Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T23:58:51.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Options for Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica) Control in White Guinea Yam (Dioscorea rotundata) and Cassava (Manihot esculenta)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David Chikoye ,
Jim Ellis-Jones ,
Patrick Kormawa ,
Udensi E. Udensi ,
Simon E. Ibana  and
Ter-Rumun Avav
David Chikoye*
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Jim Ellis-Jones
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, United Kingdom
Patrick Kormawa
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Udensi E. Udensi
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Simon E. Ibana
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
Ter-Rumun Avav
Affiliation:
Federal University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: d.chikoye@cgiar.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cogongrass is a serious weed in small-scale farms in the lowland humid zone of West Africa. This study evaluated the response of cogongrass to herbicides and the legume cover crop velvetbean in cassava and white Guinea yam. In 2001/2002, cassava tuber yields and gross returns in treatments that received glyphosate alone were higher than in plots that received fluazifop-P-butyl once. In 2002/2003, treatments that received fluazifop-P-butyl once, glyphosate alone, glyphosate integrated with sowing velvetbean, or hoeing only, had higher cassava tuber yields than other treatments. Gross returns were higher in treatments that received glyphosate followed by sowing velvetbean or those hoed only than in other treatments. Fluazifop-P-butyl applied twice, glyphosate alone, or glyphosate followed by sowing velvetbean reduced cogongrass shoot biomass more than other treatments. Rhizome biomass was lower in plots that received glyphosate alone than in all fluazifop-P-butyl treatments. In 2002, white Guinea yam tuber yields were highest in plots that received glyphosate alone and lowest in plots where fluazifop-P-butyl was applied alone or followed by sowing velvetbean. The highest gross return was obtained in plots that received glyphosate alone while the lowest was obtained in plots that received fluazifop-P-butyl once followed by sowing velvetbean. In 2003, the highest tuber yields and gross returns were from plots that received glyphosate alone, fluazifop-P-butyl alone, or those hoed only. The hoed-only plots had 14 times higher cogongrass shoot biomass and 7 times higher rhizome biomass than other treatments. In both crops, hoeing alone or followed by sowing velvetbean was more costly than chemical control. The highest margin over hoeing was obtained from plots that received glyphosate alone. Sensitivity analysis showed that using glyphosate was more cost effective than fluazifop-P-butyl, even if the cost of the herbicide increased by 100% or the cost of labor decreased by 30%.

Keywords

Fluazifop-P-butylgyphosatecogongrass, Imperata cylindrica L. (Beauv.) #3 IMPCYcassava, Manihot esculenta Crantz ‘TMS30572’white Guinea yam, Dioscorea rotundata Poir ‘Dan-Anacha TDr 93-31’velvetbean, Mucuna cochinchinensis (Lour.) A. Chev. MUCCOChemical controlcover cropsensitivity analysisweed management costMAP, months after plantingWAP, weeks after planting
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 784 - 792
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Akobundu, I. O. 1980. Weed research at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and research needs in Africa. Weed Sci. 28:439–445.Google Scholar
Akobundu, I. O. 1981. Weed interference and control in white yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir). Weed Res. 21:267–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akobundu, I. O. 1987. Weed science in the tropics: Principles and practices. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Pp. 364–365.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1990. Cassava in tropical Africa: A reference manual IITA. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1994. Weed control recommendations for Nigeria. Series No. 3. The National Advisory Committee on Weed Control. Ibadan: Afrika Link Books. Pp. 74–76.Google Scholar
Asiedu, R., Mignouna, H., Odu, B., and Hughes, Jd'A. 2003. Yam breeding. in Hughes, J. d'A., and Odu, B. O., eds. Plant virology in sub-Saharan Africa. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 466–475.Google Scholar
Asiedu, R., Ng, S. Y. C., Bai, K. V., Ekanayake, I. J., and Wanyera, N. W. N. 1998. Genetic improvement of yam. in Orkwor, G. C., Asiedu, R., and Ekanayake, I. J., eds. Food yams: Advances in research. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Umudike: National Root Crops Research Institute, Nigeria. Pp. 63–104.Google Scholar
Baez, J., Antequera, R., Ramos, J., Gutierrez, W., and Medrano, C. 1998. Planting density and weed control on cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) in no tillage system under conditions of Maracaibo plateau. Rev. Fac. Agron. La Universidad del Zulia, Venezuela 15:429–438.Google Scholar
Chikoye, D., Ekeleme, F., and Udensi, U. E. 2001. Cogongrass suppression by intercropping cover crops in corn/cassava systems. Weed Sci. 49:658–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chikoye, D., Manyong, V. M., and Ekeleme, F. 2000. Characteristics of speargrass (Imperata cylindrica)-dominated fields in West Africa: crops, soil properties, farmer perceptions, and management strategies. Crop Prot. 19:481–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, W. J. and Cherney, D. J. R. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and nitrogen effects on corn silage. Agron. J. 93:597–602.Google Scholar
Ellis-Jones, J., Power, J., Chikoye, D., Nielsen, O. K., Kormawa, P. M., Ibana, S., Tarawali, G., Udensi, U., and Avav, T. 2003. Scaling-up the use of improved Imperata management practices in the sub-humid savannah of Nigeria. in Proceedings of The 2003 Brighton Crop Protection conference—Weeds. Farnham, Surrey: British Crop Protection Council. Pp. 1011–1016.Google Scholar
Ezumah, H. C. and Lawson, T. L. 1990. Cassava and maize intercropping systems: the effects of varieties and plant populations. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 164:334–342.Google Scholar
Ezumah, H. C., Lawson, T. L., and Mareck, J. 1984. Annual report of the International Institute Tropical Agriculture. Ibadan: International Institute Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 178–179.Google Scholar
[FAO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2004. Agricultural Statistics. Web page: http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/agriculture. Accessed: September 23, 2005.Google Scholar
[IITA] International Institute Tropical Agriculture. 2001. Annual Report Project 6: Improving cassava-based systems. Ibadan: International Institute Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Koch, W., Grobmann, F., Weber, A., Lutzeyer, H. J., and Akobundu, I. O. 1990. Weeds as components of maize/cassava cropping systems. in von Oppen, M. ed. Standortgemaesse Landwirtschaft in West Africa. Stuttgart: Universitaet Hohenheim. Pp. 283–298.Google Scholar
Nielsen, O. K., Chikoye, D., and Streibig, J. C. 2005. Efficacy and costs of handheld sprayers in the subhumid savanna for cogongrass control. Weed Technol. 19:568–574.Google Scholar
Nweke, F. I. and Enete, A. A. 1999. Gender surprises in food production, processing and marketing with emphasis on cassava in Africa. Collaborative Study of Cassava in Africa (COSCA). Working Paper No. 19. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture. Pp. 1–2.Google Scholar
Nweke, F. I., Spencer, D. S. C., and Lynam, J. K. 2002. The cassava transformation: Africa's best-kept secret. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Pp. 168–178.Google Scholar
Onochie, B. E. 1974. Critical period for weed control in yam plots. Nigerian Agric. J. 11:13–16.Google Scholar
Orkwor, G. C. 1998. The importance of yams. in Orkwor, G. C., Asiedu, R., and Ekanayake, I. J. Food yams: Advances in research. Ibadan: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Umudike: National Root Crops Research Institute. Pp. 1–12.Google Scholar
Orkwor, G. C., Okereke, O. U., Ezedi, F. O. C., Hahn, S. K., Ezumah, H. C., and Akobundu, I. O. 1994. The response of yam (Dioscorea rotundata Poir) to various periods of weed interference in an intercrop with maize (Zea mays), okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench) and sweet potato (Ipomea batatas). in Ofori, F. and Hahn, S. K., eds. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium of the International Society for Tropical Root Crops, Accra, Ghana: International Society for Tropical Root Crops. Pp. 349–354.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1990. SAS/STAT Users guide. Version 6, Volume 2. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute Inc. Pp. 891–996.Google Scholar
Steel, D. R. R. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics: A biometrical approach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Pp. 550–551.Google Scholar
Udensi, U. E., Akobundu, I. O., Ayeni, A. O., and Chikoye, D. 1999. Management of speargrass (Imperata cylindrica (L.) Raeusch.) with velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens var. utilis) and herbicides. Weed Technol. 13:201–208.Google Scholar
Unamma, R. P. A. and Melifonwu, A. A. 1988. Critical period for weed removal in seed yam production from minisetts. Nigerian J. Weed Sci. 1:11–16.Google Scholar
Versteeg, M. N., Amadji, F., Eteka, A., Gogan, A., and Koudokpon, V. 1998. Farmers' adaptability of Mucuna fallowing and agroforestry technologies in the coastal savanna of Benin Republic. Agric. Syst. 56:269–287.Google Scholar
Versteeg, M. N. and Koudokpon, V. 1990. Mucuna helps control Imperata in southern Benin Republic. West African Farming Syst. Res. Network 7:7–8.Google Scholar