







































 

 

 
31 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

ARCHITECTURAL RESPONSES OF CASHEW TO INTERCROPPING AND 
NUTRITIONAL AMENDMENTS IN NIGERIAN GUINEA SAVANNA AGRO ECOLOGY   

 

 

Nduka B. A.1+ 
Agele S. O.2  
Adewale B.D3 

 

1Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria Idi-Ayunre, Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria. 
Email: beatricenduka@yahoo.com Tel: +2348029592716 
2Department of Crop, Soil and Pest Management, Federal University of 
Technology, Akure, Nigeria. 
Email: Agele_ohiagele@yahoo.com Tel: +23480357847161 
3Department of Crop Science and Horticulture, Federal University Oye-Ekiti, 
Ikole-Ekiti Campus, Nigeria. 
Email: Adewale_d.adewale@gmail.com Tel: +2348039228085 

 

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 8 February 2022 
Revised: 16 March 2022 
Accepted: 31 March 2022 
Published: 14 April 2022  
 

Keywords 
Bambara 
Canopy 
Cashew 
Sesame 
Intercropping 
Fertilizer. 

 
Field experiment was conducted at Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria sub-station 
Ochaja, to evaluate the impact of manure and intercrops on cashew tree growth, canopy 
development and yield. Treatments consisted of Bambara and Sesame intercrops and 
manuring using Cocoa pod husk (CPH) and NPK fertilizer applied at the rate of 0, 
1,713kg and 400kg/ha respectively. The experiment was laid out in a split-split plot 
design with three replications and monitored within the two years of study. Data 
collected includes: Plant height, Stem girth and canopy North-South/East-West 
direction. These was used to calculate: crown diameter, canopy spread, canopy volume, 
canopy ground cover and canopy ground cover percentage. The results showed that the 
growth characters of Cashew were positively influenced by alley crops of Sesame and 
Bambara nut and manuring. Manuring with CPH exerted differences in the responses of 
cashew to alley crops, in particular, canopy development. Intercropping with a 
combination of bambara-sesame and the application of NPK fertilizer proved to have the 
highest Cashew growth development but showed no significant differences on the yield 
and yield attribute. The GGE biplot results identified the best intercrop system for each 
of the three-fertilizer type treatment. Within the two years of the experiment, Cashew 
development was not hampered by the introduction of the different intercropping 
systems.  
 

Contribution/Originality: This study contributes to understanding compatibility of cashew with bambara-nut 

and sesame, generate information on the impacts of Canopy development on morphological and physiological traits 

associated with the productivity of these arable crops in Nigeria; and improved insight into the biophysical 

competitive interactions for growth resources. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.) plantation are usually established at varied spacing pattern. Amongst the most 

commonly used spacing pattern in Nigeria are: 6-meter x 6 meter (low spacing) and 9 meters’ x 9 meters (wider 

spacing). Within two to five initial years of establishment Cashew canopy are yet unclosed. The moisture and nutrient 

resources of the plantation within this period are not optimally unutilized. Moreover, management expenses are 

usually incurred during the period, yet the spaces left unused can be productively and economically utilized. 

Alley intercropping within rows of Cashew plants can recycle nutrients from the deeper layer of the soil and 

utilize other growth resources because the leaf canopy may not cover quickly [1, 2].  However, a successful cultivation 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2022 Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 31-43. 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI:  10.18488/cras.v9i1.2964 
© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

mailto:beatricenduka@yahoo.com
mailto:Agele_ohiagele@yahoo.com
mailto:Adewale_d.adewale@gmail.com
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v9i1.2964


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
32 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

of Cashew with food crop intercropping system will depend on whether the food crops compete with the young 

Cashew plants for growth resources [1]. Other reports confirmed that these types of intercrops help to bridge the 

‘lag phase’ and can also have direct advantages on the initial development of the tree crops [3]. Canopy development 

is a fundamental process in tree crops. From many reports [4-6], significant positive ccorrelations exists between 

tree growth and canopy size, stem diameter, canopy size and planting density. Tree canopy size is a function of 

individual tree’s photosynthetic capacity. Moreover, the climate has modulating effect on tree canopy. It is noteworthy 

that the rate of canopy growth in Cashew determines how rapid the tree enters the economic production phase [7]. 

Cashew nut production gradually starts after three years of establishment and sole dependence on cashew production 

within the earlier years of establishment is unsustainable to the low-income farmers. Therefore, the involvement of 

other crops in a developing Cashew plantation is an economically viable programme leading to a productive utilization 

of the uncropped spaces before the canopy closes. This practice will enhance biodiversity, encourage positive 

interactions at the rhizosphere and reduce input requirements. The efficiency of resources use from the Cashew 

intercrop depends on the timing of the canopy closure. It is therefore imperative that intercropping Cashew plant 

with annual crops such as Bambara nut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) And Sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) will provide 

a practice which will utilize the resources of land for production gain by the farmers in the Guinea savanna of Nigeria. 

In such intercropping system, the morphology and physiology of the impacts of each species in the system and the 

interaction among all the involved species can be monitor. While there could be competition in the rhizospere, natural 

nutrient improvement could be possible especially with Bambara nut, a Nitrogen-fixing legume. However, to forestall 

a sustainable system for optimum productivity from the intercropping system, nutrient amendments an organic and 

inorganic nutrient was equally incorporated in the present study. The present study therefore was proposed to 

understand compatibility of Cashew with some selected arable and identify how external nutrient amendment can 

enhance the growth, development and archi- canopy parameters of Cashew in the plantation.  

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS  

Experiments were conducted between 2013 and 2014 cropping seasons at the experimental plot of the Cocoa 

Research Institute of Nigeria (CRIN) Sub-Station, Ochaja (Latitude 7o461N - 7o521 and longitudes 6o381E – 6o481) 

Kogi State, Nigeria. The location is in the Southern Guinea Savanna Agro-ecological zone of Nigeria. The experiment 

was conducted within an already established three-year-old Cashew plantation. The established Cashew genotype in 

the plot was Jumbo which was planted 6m x 6m and replicated three times. One hundred and forty-four Cashew 

plants were involved in this experiment. The factors which comprised the treatments were three: five quarters of data 

measurements, three fertilizer types (Control, Cocoa Pod Husk manure applied at 0, 1,713kg/ha and NPK fertilizer 

applied at 400kg/ha) and four intercrop systems which were Cashew-sole, Cashew-Bambara nut, Cashew-Sesame and 

Cashew-Bambara nut-Sesame. The experiment was arranged in a Split-split plot design with periodic quarterly data 

measurements, the fertilizer type and intercrop systems as treatment factors occurring in the main and sub-plot and 

sub-sub plot respectively.  Management practises were applied uniformly for all the treatments, for the cashew plants 

pruning and training was gone prior to the introduction of the intercrop. Data collection on plant height and trunk 

girth were at five intervals for 15 months within the two years of study.  Data relating to canopy measurement 

includes: Crown diameter which was estimated as the mean values of diametric length of the ground space occupied 

by the cashew tree measured in two directions, the “North-South Spread” and “East- West Spread”. Canopy spread 

(Cs), the multiplicative values of “North-South (NS), Spread and East-West (EW) Spread” was calculated as: 

𝐶𝑠 = 𝑁𝑆 𝑋 𝐸𝑊                                                                                                                                 (1) 

Where: Cs= canopy spread, NS= North-South spread diameter, EW= East-West spread diameter. 

Canopy volume (CV) (m3) was estimated following the equation given by Turell [8] as:  

CV = 0.5236 × H × D                                                                                                                       (2) 

Where: CV = Canopy Volume (m3), 0.5236 = a constant, H = Tree height, D = Tree diameter. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
33 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

The ground coverage of cashew by the canopy was estimated following the procedure used by Tripathy, et al. [9] 

as:                     

Radius of canopy (m) = 𝑟2 =
(D1 +D2)

3
                                                                                                    (3) 

 Where: D1= Canopy spread in E-W direction (m), D2 = Canopy diameter in N-S direction (m), 3 = Number of 

replications. The Percentage ground coverage according to Tripathy, et al. [9]. 

Ground coverage % by canopy (m2) = 
 𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑏𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑜𝑝𝑦(𝑟)

𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑
                                                    (4) 

Where: Actual ground cover = Plant Spacing (6m x 6m) / 10000                                                    (5) 

All data were subjected to analysis of variance using [10]. Means of the three main effects were separated by 

honestly significant difference of Tukey. Moreover, variables with significant fertilizer type x Intercrop system 

interaction were partitioned by “which-won-where” option of the GGE biplot in GEA-R [11].   

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

From Table 1, all the variables were significant (P ≤ 0.001) at the main plot except plant girth. However, 

significant (P ≤ 0.05) differences existed for canopy volume, crown diameter, canopy spread and canopy radius at the 

sub plot treatment level. Moreover, only canopy North-South direction, crown diameter and canopy spread showed 

significance (P≤0.05) at the sub-sub plot treatment Table 1. In this study, fertilizer application and intercropping 

pattern supported the growth parameters of Cashew trees in the plantation. Similar results were reported by Chifflot, 

et al. [12] on nitrogen status of young wild cherry and hybrid walnut trees.  More so among the various interactions, 

only the interaction between fertilizer type and intercrop type showed significance (P ≤ 0.05) for stem girth, canopy 

volume, canopy East-West, North-South, crown diameter and canopy spread Table 1. Contrary to the above, the 

report of Figueirêdo, et al. [13] on a dwarf Cashew life cycle assessment, noted a decrease in need for mineral 

fertilization, hence, there would be need for fertilization modification to suit various soil types.  

The results in this study showed that there was an increase in growth parameters measured at three months’ 

interval after the introduction of the Bambara and Sesame intercrops. The developments of Cashew with respect to: 

canopy volume, canopy N-S direction, Crown diameter, canopy spread, canopy radius, canopy ground cover and 

percentage canopy ground cover had no competitive interactions with the intercrops. This seems to imply that 

Cashew trees may have benefited directly or indirectly from the understory crops in terms of nutrient capturing which 

were noticed at 3 - 6 months after the introduction of intercropping. In Table 2, at 3 months after sesame was sown 

into Cashew alley, there were no significant difference (P<0.05) among the Cashew plant height, girth and canopy 

East-West direction spread. However, the canopy volume, canopy North-South direction, crown diameter, canopy 

spread, canopy radius, canopy ground cover and canopy ground cover % significantly increased at P < 0.05 in the un-

manure Cashew-Sesame plots Table 2. The trees had not closed the canopy, but it appears to have created a spread 

in terms of canopy development. According to Heywood [14], Cashew tree may grow up to as much as 15 meters 

tall and its roots may extend 20–60m from the trunks. Sesame on the other hand is beneficial to the soil, Tanja [15] 

noted that the incorporation of the Sesame in a crop rotation system improved tillage and reduced the presence of 

soil parasitic nematodes. The use of Bambara-Cashew intercrops and the application of CPH and NPK fertilizer 

enhanced the North-South canopy direction at 3-6 months after intercropping Table 3. At 9 months both treatments 

rates acted similarly expect for canopy volume and canopy East-west which was significantly higher (P<0.05) with 

the CPH manure treatment. At 12 months after the sowing of Bambara-Cashew intercrop and CPH into the cashew 

alley the canopy structure had significantly (P<0.05) higher values compare to the NPK and un-manure treatment 

plant; this continued consistently to the 15th months Table 3. Bambara is not a deep feeder of the soil nutrient. 

However, its beneficial contributions to the soil being a legume is by biological fixation of Nitrogen, according to 

Mkandawire [16]; Yakubu, et al. [17] stated in their report that Bambara groundnuts also fixes Phosphorus in the 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
34 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

soil. Encouraging the association of legumes with cashew plants was noted to reduce weed competition and hence 

herbicides usage, apart from increasing soil carbon, organic matter, and nutrient content [18]. 

The interactions between Cashew-Bambara and Sesame in Table 4 did not significantly influence the 

performances of Cashew, meaning that the response of each of the measured characters was independent of the 

interactions of the factors but the main effect of each. The effect of the intercrop in Cashew alley though not significant 

but not negative; Cashew growth and its canopy developments at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 months after intercropping 

continued in sequence consistently.  Reason could be linked to the report of Jabbar, et al. [19] who stated that plants 

grow simultaneously with least competition whenever the two crops differ in height, canopy, adaptation, and growth 

habits.  Apart from Canopy north-south direction at 3 and 15months, all Cashew growth parameters had a higher 

value under the CPH fertilizer treatment compared to NPK fertilizer treatments. Cashew architectural parameters at 

9 and 12 months were similar, and responses was better in CPH Table 4 compare to NPK and control treatments.  

The ten vegetative parameters Table 5 reflected the trend in the growth pattern of cashew. The significant 

(P<0.05) least values were in the earliest period of measurement (i.e. 3 Months after planting) while the highest 

significant (P≤0.05) values of performance occurred at 12 months after planting Table 5. Addition of organic fertilizer 

(cocoa pod husk) or inorganic (NPK) level lead to the significant (P≤0.05) increased in performance of seven traits 

except plant height, girth and canopy volume Table 5. Canopy East-West, North-South, crown diameter, canopy 

spread, canopy radius, ground cover and ground cover percentage had significant (P≤0.05) increased performance 

when cashew was sown in sole and under an intercrop with Bambara nut and Sesame combination Table 5. It’s worthy 

to note that the beneficial effect of manuring and other management practices in the interspaces of Cashew plants, 

like the application of CPH manure to sole Bambara and a combination of Bambara and Sesame plants in the Cashew 

alley improved the percentage canopy ground cover at the 15th month. This increases could be due to the Nitrogen 

fixing ability of Bambara which may have influenced the cashew tree vegetative growth. However, Contrary to the 

growth pattern observed in this study, the application of manure to the intercrops had no significant influence on 

cashew yield and its attribute as showed in Table 6 but a higher values of the study parameters was obtained when 

fertilizers was applied compare to the control. Similarly, Ratha and Swain [20] recorded highest growth and fruit 

number for mango based intercropping with French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), followed by cowpea (Vigna 

unguiculata) plant. Pawar, et al. [21] equally obtained higher growth and yield attributes for mango when it was 

intercropped with soybean (Glycine max).  The treatment of the fertilizer types as environments and the intercropping 

systems as genotypes in this study was deliberately necessary to be able to partition and understand the observed 

significance of the interaction of the two factors from the analysis of variance using the GGE biplot. The “which-

won-where” option lead to the identification of the best intercrop system for each of the three levels of fertilizers.   

The “which-won-where” pattern of figuration in Figure 1 environment showed a trapezium with four sectors. Factors 

1 and 2 gave 100% explanation of the interaction for girth. For the control environment, the vertex (best) treatment 

was in treatment 3, i.e. Cashew + Sesame. For CPH and NPK environment, Figure 1 their vertices treatments were 

in treatments 4 (Cashew-Bambara-Sesame) and 1 (Cashew-sole) respectively.  A triangular “which-won-where” view 

was observed in the intercrop factors for Cashew canopy volume development Figure 2. However, the control 

environment was the same to what was observed in Figure 1, with its vertex treatment being in treatment 3 (i.e. 

Cashew + Sesame).  The vertex treatments for CPH and NPK were shown in treatments 2 and 1 (i.e. Cashew-Bambara 

and Cashew sole) respectively Figure 2. In Figure 3 the “which-won-where” pattern of figuration showed a trapezium 

view for canopy East West direction and the control environment vertex treatments was seen in treatment 3 i.e. 

Cashew-Sesame.  For CPH and NPK environment in Figure 3, their vertices were in treatments 4 at the North-South 

Canopy for the Cashew-Bambara-Sesame and treatment 1 (Cashew-sole) respectively and the impact shown in the 

control environment performance in this study was relatively poor. In Figure 4 the CPH and NPK environments and 

their vertices treatments were in treatments 2 (Cashew-Bambara). The two axes (1-Intercrop and 2 Environment) of 

the biplot explained 100% of the variance interactions of Canopy North-South direction Figure 4. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
35 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 1. Analysis of variance summary for Cashew growth characters and canopy structure. 

Sources of Variation DF Mean Squares 

Height Girth CanVol CanEWD CanNSD CroDia CanSp CanRad CanGCA CanGCP 

Replication 2 29.63*** 1293.46 3814.55*** 15.08*** 14.76*** 452.70*** 1810.82*** 23.29*** 93.18*** 120565.61*** 
Months 4 48.89*** 3997.09 14421.04*** 32.00*** 38.87*** 801.44*** 3205.77*** 179.93*** 719.71*** 931248.59*** 
Error (a) 8 0.12 121.66 472.59 0.33 0.29 14.21 56.83 0.83 3.32 4293.60 
Fert. Type 2 2.21 348.29 685.03*** 6.94 8.67 144.27* 577.06* 11.29*** 45.17 58453.07 
Months*Fert. Type 8 0.32 91.84 157.79 0.55 0.39 14.97 59.86 0.99 3.96 5126.88 
Error (b) 20 1.11 221.53 239.62 0.64 0.27 13.13 52.54 0.788 3.15 4080.00 
Crop Type 3 1.54 376.92 548.37 5.76 6.22*** 108.61* 434.46* 8.21 32.83 42480.71 
Months*Crop Type 12 0.35 133.31 82.77 0.18 0.33 6.44 25.75 0.43 1.70 2204.65 
Fert. Type*Crop Type 6 3.36 656.29* 682.61** 5.87*** 8.74*** 128.13*** 512.54*** 8.03 32.11 41547.16 
Months*Fert.Type*Crop 
Type 

24 0.30 136.60 90.92 0.19 0.21 4.54 18.16 0.34 1.36 1758.73 

Error (c) 12 0.78 257.97 249.91 1.41 1.06 22.84 91.35 1.86 6.34 8203.54 
Mean  5.03 51.24 26.30 4.90 4.98 12.91 25.82 6.10 12.20 438.82 
CV (%)  17.51 31.34 60.10 24.30 20.67 37.02 37.02 20.64 20.64 20.64 

Note: Fert. – Fertilizer, CanVol – Canopy Volume, CanEWD – Canopy East-West direction, CanNSD – Canopy North-South direction, CRODIA – Crown Diameter, CanSP – Canopy spread, CanRad – Canopy Radius, 
CanGCA – Canopy Ground cover (m2), CanGCP - Canopy Ground cover (%). CV- Coefficient of Variation; *, ** and *** - Significance at P = 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001. 

 
Table 2. Interval responses of Cashew characters and canopy structure performances as influenced by different manuring in a Cashew-Sesame intercrop system. 

Treatments  Height Girth CanVol CanEWD CanNSD CroDia CanSp CanRad CanGCA CanGCP 

3 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 3.38a 44.33a 14.73a 4.07a 3.95a 8.10a 16.20a 2.67a 5.34a 192.13a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 3.24a 36.83a 7.00b 3.39a 2.45b 4.02b 9.52b 1.95b 3.89b 139.97b 
NPK 2.94a 34.17a 7.34ab 2.97a 3.22ab 4.76ab 8.05ab 2.06ab 4.12ab 148.32ab 
6 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 4.98a 51.17a 38.23a 5.51a 4.88a 13.65a 27.30a 7.14a 14.27a 513.31a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.13a 39.00a 25.50a 4.88ab 3.81b 9.32b 20.94ab 6.14ab 12.29ab 442.05ab 
NPK 4.74a 43.00a 26.18a 4.30b 4.77a 10.47ab 18.64b 5.89b 11.78b 423.86b 
9 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 5.37a 53.50a 45.35a 5.78a 5.37a 15.59a 31.17a 7.57a 15.13a 544.40a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.44a 50.50a 33.04a 4.93a 4.52a 11.30a 22.59a 6.43a 12.86a 462.71a 
NPK 5.24a 51.33a 35.08a 4.81a 5.22a 12.61a 25.22a 6.55a 13.11a 471.46a 
12 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 5.36b 59.50a 53.64a 5.96a 6.20a 18.65a 37.29a 8.02a 16.05a 577.18a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 6.81a 55.67a 51.33a 5.46a 4.94a 13.81a 27.63a 7.11a 14.21a 511.15a 
NPK 5.40a 54.83a 44.55a 5.35a 5.85a 15.60a 31.20a 7.30a 14.60a 525.34a 
15 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 5.88a 60.00a 1.89a 6.02a 6.35a 19.34a 38.68a 8.14a 16.28a 585.61a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 7.55a 67.17a 2.62a 6.02a 5.73a 17.36a 34.72a 7.93a 15.86a 570.46a 
NPK 6.28a 63.50a 2.09a 5.44a 6.42a 17.45a 34.89a 7.58a 15.15a 545.00a 

Note: Means with the same letters (a,b,ab) along each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability. 
CanVol – Canopy Volume, CanEWD – Canopy East-West direction, CanNSD – Canopy North-South direction, CRODIA – Crown Diameter, CanSP – Canopy spread, CanRad – Canopy Radius, 
CanGCA – Canopy Ground cover (m2), CanGCP - Canopy Ground cover (%). 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
36 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 3. Interval responses of Cashew characters and canopy structure performances as influenced by different manuring in a Cashew-Bambara intercrop system. 

Treatments  Height Girth CanVol CanEWD CanNSD CroDia CanSp CanRad CanGCA CanGCP 

3 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  3.39a 30.67a 5.03a 2.32a 2.14b 2.57a 5.13a 1.49b 2.97b 106.99b 
Cocoa Pod Husk  3.24a 37.33a 13.03a 3.41a 3.95a 7.07a 14.13a 2.45a 4.90a 176.38a 
NPK 3.27a 37.17a 9.92a 3.31a 3.29a 5.52a 11.03a 2.20ab 4.40ab 158.23ab 
6 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 4.70a 39.17a 13.61a 3.56a 2.94b 5.31a 10.63a 4.54a 9.08a 326.62a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 4.81a 47.00a 30.46a 4.28a 5.12a 11.58a 23.15a 5.98a 11.97a 430.42a 
NPK 4.33a 47.00a 25.94a 4.65a 4.72a 11.03a 22.06a 6.22a 12.44a 447.44a 

9 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 5.33a 41.50a 17.85b 3.74b 3.37b 6.39b 12.77b 4.86b 9.72b 349.60b 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.07a 52.17a 44.08a 5.57a 5.51a 15.71a 31.41a 7.40a 14.80a 532.53a 
NPK 4.78a 50.17a 30.30ab 4.76ab 4.87a 11.68a 31.41a 6.38a 12.76a 459.07a 
12 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 6.19a 50.33a 23.07b 3.86b 3.48b 6.84c 13.67c 5.02c 10.04c 361.19c 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.97a 61.67a 65.40a 6.08a 6.53a 20.13a 40.26a 8.25a 16.51a 593.84a 
NPK 5.33a 51.83a 39.55b 4.91ab 5.57a 13.82b 27.64b 6.77b 13.54b 486.97b 
15 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  6.23a 52.00a 1.79a 3.99b 3.52b 7.23c 14.45c 5.16b 10.33b 371.46b 
Cocoa Pod Husk 6.98a 62.33a 2.33a 6.39a 6.60a 21.46a 42.92a 8.59a 17.18a 618.07a 
NPK 6.15a 53.67a 1.74a 5.278ab 5.67a 15.00b 29.99b 7.17a 14.34a 515.67a 

Note: Means with the same letters(a,b,ab)   along each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability. 
CanVol – Canopy Volume, CanEWD – Canopy East-West direction, CanNSD – Canopy North-South direction, CRODIA – Crown Diameter, CanSP – Canopy spread, CanRad – Canopy Radius, CanGCA – 
Canopy Ground cover (m2), CanGCP - Canopy Ground cover (%). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
37 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 4. Interval responses of Cashew characters and canopy structure performances as influenced by different manuring in a Cashew-Sesame-Bambara intercrop system. 

Treatments  Height Girth CanVol CanEWD CanNSD CroDia CanSp CanRad CanGCA CanGCP 

3 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure 2.73a 35.83a 11.80a 3.49a 3.52a 6.56a 13.12a 2.34a 4.67a 168.03a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 3.67a 44.00a 13.89a 3.70a 3.68a 7.06a 14.11a 2.46a 4.92a 176.94a 
NPK 2.98a 40.67a 10.49a 3.45a 3.77a 6.26a 12.51a 2.41a 4.81a 173.06a 
6 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  4.07a 42.67a 20.56a 3.91a 4.21a 8.51a 17.03a 5.31a 10.63a 382.2a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.40a 45.83a 31.34a 4.95a 4.24a 10.76a 21.52a 6.36a 12.72a 457.7a 
NPK 4.18a 48.17a 35.48a 4.59a 5.85a 13.53a 27.07a 6.54a 13.07a 470.2a 

9 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  4.54a 57.33a 38.94a 5.01a 5.42a 14.47a 28.93a 6.81a 13.63a 490.2a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 5.54a 65.83a 40.66a 5.17a 5.15a 13.86a 27.72a 6.88a 13.76a 495.1a 
NPK 5.00a 51.67a 44.93a 4.61a 6.46a 14.97a 29.94a 6.76a 13.51a 486.2a 
12 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  4.92a 61.00a 46.38a 5.40a 5.54a 15.90a 31.81a 7.25a 14.5a 521.4a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 6.00a 71.33a 56.26a 6.07a 5.68a 17.87a 35.75a 7.96a 15.92a 572.5a 
NPK 5.50a 55.00a 63.56a 5.21a 6.97a 18.37a 36.74a 7.54a 15.07a 542.2a 
15 Months after intercropping 
Un-manure  4.97a 62.83 1.60a 5.57a 5.66a 16.74a 33.48a 7.46a 14.92a 536.5a 
Cocoa Pod Husk 6.03a 77.83 2.44a 6.83a 6.70a 23.07a 46.13a 9.07a 18.13a 652.2a 
NPK 5.99a 59.50 2.09a 5.89a 7.11a 21.20a 42.39a 8.26a 16.53a 594.6a 

Note: Means with the same letters (a)   along each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability. 
CanVol – Canopy Volume, CanEWD – Canopy East-West direction, CanNSD – Canopy North-South direction, CroDia – Crown Diameter, CanSP – Canopy spread, CanRad – Canopy Radius, CanGCA 
– Canopy Ground cover (m2), CanGCP - Canopy Ground cover (%). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
38 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 5. Means performances of Cashew characters and canopy structures for the three main effects. 

The main Effects Height Girth CanVol CanEWD CanNSD CroDia CanSp CanRad CanGCA CanGCP 

Months after inter cropping 

3 Months 3.18d 37.99d 10.40c 3.41c 3.36d 5.89d 11.77d 2.26d 4.51d 162.38d 
6 Months 4.79c 44.58dc 29.46b 4.65b 4.67c 11.10c 22.20c 6.21c 12.41c 446.25c 
9 Months 5.25bc 51.78bc 38.58b 5.06ab 5.17bc 13.42bc 26.84bc 6.79bc 13.58bc 488.33bc 
12 Months 5.74ab 56.71ba 50.91a 5.51a 5.70ab 16.20ab 32.40ab 7.41ab 14.83ab 533.44ab 
15 Months 6.21a 65.17a 12.16c 5.84a 6.00a 17.95a 35.89a 7.84a 15.67a 563.69a 
Fertilizer Type 

Control 4.83a 48.48a 22.41a 4.52b 4.56b 11.12b 22.25b 5.60b 11.21b 403.18b 

Cocoa Pod Husk 5.22a 52.40a 27.98a 5.19a 5.07a 13.93a 27.85a 6.41a 12.82a 461.28a 
NPK 5.04a 52.86a 28.51a 4.96ab 5.30a 13.68a 27.36a 6.28a 12.57a 451.99a 
Crop Type 
Sole Cashew 5.13a 51.78a 29.67a 5.26a 5.19a 14.14a 28.28a 6.51a 13.02a 468.17a 
Cashew + Bambara 5.05a 47.60a 21.61a 4.40b 4.49b 10.75b 21.51b 5.50b 11.00b 395.63b 
Cashew + Sesame 5.18a 50.97a 25.90a 4.99ab 4.91ab 12.80ab 25.60ab 6.17ab 12.33ab 443.53ab 
Cashew + Sesame + 
Bambara 

4.77a 54.63a 28.03a 4.92ab 5.33a 13.94a 27.88a 6.23a 12.45a 447.94a 

Note: Means with the same letters(a,b,ab)   along each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability. 
CanVol – Canopy Volume, CanEWD – Canopy East-West direction, CanNSD – Canopy North-South direction, CroDia – Crown Diameter, CanSP – Canopy spread, CanRad – Canopy Radius, CanGCA – Canopy Ground cover 
(m2), CanGCP - Canopy Ground cover (%).  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
39 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 6. Cashew yield and its components as influenced by intercropping and manuring. 

Treatment Number 
of nuts 

Nut Weight 
(g) 

Nut Length 
(mm) 

Nut Width 
(mm) 

Nut Thickness 
(Cm) 

Nut Yield 
(kg/tree) 

Fertilizer Types 
Control 219.98a 21.40a 1.24a 0.63a 4.58a 531.4a 
NPK 275.67a 21.66a 1.62a 0.91a 7.46a 599.8a 
Cocoa Pod Husk (CPH) 249.50a 21.47a 1.60a 0.79a 5.71a 535.9a 
Crop Types 
Sole Cashew 262.7a 21.64a 1.20a 0.65a 2.83a 531.6a 
Cashew + Bambara 171.6a 20.99a 1.81a 0.88a 8.36a 403.0a 

Cashew + Sesame 295.8a 21.61a 1.78a 0.94a 8.58a 489.9a 
Cashew+ Sesame +Bambara 263.6a 21.79a 1.15a 0.64a 3.90a 798.3a 
Interaction effects 
Un manure (Um) 
Sole Cashew (Um) 247.33 21.17 0.56 0.3 2.67 475.45 
Cashew + Bambara (Um) 285.33 21.5 2.29 1.07 10.4 985.53 
Cashew + Sesame (Um) 291.33 21.8 2.41 1.19 11.13 606.27 
Cashew+Sesame+Bambara(Um) 174 21.13 1.12 0.60 5.63 332.13 
Cocoa pod husk (CPH) 
Cashew (CPH) 315.33 22.16 0.66 0.31 2.77 738.04 
Cashew + Bambara (CPH) 94 20.57 1.25 0.57 6.03 88.61 
Cashew + Sesame (CPH) 261.27 22.13 2.40 1.31 11.57 585.28 
Cashew+Sesame+Bambara(CPH) 209.33 21.77 0.66 0.34 2.47 731.6 
NPK 
Cashew (NPK) 225.33 21.6 2.38 1.34 3.07 381.4 
Cashew + Bambara (NPK) 135.33 20.9 1.91 0.99 8.63 134.8 
Cashew +  Sesame (NPK) 334.67 20.9 0.55 0.32 3.03 278.27 
Cashew+Sesame+Bambara(NPK) 407.33 22.47 1.66 0.97 3.6 1331.27 
Note: Means with the same letters(a)   along each column are not significantly different at 0.05 level of probability. CHP.Cocoa Pod husk.



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
40 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

For the four characters (girth, canopy volume, East-West canopy diameter and North-South canopy diameter) 

in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4 whose fertilizer type x intercropping system were observed to be significant, the GGE biplot 

analysis consistently identified: sole Cashew for NPK fertilizer environment, Cashew-Bambara and Cashew-Bambara-

Sesame for the Cocoa pod husk fertilized environment and Cashew-Sesame intercrop for the controlled (no fertilizer 

environment). It therefore means that, NPK is most preferable in sole cashew plots, soil with CPH nutritional 

amendment is preferred when the intercrop system is with Bambara alone and/or with Sesame. There are successful 

reports of specific genotype selection for specific environment using this method [22] for bread wheat; Aremu, et al. 

[23] for cowpea; Adewale, et al. [24] for African yam bean).  

 

 
Figure 1. The polygon view of the intercrop systems by Fertilizer type interaction for girth. 

†Note: 1 – Cashew-sole, 2 – Cashew-Bambara, 3 – Cashew-Sesame, 4 – Cashew-Bambara-Sesame. 

 

 
Figure 2. The polygon view of the intercrop systems by Fertilizer type interaction for canopy volume. 
†Note: 1 – Cashew-sole, 2 Cashew-Bambara, 3 – Cashew-Sesame, 4 – Cashew-Bambara-Sesame  



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
41 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

 
Figure 3. The polygon view of the intercrop systems by Fertilizer type interaction for canopy East West Diameter. 

†Note: 1 – Cashew-sole, 2 – Cashew-Bambara, 3 – Cashew-Sesame, 4 – Cashew-Bambara-Sesame. 

 

 
Figure 4. The polygon view of the intercrop systems by Fertilizer type interaction for canopy North South Direction. 
Note: 1 – Cashew-sole, 2 – Cashew-Bambara, 3 – Cashew-Sesame, 4 – Cashew-Bambara-Sesame 

 

The enhancement of the performance of cashew parameters under Cashew-Sesame intercrop in an unfertilized 

environment (control) observed in this study is unique. It is noteworthy that the practice of the incorporation of 

Sesamun indicum in Cashew plots is an aged practice by the farmers in Kogi state of Nigeria. However, the relationship 

of the two crops in the environment could be a remarkable investigation in the future. The choice of Cashew, Sesame 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
42 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

and Bambara in this study which are indigenous to Nigeria guinea savanna agro-ecology of Nigeria revealed the 

possibility of co-existence and positive eco-physiological interaction for optimum and productive utilization of land 

and nutrient resources. The interaction of these indigenous crops of the region with cashew was not negative to its 

growth and development because cashew tree has the ability to draw more resources due to its size. However, this 

system conserves the soil, provide food and income to the farmers during the initial period of establishment before 

Cashew canopy closes. Its worthy to note here that yield record of the cashew productivity as mentioned in this report 

was the beginning and the first year of fruit production. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.  
Authors’ Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. 
Acknowledgement: The first author wishes to acknowledge the Genetic Resources Centre, International 
Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Ibadan, Nigeria for providing seed of the Bambara nuts and the 
Executive Director, National Cereals Research Institute (NCRI), Badeggi, Niger State of Nigeria for providing 
the seeds of Sesame used for my doctoral study. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] S. Agele, B. Nduka, and Aiyelari, "Agro-waste reuse and effects on growth and yields of sesame and bambara nut alley 

crops in a cashew-based intercropping system of the Guinea Savanna agroecology of Nigeria," Advances in Recycling and 

Waste Management, vol. 3, p. 159, 2018a. 

[2] S. Agele, N. Beatrice, F. Babadele, and A. Solomon, "Uptake and use efficiencies of nutrients by sesame and bambara aut 

Alley crops as influenced by manuring in a cashew-based intercropping system in the Guinea Savanna Agroecology of 

Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Chemistry and Environment, vol. 7, pp. 153-175, 2018b.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.4236/jacen.2018.74014. 

[3] V. Rodrigo, C. Stirling, Z. Teklehaimanot, and A. Nugawela, "Intercropping with banana to improve fractional 

interception and radiation-use efficiency of immature rubber plantations," Field Crops Research, vol. 69, pp. 237-249, 

2001.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-4290(00)00147-7. 

[4] G. Hemery, P. Savill, and S. Pryor, "Applications of the crown diameter–stem diameter relationship for different species 

of broadleaved trees," Forest Ecology and Management, vol. 215, pp. 285-294, 2005.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2005.05.016. 

[5] J. Santos, P. n. dos, F. de, N. Higuchi, H. G. Leite, A. L. Souza, and A. de Vale, "Do.Statistical models to estimate 

aboveground phytomass in the central amazon rainforest," Tree Magazine Viçosa, vol. 25, pp. 445-454, 2001. 

[6] K. M. B. E. Silva, P. S. L. E. Silva, and d. F. A. G. Almeida, "Regressions equations for plant height estimation in cashew 

trees," Ceres Magazine, Viçosa, vol. 51, pp. 405-409, 2004. 

[7] T. D. Tolla, "Effects of moisture conditions and management on production of Soybean," Agron J, vol. 102, pp. 1149-

1157, 2004. 

[8] F. Turell, "Comparative nocturnal thermal budgets of large and small citrus trees," Ecology, vol. 46, pp. 25-34, 

1965.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1935255. 

[9] P. Tripathy, K. Sethi, A. Patnaik, and S. Mukherjee, "Nutrient management in high density cashew plantation under 

Coastal Zones of Odisha," International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, vol. 6, pp. 93-97, 2015.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-4038.2015.00025.1. 

[10] SAS Institute, SAS system for windows version 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, 2011. 

[11] A. Pacheco, M. Vargas, G. Alvarado, F. Rodríguez, M. López, J. Crossa, and J. Burgueño, "GEA-R (genotype 

environment analysis with R for Windows). Version 4.1. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center. Retrieved 

from: http://hdl.handle.net/11529/10203," 2016. 

[12] V. Chifflot, G. Bertoni, A. Cabanettes, and A. Gavaland, "Beneficial effects of intercropping on the growth and nitrogen 

status of young wild cherry and hybrid walnut trees," Agroforestry Systems, vol. 66, pp. 13-21, 2006.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-005-3650-3. 

http://hdl.handle.net/11529/10203,


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 9(1): 31-43 
 

 
43 

© 2022 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[13] Figueirêdo, C. B. d. J. P. Maria, A. L. S. Luiz, A. B. Marlos, d. S. B. Viviane, S. G. Rubens, and N. Thomas, "Life cycle 

assessment of Brazilian cashew," presented at the Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle 

Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), San Francisco, California, USA., 8-10 October, 2014, 2014. 

[14] V. H. Heywood, "Anacardiaceae," ed: In: Heywood N.H et al (eds) Farm of the World 2006, 2007, pp. 141-145, 30-31. 

[15] F. Tanja, "Sesame farming benefits: Retrived from: https://blog.agrivi.com/post/sesame-farming-benefits. [Accessed 

date 20 august 2019]," 2019. 

[16] C. Mkandawire, "Review of bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) production in Sub-Sahara Africa," 

Agricultural Journal, vol. 2, pp. 464-470, 2007. 

[17] H. Yakubu, J. Kwari, and M. Sandabe, "Effect of phosphorus fertilizer on nitrogen fixation by some grain legume varieties 

in Sudano–Sahelian zone of North Eastern Nigeria," Nigerian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, vol. 18, pp. 44-49, 

2010.Available at: https://doi.org/10.4314/njbas.v18i1.56837. 

[18] F. A. d. S. Xavier, S. M. F. Maia, K. A. Ribeiro, E. de Sá Mendonça, and T. S. de Oliveira, "Effect of cover plants on soil 

C and N dynamics in different soil management systems in dwarf cashew culture," Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 

vol. 165, pp. 173-183, 2013.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2012.12.003. 

[19] A. Jabbar, R. Ahmad, I. H. Bhatti, Z. A. Virk, W. Din, and M. M. Khan, "Assessment of yield advantages, competitiveness 

and economic benefits of diversified direct seeded upland rice-based intercropping systems under strip geometry of 

planting," Pak. J. Agri. Sci, vol. 46, pp. 96-101, 2009. 

[20] S. Ratha and S. Swain, "Performance of intercrops in mango orchard in Eastern Ghat High Land Zone of Orissa," Indian 

Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development, vol. 21, pp. 12-15, 2006. 

[21] H. D. Pawar, S. D. Sarwade, K. T. Jadhav, and B. N. Aglawe, "Effect and performance of intercrops in mango orchards," 

J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ, vol. 34, pp. 237-238, 2009. 

[22] Y. Kaya, M. Akçura, and S. Taner, "GGE-biplot analysis of multi-environment yield trials in bread wheat," Turkish 

Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, vol. 30, pp. 325-337, 2006. 

[23] C. Aremu, M. Adebayo, and O. Adeniji, "Seasonal Performance of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in humid tropics using 

GGE biplot analysis," World Journal of Biological Research, vol. 1, pp. 8-13, 2008. 

[24] B. D. Adewale, D. R. Ojo, and M. Abberton, "GGE Biplot application for adaptability of African yam bean grain yield to 

four agro-ecologies in Nigeria," African Crop Science Journal, vol. 25, pp. 333-347., 2017.Available at: 

https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v25i3.7. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

  

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


