1. CSIR – CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE Kennedy Agyeman

2. Effect of Fertilizer Application and Plant Density on Growth and Yield of Taro

3. Order of Presentation  Research Team  Introduction  Objectives  Methodology  Results and Discussion  Conclusion

4. Research Team  Kennedy Agyeman  Dr. Regina Sagoe  Dr. J.N. Lamptey  Mr. Emmanuel L. Omenyo  Dr. Adelaide Agyeman  Dr. Roland N. Issaka (SRI)  Mrs Cynthia Darko  Mrs Habbiba Aggrey

5. Introduction  Taro (Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott) of the family Araceae is the fifth most important root crop consumed worldwide.  Its production in Ghana relies on age-old, traditional production methods.  Low yields have been attributed to incorrect spacing, weedy fields which is a common sight, poor planting materials for field establishment in low lying areas and devastating Taro leaf blight disease among others.  There is evidence that plant spacing influence vegetative growth and corm yields of taro (Liou, 1984; Tumuhimbise et al., 2009)

6. Introduction cont`d  Intensive cropping has become common and the primary function of soil productivity and fertility restoration is becoming less effective (Okigbo, 1982)  Taro develops large leaves that accumulates large amount of dry matter in the corms when soil nutrients are not limited  To support this high biomass one need to provide supplementary soil Nitrogen in tropical soils for high productivity  This notwithstanding nutrient use efficiency has also been reported to increase through the combination of poultry manure and mineral fertilizer

7. Objectives  To determine the optimum soil nutrient amendments for optimal taro productivity  To investigate the economic feasibility of different planting densities within the taro cropping system for optimal yield

8. Methodology  Locations : Mankranso-Wiowso, Bekwai-Dadease and Fumesua  Design: Randomized Complete Block Design  Data Analysis- Genstat 17 th Edition  Treatments Spacing: 1m x 1m; 1m x 0.6m; 0.9m x 0.6m; 0.5m x 0.5m Fertilizer treatments:  F1- 30:45:45 (N:P 2 O 2 :K 2 O) kg/ha – applied at 4 WAP  F2 - 4t/ha of poultry manure (265g/plant applied at planting)  F3 - 2t/ha poultry manure (132g/plant applied at planting) +15:15:15 (N:P 2 O 2 :K 2 O) kg/ha – 12g/plant applied at 4WAP  F4 - No Fertilizer

9. Agronomic parameters assessed  plant height  leaf count and suckers;  corm number,  corm weight and  shoot weight at harvest

10. Table 1: Taro spacing effect on yield and yield components SpacingYield (kg/ha)Marketable yield(kg/ha)Non-marketable (kg/ha) Fum esua Man kran soBekwai Fumesu a Mankr ansoBekwai Fumesu a Mankr ansoBekwai 1m x 1m4611629677223361537965747505561148 1m x0.6m40005389609332504833505612509621037 0.9m x 0.6m40284907524130694204 9587041036 0.5m x 0.5m34724574490727642296222270822782685 CV19.34.34.617.95.48.217.315.914.5 SED548.3185.6225.9392.9185302.5253.7235.8296 Mean40285292599131114176451491711161477 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

12.  The highest corm yield of 7722kg/ha recorded on taro established at 1m x 1m.  The lowest tuber yield was recorded on plots established with taro crops at 0.5m x 0.5m, which had the highest plant density and a moderate tuber size.  Increasing population density decreased tuber size and subsequently decreased the final marketable yield.  Non marketable tuber sizes on the 0.5m x 0.5m plots were also high.  Total corm yields range from 3472kg/ha (Fumesua) to 7722kg/ha (Bekwai), increasing with wider stand density which could be explained by the bigger corm/tuber size.

13. Table 1: Fertilizer effect on marketable, non-marketable and total corm yield – 2015 TreatmentTotal yield (kg/ha)Marketable yield (kg/ha) Non-marketable yield (kg/ha) FumesuaBekwai Mankra nsoFumesuaBekwai Mankran so Fumes uaBekwai Mankran so 30:45:45(KgN:P 2 O 2 :K 2 O/ha) 738969816778612558705556126411121222 4t/ha of organic manure(400g/pl ant) 593155565111461143893963131911671148 2t/ha(200g/plan t) +15:15:15 (KgN:P 2 O 2 :K 2 O /ha) 7028674160745583529648331444 1241 Control /No Fertilizer 381936483167250024071722131912411444 CV 10.335.49.15.35.714.426.220.6 SED 179.5140.8234.6183.6195.8186.6214.4265.8212.2 Mean 604257315282470544914019133712411264

15.  The yield of taro corms was significantly affected by the various soil nutrient amendment options and average yields were above 4t/ha (Table 2)  Taro yield for the 3 locations range from 3167kg/ha (Mankranso) to 7389kg/ha (Fumesua)  Inorganic fertilizer application as soil amendments increases taro yields from 93, 91 and 114 percent over the control at Fumesua, Bekwai and Mankranso respectively  Controlled fields without fertilizer produced taro yields less than the average yields in the 3 locations

16. CONCLUSION  From this study, optimum row arrangement for high yield was 1m x 1m. Adoption of this density will reduce nutrient competition and enhance productivity through efficient nutrient use.  Soil nutrient amendments increased Taro corm yields but higher fertilizer rates than used in this study may be tested

17. Thank You