg/ha) + paraquat (1kg/ha) applied at or just before emergence. When small (150g) setts were used, yields from the new package were not significantly lower than those from the conventional system, even though the new package was considerably less laborious. Cultivation with large setts, however, resulted in a decrease in yield when the plants were not staked. Strategies that could further enhance the attractiveness of the new production

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 95 , Issue 3 , December 1980 , pp. 641 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Akobundu, I. O. (1977). Weed control in root and tuber crops. In Proceedings of 7th Conference of the Weed Science Society of Nigeria.Google Scholar
Anon. (1979). Annual Research Report, 1977. Fiji: Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Booth, R. H. (1974). Post-harvest deterioration of tropical root crops: losses and their control. Tropical Science 16, 49–63.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. G. (1967). In Yams (ed. Coursey, D. G.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Chapman, T. (1965). Some investigations into factors limiting yields of the white Lisbon yam (Dioscorea alata L.) under Trinidad conditions. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 42, 145–151.Google Scholar
International Institute Of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria (1972). Annual Report, 1972.Google Scholar
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria (1976). Annual Report, 1976.Google Scholar
Kasasian, L. & Seeyave, J. (1967). Weed control in root crops grown in the West Indies. Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Tropical Root Crops 2, 20–25.Google Scholar
Lyonga, S. N. & Ayuk-Takem, J. A. (1979). Collection, selection, and agronomic studies on edible yams (Dioscorea spp.) in Cameroon. Paper at the 5th International Symposium on Tropical Root and Tuber Crops, Manila, Philippines, 1979.Google Scholar
Lyonga, S. N., Fayemi, A. A. & Agboola, A. A. (1973). Agronomic studies on edible yams (Dioscorea spp.) in the grassland plateau region of the United Republic of Cameroun. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops, pp. 340–346.Google Scholar
Nwosu, N. A. (1975). Recent developments in vegetative propagation of the edible yam (Dioscorea species). Proceedings of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria, vol. 12.Google Scholar
Okigbo, B. N. (1973). Effects of cultivations and heights and directions of staking on yield and general performance of eight yam cultivars. Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops, pp. 347–358.Google Scholar
Onwueme, I. C. (1972). Influence of the weight of the planted tuber on the vegetative performance of white yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir) plants. Nigerian Agricultural Journal 9, 170–173.Google Scholar
Onwueme, I. C. (1978). The Tropical Tuber Crops, 234 pp. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Phillips, T. A. (1964). An Agricultural Notebook. 248 pp. Ibadan: Longman.Google Scholar
Renaut, G. & Merlier, H. (1973). Weed control under mechanized yam growing. Third International Symposium on Tropical Root Crops, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Waitt, A. W. (1960). Yam trials. Report of the Department of Agricultural Research, Nigeria 1958–59, pp. 13–14.Google Scholar
Waitt, A. W. (1961). Yams. Report of the Department of Agricultural Research, Nigeria 1959–60, pp. 16–19.Google Scholar