Mixed Cropping System on Diversity and Density of Plant Parasitic Nematodes


  •  Kingsley Osei    
  •  Haruna Braimah    
  •  Umar Issa    
  •  Yaw Danso    

Abstract

The potential of mixed cropping system on the diversity and suppression of nematodes was investigated at two locations in Ghana. The treatments in the study were; sole plantain, sole cassava and plantain+cassava systems replicated five and four times in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) at Kwadaso in the Ashanti and Assin Foso in the Central region of Ghana respectively. Growth parameters (height and girth) and components of yield (No. of suckers/plant, bunch weight/plant, No. of hands/plant, No. of fingers/plant) were studied on plantain in addition to No. of weevils per plant. On cassava, total biomass, tuber number and tuber weight (yield) were analyzed using GenStat software and means were separated with Fisher’s least significance test at a = 0.05. There were no differences in height and girth of plantain at Assin Foso. However, plant height was 25% and girth 13% more under sole plantain system over the mixed cropping system at Kwadaso. The sole plantain system recorded 60% and 75% more suckers than the Plantain-Cassava system at both locations. Mixed and sole cropping systems did not influence the diversity of nematode community but significant differences were observed in the density of the nematode taxa encountered under the two systems. Throughout the investigation at both locations, it was observed that the mixed cropping system recorded significantly (P < 0.05) lower nematode population densities in comparison to sole cropping system. It is therefore true that an agro-ecological strategy for pests and diseases control is the growing of a mixture of crops differing in their susceptibility to pests and pathogens



This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27

Contact