




































Agriculture and Food 

Sciences Research 
ISSN: 2411-6653 
Vol. 3, No. 1, 12-18, 2016 
http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AESR 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 

 

Achievements of Cassava Agronomy Research in Southern 

Ethiopia in the Last two Decades 

 
Daniel Markos1

    
Legesse Hidoto2    
Fiseha Negash3    

1,2
Awassa agricultural research center,  P.O.Box - 06, 

Awassa, Ethiopia 
3
Areka agricultural research center, P.O.Box- 79,  

Areka,  Ethiopia 
( Corresponding Author) 

 
Abstract 

The paper describes research results of obtained in the process of generation of appropriate cultural 

practices, cropping systems and other agronomic studies of cassava in Ethiopia.  Based on plant 

population  studies carried out for three consecutive years on major cassava growing areas of SNNPR, 

plant spacing of 100 cm x 80, 120 cm x 80 and 80 cm x 80 was recommended for Awassa, Amaro kele 

and Amaro Jijola areas, respectively. The moisture content of cassava roots were invariably higher in 

varieties Qule, Kele and local in 12th and 15th MAP; But, decreases there after markedly in a linear way. 

Conversely, viscosity and root yield of the cassava increases significantly (P < 0.05) starting the 12th 

MAP. Results of intercropping maize and cassava showed that alternate rows (1C:1M) had LER 

advantage of 71%. Similarly, growing cassava intercropped with haricot bean, cow pea, soy bean and 

mung bean resulted in LER of 1.82, 1.49. 1.48 and 1.62 compared to sole beans in Amaro area. In one 

study that investigated planting positions and planting parts, slant and vertical plantings are suitable in 

Awassa sandy soils compared to horizontal planting. Similarly, this study revealed that planting 

materials shall be taken from middle and top part of the main stem of cassava compared to its branches. 

In another study that investigated land preparation methods, it was found that furrow and ridge planting 

produced comparable results of 48t/ha and 43t/ha compared to 38t/ha produced by flat plantings. 

Planting date trial carried out for three consecutive seasons elaborated that rainfed cassava planting 

could be carried out from mid April to early May  based on optimum marketable and total tuber yield 

obtained.  Thus, the crop responded very well to crop management practices like plant density, land 

preparation methods, planting positions, intercropping, etc.and farmers or investors could optimize 

production by using these recommendations.   
 

Keywords: Plant density, Intercropping, LER, Planting date, Starch content. 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................13 

2. Objectives ....................................................................................................................................................................................13 

3. Methodologies..............................................................................................................................................................................13 

4. Results and Discussion ...............................................................................................................................................................14 

5. Planting Dates .............................................................................................................................................................................16 

6. Planting Position and Planting Materials .................................................................................................................................16 

7. Land Preparation Methods ........................................................................................................................................................17 

8. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................................................................17 

9. Future Research Directions .......................................................................................................................................................17 

References ........................................................................................................................................................................................17 

 
 

Citation | Daniel Markos; Legesse Hidoto; Fiseha Negash (2016). Achievements of Cassava Agronomy Research in Southern Ethiopia in the Last two 

Decades. Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 3(1): 12-18. 

DOI: 10.20448/journal.512/2016.3.1/512.1.12.18          

ISSN(E) : 2411-6653 

ISSN(P) : 2411-6653 

Licensed:  

Contribution/Acknowledgement: 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License  
All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests. 

Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that 

no vital features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been 

explained. 

History: Received: 12 January 2016/ Revised: 23 January 2016/ Accepted: 29 January 2016/ Published: 4 February 2016 

Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

Publisher: Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 
 

 

https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Daniel%20Markos
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Legesse%20Hidoto
https://orcid.org/orcid-search/quick-search?searchQuery=Fiseha%20Negash
http://search.crossref.org/?q=10.20448/journal.512/2016.3.1/512.1.12.18
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

13 

 

1. Introduction 
Cassava is a stable food of more than 600 million people all over the world and is grown in as many as 90 

countries [1]. It is the most important root crop in Africa. The next is yam. It is a hardy crop that grows reasonably 

well in poor soils and in areas well with erratic or low or unpredictable rainfall. It has been common among the rural 

poor mainly because it required fewer fertilizer inputs. “Cassava is a staple food crop cultivated in several 

developing countries, largely by small farmers. It is a source of subsistence and of cash income to poor farmers as 

well as a source of rural employment, particularly of women manly because it tolerant to poor soils and harsh 

climatic conditions producing reasonably yield poor management conditions. It is a perennial crop native to tropical 

America with its center of origin in north-eastern and central Brazil. It is cultivated mainly for its enlarged starchy 

root. Globally, it is the sixth most important source of calories in the human diet. In Africa, it has expanded as a food 

security crop. In SNNPR, the average total area planted to the crop and production of cassava per annum is 4942 ha 

and 53036.2 tones respectively. During the past 20 years, production of cassava expanded rapidly in Asia, especially 

in Thailand, in response to expanded demand for imports by the European Community, where it is used as livestock 

feed. There are concerns, however, about the likely decline in demand for cassava as food as incomes rise in 

developing countries and also about the stability of the European demand.  

Cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) is sixth most important source of calories in the human diet-world,fourth 

most important food energy source in the tropics, is food security crop, because of its ability and capacity to yield 

well in drought prone, marginal wasteland under poor management where other crops would fail, the average total 

coverage and production of cassava per annum in Southern region is 4942 ha and 53036.2 tones, respectively  and in 

Ethiopia, cassava is grown in Southern and south eastern parts as staple crop. 

   

 
Fig-1. Cassava in local markets in Ethiopia 

    Source: Picture taken in Konso market, Southern Ethiopia 

 

Cassava based production systems include small scale rain-fed farming in pathes of plots in backyard eg. Amaro, 

Bele, Gofa, Yeki and Tepi areas, Medium scale production in wide private farms eg. Amaro, Metu and Gofa areas, 

Irrigated cassava production particularly in dry periods eg. Amaro and finally cassava is grown intercropped together 

with taro, sorghum, teff, safflower, maize, enset, common beans , etc 

Problems in cassava production include limited availability of additional land for crop production, decreased soil 

fertility and declining yield for major food crops have been cited as the major concerns for agriculture’s ability to 

provide nourishment for the increasing population, cassava is a long duration crop that takes more than 18 months 

for harvest and is planted at intra and inter row spacing of 80-120 X 60-100 and takes 3-4 months to develop enough 

canopy.  

 

2. Objectives 
 to sensitize and document the findings of cassava agronomy research in southern Ethiopia 

 to draw conclusions based on major findings of cassava management research  and subsequently recommend the 

necessary technologies for further use 

 

3. Methodologies  
Cassava agronomy research has been carried out in the last twenty years in southern agricultural research 

institute. Summary of research findings was prepared and presented by authors in the national first cassava research 

review workshop from 17-18 May 2012 at Awassa, SARI southern Ethiopia. Data of different experiments were 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

14 

 

gathered from various research centers and authors. The gathered data were systematically compiled in logical 

manner that makes sense where conclusions were drawn accordingly using standard methodologies. Agronomic data 

like plant height, weight and number of roots/plant and roots/plot, root length and root diameter were measured at 

harvest where as canopy diameter was estimated at mid flowering in all experiments.  

The LER is calculated as   

LER = L
A 

+ L
B 

+ …… + L
N 

= AASY + BBSY + …… + NNSY = Σ=NINNSY1 Where L
A
, L

B
… L

N 
is 

the LER for the individual crops  

Y
A
, Y

B
… Y

N 
are the individual crop yields in intercropping.  

S
A
, S

B
… S

N 
is their yields as sole crops  

When LER is greater than 1 or more, it signals yield advantage and a ratio of less than 1, is yield 

disadvantage [2]. 

 

4. Results and Discussion 
4.1. Plant Population Density at Awassa  

An experiment was conducted in 2004 and 2005 cropping seasons in Fluvisols of Awassa at 7
0 
04’N and 38

0 
31’E 

longitudes at an altitude of 1700 m a.s.l. with the objective of determining appropriate plant and row spacing that 

maximizes cassava root yield in sub-humid region of Ethiopia. The experiment was laid in randomized complete 

block  design with three replication where each replication contain factorial combination of  four levels of plant 

spacing (60 cm, 80 cm, 100 cm and 120 cm) and three levels of row of spacing (80 cm, 100 cm and 120 cm). 

Significant positive association was observed between dry root yields (DRY) and root diameter, root size, root 

number, root length, canopy diameter and dry biomass yield (DBY). Results showed that significantly higher root 

diameter (p<0.05) and significantly wider canopy diameter were observed due to row spacing of 120 cm than that of 

80 cm row spacing. However, responses of root and canopy diameter were not significantly different (P<0.05) 

among 100 cm and 120 cm row spacing. Significantly higher (p<0.01) root yield/plant was measured due to 120 cm 

row spacing than other row spacing levels. However, cassava root yield per unit area was significantly higher 

(p<0.05) due 100 cm and 120 cm row spacing than 80 cm row spacing. But, the effects of row spacing were not 

significant on number of roots/plant and length of roots. When plant spacing was considered, canopy diameter 

(p<0.01) and number of roots/plant (p<0.05) were significantly higher due to 120 cm plant spacing than other plant 

spacing levels. Yield/plant due to plant spacing levels of 100 and 120 cm was not significantly different (p<0.05). 

Also, effects of plant spacing were not significantly different (p<0.05) on cassava root diameter, root length and root 

yield/unit area. However, 60 cm plant spacing produced significantly lower (p<0.05) number of roots/plant, canopy 

diameter and root yield/plant than that of 80 cm. Hence, use of 100 cm row spacing and 80 cm plant spacing is 

optimum for cassava production in Fluvisols of Awassa and similar agro-ecologies [3]. 

 

4.2. Plant Population Density at Amaro Kele, Jijola, Bele and Loma 
 Factorial experiment was laid in RCBD with three replications at Jijola district, Amaro to determine optimum 

inter and intra row spacing for cassava. The treatments involved 80, 100 and 120 cm row spacing and 60, 80, 100 

and 120 cm plant spacing. Aboveground biomass was significantly (p<0.05) affected by spacing and the highest 

biomass was observed at spacing of 100 cm x 120cm. similarly, the root yield of cassava was statistically higher due 

to 80 cm x 80 cm spacing. In Amaro Kele area 120 cm x 80 cm spacing produced significantly higher yield 

compared to other interaction levels. Non significant results were obtained in the plant population study trials at 

Loma and Bele [2, 4, 5]. 

 

4.3. Harvesting Stage and Cultivars Effects on Starch Quality and Quantity  
The trial was carried out during 2009-2010 at Gofa Woreda, SNNPR. A factorial combination of five level of  

harvesting stage (9, 12, 15, 18, 20, 24 months after planting) and three cassava varieties (‘kelo’, ‘qulle ’ and a local 

variety)  were laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications. Data on tuber yield, yield 

components were recorded and some starch quality parameters from cassava tubers were analyzed in laboratory and all 

the data were statistically analyzed. Statistically analyzed quality parameters results indicated that moisture of the tuber 

starch was affected significantly by harvesting stage and variety of cassava.  PH and viscosity of the tuber starch were 

significantly affected by harvesting stage. The highest viscosity of the starch was recorded by harvesting the crop at 18 

months after planting. Moisture content was significantly reduced after 15 months after planting. PH of the starch was 

significantly reduced 15 months after harvesting. Neither the harvesting stage nor the variety did not affect significantly 

the color and dry appearance of the cassava starch. Tuber yield and yield components of the crop were significantly 

affected by the interaction of variety and harvesting stage. The highest tuber yield (151q/ha) was obtained when variety 

‘qul'e’ was harvested at 21 months after planting. Generally significantly better tuber yield of all varieties were recorded 

by harvesting cassava starting 18 months after planting. 

 
Table-1. Moisture content of different cassava varieties as affected by harvesting stage 

Variety 

Harvesting stage (months after planting) 
mean 

9 12 15 18 21 

kelo 63.5 82.4 84.0 67.8 55.1 70.56 

qulle 63.3 81.4 77.1 56.2 64.5 68.49 

local 65.1 83.9 80.1 50.6 64.9 69.49 

Mean 63.99b 82.57a 80.39a 58.18c 60.53bc  

Cv (%) 7.6 
         Source: unpublished data 

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

15 

 

Table-2. Viscosity and PH  of  cassava  as affected by harvesting stage 

Harvesting stage (months after planting)  Viscosity PH 

9 7.7ab 6.7ab 

12 4.97c 6.9ab 

15 6.52bc 7.4a 

18 9.42a 6.7ab 

21 8.17ab 6.1b 

Cv (%) 32.3 11.2 
         Source: unpublished data 

 
Table-3. Tuber yield of different cassava varieties as affected by harvesting stage 

Variety 

Harvesting stage (months after planting) 
mean 

9 12 15 18 21 

Kelo 36.14 49.38 45.25 113.7 105.7 70.03 

Qulle  19.9 47.5 72.1 138.5 161.8 86.0 

Local  15.9 48.34 71.63 51.17 140 65.5 

Mean 23.99 48.41 63.01 101.3 135.8  

LSD(5%)variety= 17.63, harvesting stage=22.76, variety X harvesting stage = 39.43 

Cv (%) = 33.5 
         Source: unpublished data 

 

4.4. Cassava / Maize Intercropping  
This study was conducted in 2005 and 2006 at Goffa woreda, Gamo Goffa zone, to determine optimum ratios of 

component crops that will improve land use system of intercropping system. There were four cassava/maize 

intercrop row arrangements: 1row cassava: 1 row maize, 2rows cassava: 1 row maize, 2rows cassava: 2 rows maize, 

1row cassava: 2 rows maize, and two sole crops of maize and cassava were incorporated. Maize hybrid variety ‘BH-

140’ and ‘Quele’ variety of cassava were used in the trial. Other agronomic practices were applied equally for all 

plots. The experiment was lied out in randomized complete block design with four replications.  The combined 

analysis over years showed that different maize plant densities intercropped with cassava had significant (p<0.001) 

effect on grain yield and yield components of maize. The highest grain yield of maize was obtained when maize and 

cassava was intercropped in alternate rows (1row cassava: 1 row maize). On the other hand cassava tuber yield was 

not affected by the intercropped maize. The analysis of land equivalent ratio showed that the advantage of 

intercropping was 71 % over sole cropping. Among the intercropping pattern the highest yield advantage were also 

obtained when cassava and maize were intercropped in alternate rows. The economic analysis also indicated that the 

highest net benefit (13,715.4 birr/ha) were obtained when one maize row was grown between 2 cassava rows. 

 
Table 4. Grain yield of Maize and tuber yield of cassava (q/ha) under different intercropping pattern (mean 2005-2006) 

Treatments  Maize Cassava stand percent of maize at harvest 

1C:1M 53.11a 450.5 91.2a 

1C:2M 47.32ab 474.5 60.6b 

2C:1M 21.40c 464.5 94.7a 

2C:2M 30.08bc 470 92.4a 

Sole cassava - 502  

Sole maize 66.28a  65.1b 

Pr  

CV (%) 

0.0002 26.1 <.0001 

14.6 

             Means followed by the same letter(s) with in a are not statistical different by DMRT (P< 5%) 
             Source: AwARC [2] 

 

4.5. Cassava-Legumes Inter-Cropping 
The trial was carried out for two successive cropping seasons from 2005 to 2008 at Amaro clay loam textured 

soil with a pH of 6.5 and located in an altitude of 1400 m a.s.l. The site has bimodal rainfall with very short rain 

season starts from last week of February to end of March and the second season from September to October. The 

cassava variety used was Kelo while the four legume varieties were haricot bean (Omo-95), mung bean (boroda -1), 

soybean(Awassa 95), and cow pea ( Maze). Two rows of 40cm apart were  made between the two cassava rows to 

plant legumes with the spacing of 40cmX 10cm haricot bean, 40cmX 5cm for soy bean, 40cmX 10 for cow pea and 

40cmX 5 cm for mung bean. Both crops were planted at a time during the first shower of rainfall, February –May. 

Data of each crop were taken from 5 randomly tagged plants per experimental unit (plots). Root yield of cassava 

were weighed using spring balance during cassava harvest and grain yield of legumes also weighed using ordinary 

balance. Land equivalent ratio of cassava is calculated as intercrop yield of cassava/pure stand yield of cassava and 

that of legumes is calculated as intercrop yield of legumes/pure stand yield of legumes; The overall land equivalent 

ration (LER) is simply the sum of LER of cassava and LER of legumes. The competitive value is simply the ratio of 

the individual LER’s of the two crops. The collected data were subjected to ANOVA using SAS computer software.  

 
Table-5. Effect of intercropped grain legumes with cassava on yield of legumes kg/ha) 

Treatments  Sole yield (kg/ha) Intercrop yield (kg/ha) LER Competitive value 

Haricot Bean 3510 3222 1.09 1.49 

Cow Pea 3302 2844 0.86 1.37 

Soybean 2010 2010 1.00 2.08 

Mung Bean 1740 1948 1.12 2.24 
             Source: unpublished data 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

16 

 

Intercropping cassava with haricot bean, cowpea, soybean and mung bean, reduces cassava yield by 27%, 37%, 

52% and 50% respectively. However, intercropping cassava with haricot bean, cowpea, soybean and mung bean 

resulted in 82, 49, 48 and 62% greater land use efficiency than  for either crops grown alone.  

 
Table-6.  Agronomic performance of cassava under intercropped and sole production conditions 

Treatments Roots/ 

plant 

Root  

length(cm) 

Root diameter 

(cm) 

Biomass 

(ton/ha) 

Root yield 

(ton/ha) 

LERc LER 

Cassava + haricot bean 2.7 32 2.98 49.38b 14.81b 0.73 1.82 

Cassava + cow pea 2.7 36 3.13 35.99b 12.88c 0.63 1.49 

Cassava+ soybean 2.9 38 2.87 49.29b 9.71de 0.48 1.48 

Cassava+ mung bean 2.4 29 2.30 44.25b 10.26d 0.50 1.62 

Sole cassava 2.9 37 3.48 72.50a 20.33a   

Cv% 50.8 27.69 36.09 22.24 31.57   

LSD5% NS NS NS 13.69* 7.24*   
Note: NS = not significant, Letters in the same column= Significant at 5% probability. 

Source: unpublished data 

 

The highest value of LER was obtained by growing cassava with haricot bean (1.82) followed by cassava with 

mung bean (1.62) whereas relatively the lowest was cassava grown with soybean (1.48). Overall land equivalent 

ratio (LER) was greater than one when cassava intercropped with legumes. This suggested that the actual 

productivity was higher than expected when cassava was intercropped with grain legumes. This is so because early 

slow growth of cassava was effected by grown additional legume, cassava can maintain its maximum growth after 

component crop removal and the growth one these crops under cassava has no adverse effect on growth performance 

of each crops. land use efficiency improved by 82%  when  cassava intercropping with haricot bean  and that of 

mung bean  was by 62% and the lowest was with soybean and is by 48% which indicated that the actual productivity 

was higher than expected when cassava was intercropped with legumes. The benefit of obtaining additional legume 

grain would have positive advantage on food security and land use efficiency, especially in weed suppression and 

soil conservation in the first six months of cassava growth were slow growth of cassava could lead to such problems  

 

5. Planting Dates 
Cassava can be planted in any time of the year if moisture is available either in the soil through rainfall or 

irrigation. However, planting date trial carried out for three consecutive years showed that march to May plating is 

better than the other planting in the major cassava growing areas of Ethiopia. At planting there should be enough 

moisture to secure 80 to 90% of germination; however, if soils are waterlogged aeration and root formation were 

usually hindered. The harvesting date study revealed that the released Qule and Kele varieties could be harvested in 

18 months time. However, starch contents are higher if cassava is harvested in dry months. 

 
Table-7.  Mean of cassava root yield as affected by planting dates for three consecutive growing seasons at Amaro 

Planting dates  Mean Root yield (t/ha) 

Marketable yield Total root yield  

April 7/2000,01,02 14.85 20.52  

May 2/2000,01,02 13.42 23.07 

May 17/2000,01,02 8.91 17.83 

June 1/2000,01,02 9.77 17.41 

June 16/2000,01,02 5.25 16.05 

July 1/2000,01,02 9.51 21.48 

July 16/2000,01,02 5.78 14.7 

July 31/2000,01,02 6.53 18.92 

Aug. 15/2000,01,02 4.81 15.9 

Aug. 30/2000,01,02 2.61 14.55 

Sept. 14/2000,01,02 3.79 14.46 

Sept. 29/2000,01,02 2.46 13.04 

                  CV 10.85 16.32 

                  LSD (5%) 4.19 5.07 

                   Source: AwARC [1] 

 

6. Planting Position and Planting Materials  
The orientation of cuttings during planting depends on plant variety and environmental conditions, and 

influences numerous growth characteristics and yield.  

The study compared different planting methods. Results showed that slant and vertical plantings are suitable in Awassa 

sandy soils compared to horizontal planting. Similarly, the study revealed that planting materials shall be taken from main 

stem of cassava compared to its branches. In this study it was confirmed that the middle and top portion of the cassava stem 

produced quality planting materials that resulted in superior yield. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

17 

 

Table-8. Mean of yield components and yield of cassava at Awassa 

Position  Planting materials Root 

length cm 

Root 

diameter, 

cm 

Root 

yield 

 (t/ha) 

No. 

stems/hill 

Slant  Main stem top 29 4.5 27.5 3.2 

 Main stem middle 25.5 3.8 24.0 3 

 Main stem bottom 28.2 3.3 21.7 2.8 

 Branch stem top 35 3.8 16.7 1.8 

 Branch stem bottom 26.7 3.5 13.3 2.2 

Vertical  Main stem top 27 3.7 20.5 2.3 

 Main stem middle 25 3.5 18.7 2.8 

 Main stem bottom 26 3.7 14.4 3 

 Branch stem top 28.7 3.7 15.5 2 

 Branch stem bottom 24.8 3 16.7 2 

Horizontal  Main stem top 21.5 3.2 9.1 3.8 

 Main stem middle 21.5 2.7 11.4 3.5 

 Main stem bottom 22.2 2.8 6.9 3 

 Branch stem top 26.8 3.8 11.5 2.3 

 Branch stem bottom 25.2 3.8 9.9 2.2 

 LSD PP X PM (0.05) NS NS 6.64 NS 

 Planting position (0.05) 2.99 NS 2.97 0.33 

 Planting parts (0.05) 3.86 3.4 3.83 0.43 

 CV (%) 22.07 25.38 46.18 24.09 
                  Source: Legesse, et al. [6] 

  

7. Land Preparation Methods 
Flat, furrow and ridge planting were compared under different plant density scenarios at Amaro. Results showed that 

furrow and ridge planting produced comparable results of 48t/ha and 43t/ha compared to 38t/ha produced by flat plantings. 

This might be due to reaped advantage of moisture conservation that subsequently manifested in wider canopy diameter, root 

length and diameter of cassava. However, manual harvesting required deeper digging, more labor and time in furrow planting 

compared to others. Therefore, planting cassava in a ridge was recommended in Amaaro Kele area.  

 
Table-9. Mean of root yield of cassava as affected by land preparation methods at Amaro 

Kele 

 

 

 

   

 
                                                     

                                                            Source: Gobeze, et al. [3] 

 

8. Conclusions 
Cassava is produced in diverse ecological systems for multiple purposes in Ethiopia. This diversity and 

multiplicity coupled with site specificity of soils and climate related parameters makes generalization of agronomic 

recommendations difficult. However, specific recommendations were made on similar edaphic and agro-ecological 

conditions. Results showed that cassava can be grown easily under variable climatic and edaphic conditions. 

When cassava is intercropped with legumes, the cassava root yield generally decreases compared with when 

cassava is planted alone. This is due to the competition of the component crops for light, water and nutrients. 

However, cassava-legume intercropping systems usually increase the land use efficiency and economic return over 

solely grown cassava. These advantages can occur as a result of complementary use of growth resources such as 

nutrients, water and light by the component crops. The yield advantage may be in terms of higher yield or higher net 

income. It could further be explained that the yield can be quantified in terms of dry matter production, grain or root 

yields, nutrient uptake, energy or protein production and market value. 

 

9. Future Research Directions 
Strategic cropping system integration should be sought particularly with climbing beans, cow pea and mung 

beans to allow green manuring, residue cover, residue incorporation, atmospheric nitrogen fixation and enhance 

cassava and component crop productivity besides breaking disease and insect pest cycles. 

Herbicides should be screened for early stage of cassava growth for sedges management as cassava does not 

tolerate weed effects at early stage of growths.  

Further studies on fertilizer requirements, plant density, land preparation, planting positions and harvesting 

methods shall be carried out under irrigated and mechanized farming conditions.  

 

References 
[1] AwARC, Progress report of horticultural section division for the year 2003. Awassa, Ethiopia: AwARC, 2005. 

[2] AwARC, Progress report of agronomy & crop physiology division for the year 2004. Awassa, Ethiopia: AwARC, 2005. 

[3] L. Gobeze, H. Legese, and M. Daniel, "Effect of land preparation methods and spacing in growth and yield of cassava," in 

Proceedings of African Society of Crop Sciences, 2007, pp. 68-72. 

Land preparation methods Cassava yield (t/ha) 

Ridge  27 a 

Furrow 21 ab 

Flat 19 b 

LSD (5%)          7 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2016, 3(1): 12-18 

 

 

 

 

18 

 

[4] M. Daniel, L. Gobeze, and H. Legesse, "Effects of inter and intra row spacing on growth and yield of cassava (Manhot Esculenta 

Cranz) in Fluvisols of Southern Ethiopia," in Proceedings of Horticultural Science Society of Ethiopia, 2009. 

[5] L. Gobeze, H. Legesse, and M. Daniel, "Effect of inter and intra row spacing on yield and yield components of cassava in moisture 

stress areas," in Proceedings of African Crop Science Society, 2005, pp. 147-150. 

[6] H. Legesse, L. Gobeze, A. Shegro, and N. Geleta, "Impact of planting position and planting material on root yield of cassava," 

Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology USA, vol. 5, pp. 448-454, 2011. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the 

content. Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 


