




































 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 6(1) (2022), 26-30  

26 

 

      AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 

                                                               AIJAS VOL 6 NO 1 (2022) P-ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 
                                                  

                                                                                                                        Available online at www.acseusa.org      

                                                                                                                                     Journal homepage: https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas 
                                                                                                                                         Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

PRODUCTION OF WATERLEAF IN A SOIL AND SOILLESS SYSTEMS 

USING SINGLE AND DOUBLE NODE CUTTINGS 

 

 Chukwunalu Okolie Ossai  (a)1   Ayinde Mudashir Morakinyo (b )   Oyeyemi Azeez (c)    Stephanie Clara Akpeji (d)    

 

(a) Research Associate, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria; E-mail: ossaichukwunalu1@gmail.com 
(b) Postgraduate Fellow, Crop Protection and Environmental Biology Department, University of Ibadan, Nigeria; E-mail: ayindemorakinyo@gmail.com 
(c) Seed Manager, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria; E-mail: o.azeez@cgiar.org 
(d) Lecturer, Microbiology Department, Novena University, Ogume, Delta State, Nigeria; E-mail: akpejistephanie@gmail.com 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
 

 

Article History: 
 

Received: 9th September 2022  

Accepted: 20th October 2022 

Online Publication: 29th October 2022 

 

Keywords: 

Talinum Triangulare, Substrates, Soil Farming, 

Nodal Cuttings 

 

JEL Classification Codes:  

       

Q16 

 

 
 

 

  

 
A B S T R A C T 

 
The general acceptability of waterleaf and its profitability as a vegetable has promoted its high demand 

in Nigeria. However, rural farmers depend on conventional farming systems for production with a low 

output. This calls for an alternative technique besides the conventional method to boost production and 

meet market demand. This study, therefore, evaluated the yield response of waterleaf cuttings to soil and 

soilless systems. Single and double nodal cuttings were cut from one-month-old waterleaf plants and 

planted in 4 kg cocopeat substrate and topsoil each, mixed with 250 g poultry manure each and arranged 

in a 2 (level of nodal cuttings) by 2 (substrate) factorial experiment laid in a completely randomized 
design with three replicates in 2 cycles. The plants were watered every other day. At harvest, data were 

collected on the Root Weight (RW), Shoot Weight (SW), and Leaf Weight (LW). Data collected were 

analyzed using ANOVA and differences in means were separated using least significance differences at 

5% significance level. The substrate type was insignificant in the growth and yield parameters. However, 

the RW, SW and LW differed significantly between the nodal cuttings and ranged from 9.1±2.8 g to 

21.2±2.8 g, 12.0±4.5 g to 27.0±4.5 g and 10.7±3.1 g to 21.9±3.1 g, respectively in the first cycle. The 

RW, SW and LW, also ranged from 10.1±1.8 g to 20.5±1.8 g, 12.7±3.0 g to 24.8±3.0 g, and 11.7±3.0 g 

to 23.7±3.0 g in the second cycle of production. 
 

 

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open-access article distributed under 

the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).                           

 

INTRODUCTION 

Waterleaf (Talinum triangulare) is a leafy vegetable that originated from tropical Africa and grown in many countries 

including Asia, South America and West Africa (Tindall, 1983). Urban residents usually see it as a weed during the raining 

season because of its widening survival range. Like other leafy vegetables, it is widely cultivated in home garden to improve 

nutritional deficiency of less privilege family and mostly consumed in the southern part of Nigeria (Udoh et al., 2005). It 

plays a major role in eradicating malnutrition in Africa because it is a rich source of calcium, phosphorous, iron, protein and 

vitamins (Tata et al., 2016).  

The nutritional value and the affordability of the crop have made its demand higher among other common staple 

fibrous leafy vegetables. In southern Nigeria, it is used as herb for treating ailments and contagious diseases including 

measles and stomach upsets (Udoh et al., 2005). It performs well as fodder for raising giant snails (Ebenso & Okafor, 2002). 

Waterleaf is an important vegetable both as food and as raw materials for industries, which also serves for economic interest 

(Nya et al., 2010). In the past, the consumption of vegetable in Nigeria had been on the increase and currently estimated 

between 22 and 47.5 kg/person/year. The general acceptability of the vegetable by all classes of people and its profitability 

among other vegetables has promoted its cultivation by unemployment youths and the women of the rural population in the 

southern part of Nigeria. 

In West Africa, forecasters indicate that the urban population will reach 63% by 2050, enhancing the needs for 

effective urban and sub-urban agricultural production systems to complement rural systems. In addition, cultivation of this 

crop may provide additional income especially for female farmers. This therefore calls for a technique, beside conventional 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1924-5855 

© 2022 by the authors. Hosting by ACSE. Peer review under responsibility of American Center of Science and Education, USA.  

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v6i1.265 

 
To cite this article: Ossai, C. O. ., Morakinyo , A. M. ., Azeez , O. ., & Akpeji , S. C. . (2022). PRODUCTION OF WATERLEAF IN A SOIL AND 

SOILLESS SYSTEMS USING SINGLE AND DOUBLE NODE CUTTINGS. American International Journal of Agricultural Studies, 6(1). 

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v6i1.265 

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v6i1.265
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1924-5855
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1545-6698
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5697-4897
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2191-8032


Ossai et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 6(1) (2022), 26-30 

  

27 
 

method, which serves as alternative for massive production of waterleaf to meet the larger population as earlier projected. 

With the current security challenges in Nigeria coupled with urbanization, the call for the adoption of hydroponics system 

at home garden becomes increasingly relevant to meet the demand for vegetables in the country. This study therefore 

evaluated the morphological and yield response of waterleaf cuttings to soil and soilless systems. 

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Experimental setup 

Buffered cocopeat substrate (5 kg block form) were purchased from Afri-Agri Company in Lagos State, Nigeria. The 

cocopeat was dissolved in 30 litres of water and poured into 12 hydroponics troughs of 8 litre capacity. Another twelve (12) 

troughs were filled with topsoil. Single and double node vine cuttings of one-month-old growing waterleaf plants were 

harvested. The vines were planted in the soil and soilless (cocopeat) troughs. Each substrate in the troughs were mixed 

thoroughly with 250 g poultry manure. The plants were watered three times a week for four (4) weeks before harvesting. 

The experiment was carried out twice. 

 

Experimental design 

The experiment was a 2 (number of nodes) by 2 (substrate) factorial laid in a completely randomized design and replicated 

three times. 

 

Data Collection and Statistical Analysis 

Bi-weekly, morphological data were taken on the plant height (cm), internode length (cm), number of leaves, and number 

of nodes, while at harvest, the number of new leaves, number of flowers and plant weight were collected. Data collected 

were analysed using analysis of variance (SAS 9.0 version) and differences in treatment means were separated using least 

significant differences at 5% level of significance. 

 

RESULTS 

Plant Height (cm) 

Table 1 shows that there were no significant differences between the substrates, nodal explants and the interaction between 

the substrates and nodal explants on the plant height in the first cycle of cultivation. However, at two weeks after planting, 

the height of waterleaf plants grown in the cocopeat substrate (22.67±1.37) cm was significantly taller than the ones grown 

in the soil (15.42±1.37) cm in the second growing circle.  

 

Number of Nodes 
On the number of nodes, there were no significant differences between the substrates, nodal explants and the interaction 

between the substrates and nodal explants on the nodal production by the plants in both first and second cycle of cultivation 

(Table 2). 

 

Table 1. Effect of substrates and explants nodal level in the height of waterleaf plants 

 
Substrates Plant height (cm) 

Cycle one Cycle two 

Two weeks Four weeks Two weeks Four weeks 

Cocopeat 22.70a 31.83a 22.67a 29.67a 

Topsoil 14.20a 28.17a 15.42b 27.33a 

LSD(0.05) 9.32 13.4 4.46 11.75 

SE 2.86 4.11 1.37 3.6      

SubxNodes 122.88ns 96.33ns 117.19* 16.33ns      

Double 19.12a 32.33a 19.25a 31.00a 

Single 17.78a 27.67a 18.33a 26.00a 

LSD(0.05) 9.32 13.4 4.46 11.75 

SE 2.86 4.11 1.37 3.6 

Means with the same alphabet down the groups are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. LSD: Lead Significant 

Differences, SE: Standard Error, SubxNodes: Substrate by Nodes Interaction 

 

Table 2. Effect of substrates and explants nodal level in the number of nodes produced by waterleaf plants 

 
Substrates Number of nodes 

Cycle one Cycle two 

Two weeks Four weeks Two weeks Four weeks 

Cocopeat 13.00a 32.00a 17.17a 28.50a 

Topsoil 6.50a 24.50a 10.83a 21.67a 

LSD(0.05) 7.82 12.15 6.49 19 

SE 2.39 4.02 1.99 5.83      

SubxNodes 36.75ns 154.08ns 21.33ns 114.08ns      



Ossai et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 6(1) (2022), 26-30 

  

28 
 

Double 12.00a 39.67a 17.83a 32.83a 

Single 7.50a  16.83a 10.17b 17.33a 

LSD(0.05) 7.82 12.15 6.49 19 

SE 2.4 4.02 1.99 5.83 

Means with the same alphabet down the groups are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. LSD: Lead Significant 
Differences, SE: Standard Error, SubxNodes: Substrate by Nodes Interaction 

 

Number of Leaves 

There were no significant differences between the substrates, nodal explants and the interaction between the substrates and 

nodal explants on the number of leaves produced by the waterleaf plants in the first cycle of cultivation (Table 3). However, 

in the second production cycle, the plants grown in the cocopeat substrate produced significantly higher number of leaves 

(19.17±2.07) than the ones grown in topsoil (6.76±2.07). 

 

Internodes (cm) 

There were no significant differences between the substrates, nodal explants and the interaction between the substrates and 

nodal explants on the internodes of the waterleaf plants in both first and second cycle of cultivation (Table 4). 

 

Biomass (g) 

Table 5 showed that in both first and second growing cycles; the double node planting explants produced heavier roots 

(21.15±9.05) g, (20.48±1.76) g compared to the single node cut explants with root weights of 9.05±2.76 g and 10.07±1.76 

g, respectively. The stem weight of the double node cut explants in the first (26.97±4.49) and second (24.82±2.96) g cycles 

were significantly heavier than the single node cut vines that produced 12.02±4.49 g in first cycle and 12.68±2.96 g, 

respectively. The leaf weight produced by the double node cut vines in first cycle (21.88±3.06) g and second cycle 

(23.72±2.98) g were significantly heavier than the double node cut vines in the first cycle (10.65±3.06) and second cycle 

(11.68±2.98) g, respectively. 

 

Table 3. Effect of substrates and explants nodal level in the number of leaves produced by waterleaf plants 

 

Substrates Number of leaves 

Cycle one Cycle two 

Two weeks Four weeks Two weeks Four weeks 

Cocopeat 16.33a 31.17a 19.17a 31.00a 

Topsoil 11.17a 26.67a 6.76b 25.00a 

LSD(0.05) 10.97 16.42 6.76 19.87 

SE 3.36 5.25 2.07 6.09      

SubxNodes 30.08ns 216.75ns 21.33* 147.00ns      

Double 16.50a 39.50a 19.33a 35.83a 

Single 11.00a 18.33a 11.67b 20.17a 

LSD(0.05) 10.97 16.42 6.76 19.87 

SE 3.36 5.25 2.07 6.09 
Means with the same alphabet down the groups are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. LSD: Lead Significant 

Differences, SE: Standard Error, SubxNodes: Substrate by Nodes Interaction 

 

Table 4. Effect of substrates and explants nodal level in the internodes of waterleaf plants 

 
Substrates Internode length (cm) 

Cycle one Cycle two 

Two weeks Four weeks Two weeks Four weeks 

Cocopeat 2.87a 3.83a 1.90a 2.08a 

Topsoil 2.43a 2.90a 1.87a 2.05a 

LSD(0.05) 1.4 1.15 0.69 0.65 

SE 0.43 0.35 0.21 0.2      

SubxNodes 0.16ns 0.05ns 0.03ns 0.003ns      

Double 3.00a 3.37a 2.00a 2.13a 

Single 2.30a 3.37a 1.77a 2.00a 

LSD(0.05) 1.4 1.15 0.69 0.65 

SE 0.43 0.35 0.21 0.2 

Means with the same alphabet down the groups are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. LSD: Lead Significant 

Differences, SE: Standard Error, SubxNodes: Substrate by Nodes Interaction 

 
 

 

 



Ossai et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 6(1) (2022), 26-30 

  

29 
 

Table 5.  Effect of substrates and explants nodal level in the biomass of waterleaf plants 

 
Substrates Root weight (g) Stem weight (g) Leaf weight (g) 

Cycle one  Cycle two Cycle one  Cycle two Cycle one  Cycle two 

Cocopeat 16.58a 17.07a 20.98a 21.57a 17.08a 20.25a 

Topsoil 13.62a 13.48a 18.00a 15.93a 15.45a 15.15a 

LSD(0.05) 8.99 5.74 14.66 9.65 9.97 9.73 

SE 2.76 1.76 4.49 2.96 3.06 2.98        

SubxNodes 2.25ns 2.17ns 5.47ns 17.28ns 0.01ns 15.41ns        

Double 21.15a 20.48a 26.97a 24.82a 21.88a 23.72a 

Single 9.05b 10.07b 12.02b 12.68b 10.65b 11.68b 

LSD(0.05) 8.99 5.74 14.66 9.65 9.97 9.73 

SE 2.76 1.76 4.49 2.96 3.06 2.98 

Means with the same alphabet down the groups are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance. LSD: Lead Significant 

Differences, SE: Standard Error, SubxNodes: Substrate by Nodes Interaction 

 

DISCUSSIONS 

The findings of this study showed that the waterleaf plants grew at same rate (considering the agronomic parameters) in 

both the soil and soilless systems and the nodal explant levels in both cycles of production. This might be a result of the 

fertigation with poultry manure, which allowed the plants access to adequate nutrient for growth and development in both 

systems. Several research has established the usefulness of cocopeat substrate as a sufficient substrate for growing 

vegetables (Ahmad et al., 2011) as cocopeat substrate has high aeration capacity which allows easy root penetrations (Abad 

et al., 2002). 

Vine cutting technology has become a common system of multiplying vegetative propagated crops (Essilfie et al., 

2016) of which waterleaf can be propagated through in addition to seeds. In the first two weeks of growth, the double node 

explants outgrew the single node cuttings in the second production cycle. However, at the fourth week of growth, the single 

node cuttings grew at same rate with the double node cuttings. This shows that the double node cuttings established faster 

than the single nodal cuttings, but considering propagation ratios, the single node cuttings is higher. The findings of this 

research supports the work of Dumbuya et al. (2017). 

The growth substrates had no effect on the biomass produced by the waterleaf plants in the two production cycles. 

Sarwar et al. (2018) had earlier reported the non-significance between topsoil and cocopeat in the production of vegetables. 

However, the double node cut vines produced heavier biomass in terms of root weight, stem weight and especially the leaf 

weight which is predominantly consumed by humans as vegetable soup and animals as folder. The double node cut explants 

benefitted from the early establishment in the accumulation of biomass compared to the single node cut explants. This 

supports the findings of Essilfie et al. (2016). 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

Both soil and soilless systems of cultivating waterleaf supported the production in the two cycles. However, there were no 

difference between the nodal explants on the agronomic parameters but the double node cuttings had an improved biomass 

production relative to the single node cut explants. Hence, waterleaf can be produced conveniently at ones convenience in 

the home garden to boost its availability. 

 
 

 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.O.O. and A.M.M.; Methodology, C.O.O. and A.M.M; Software, C.O.O. and A.M.M; Validation, C.O.O. 

and A.M.M; Formal Analysis, C.O.O. and A.M.M.; Investigation, C.O.O. and A.M.M.; Resources, C.O.O. and A.M.M.; Data Curation, C.O.O. and 
A.M.M.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, C.O.O., A.M.M., O.A. and S.C.A.; Writing – Review & Editing, C.O.O., A.M.M., O.A. and S.C.A.; 

Visualization, C.O.O., A.M.M., O.A. and S.C.A.; Supervision, C.O.O.; Project Administration, C.O.O.; Funding Acquisition, C.O.O., A.M.M., O.A. and 

S.C.A. Authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. 

Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to that the research does not deal with vulnerable 

groups or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 

Acknowledgments: N/A. 

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available 

due to restrictions. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

 

REFERENCES 

Abad, M., Noguera, P., Puchades, R., Maquieira, A., & Noguera, V. (2002). Physico-chemical and chemical properties of 

some coconut coir dusts for use as a peat substitute for containerised ornamental plants. Bioresource technology, 

82(3), 241-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00189-4 

Ahmad, M. G., Hassan, B., & Mehrdad, J. (2011). Effect of some culture substrates (date-palm peat, cocopeat and perlite) 

on some growing indices and nutrient elements uptake in greenhouse tomato. African Journal of Microbiology 

Research, 5(12), 1437-1442. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJMR10.786 



Ossai et al., American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 6(1) (2022), 26-30 

  

30 
 

Dumbuya, G., Sarkodie-Addo, J., Daramy, M. A., & Jalloh, M. (2017). Effect of vine cutting length and potassium fertilizer 

rates on sweet potato growth and yield components. International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 7(4), 88-

94. https://doi.org/10.5923/j.ijaf.20170704.02 

Ebenso, I. E., & Okafor, N. M. (2002). Alternative diets for growing Archachatina marginata snails in south-eastern Nigeria. 

Tropical science, 42(3), 144-145. Retrived from https://europepmc.org/article/AGR/IND23303852 

Essilfie, M. E., Dapaah, H. K., Tevor, J. W., & Darkwa, K. (2016). Number of nodes and part of vine cutting effect on the 

growth and yield of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) in transitional zone of Ghana. International Journal 

of Plant & Soil Science, 9(5), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.9734/IJPSS/2016/22776 

Nya, E. J., Okorie, N. U., & Eka, M. J. (2010). An economic analysis of Talinum triangulare (Jacq.) production/farming in 

Southern Nigeria. Trends in Agricultural Economics, 3(2), 79-93. https://doi.org/10.3923/tae.2010.79.93 

Sarwar, M. S., Niazi, M. B. K., Jahan, Z., Ahmad, T., & Hussain, A. (2018). Preparation and characterization of 

PVA/nanocellulose/Ag nanocomposite films for antimicrobial food packaging. Carbohydrate Polymers, 184, 453-

464. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.12.068 

Tata, P. I., Afari-Sefa, V., Ntsomboh-Ntsefong, G., Ngome, A. F., Okolle, N. J., & Billa, S. F. (2016). Policy and institutional 

frameworks impacting on vegetable seed production and distribution systems in Cameroon. Journal of Crop 

Improvement, 30(2), 196-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427528.2016.1141134 

Tindall, H. D. (1983). Vegetable in the Tropics. Macmillan Press Ltd. London.UK. Pp. 342-346. 

Udoh, J., Ndon, B. A., Asuquo, P. E., & Ndaeyo, N. U. (2005). Crop production techniques for the tropics concept 

publications limited. Munshin, Lagos Nigeria, 101-106. 

 
 

 

Publisher’s Note: ACSE stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons 

Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 

American International Journal of Agricultural Studies (P-ISSN 2641-4155 E-ISSN 2641-418X) by ACSE is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 4.0 International License. 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

