Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T04:35:38.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Investigations of Source-Sink Relations in Cassava Using Reciprocal Grafting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

T. Ramanujam  and
S. P. Ghosh
T. Ramanujam
Affiliation:
Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Trivandrum-695 017, India
S. P. Ghosh
Affiliation:
Central Tuber Crops Research Institute, Trivandrum-695 017, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Source-sink relations in cassava were investigated following reciprocal grafting among three cultivars of different yield groups. Both rootstock and scion had significant effects on net assimilation rate and tuber yield, demonstrating that both sink capacity and source activity are important in achieving maximum tuber yield. The scion had no effect on tuber dry matter percentage and starch content of the grafts but the hydrocyanic acid content of the tuber was significantly influenced by both rootstock and scion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 189 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Cock, J. H., Franklin, D., Sandoval, G. & Juri, F. (1979). The ideal cassava plant for maximum yield. Crop Science 19:271–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahniya, M. T., Oputa, C. O. & Hahn, S. K. (1982). Investigating source-sink relations in cassava by reciprocal grafts. Experimental Agriculture 18:399–402.Google Scholar
Dharmaputra, T. S. & Bruijn De, C. H. (1976). The Mukibat system of cassava production. In Proceedings of Fourth Symposium of International Society for Tropical Root Crops, Cali, Colombia: CIAT. 94–98.Google Scholar
Enyi, B. A. C. (1972). Effect of shoot number and time of planting on growth, development and yield of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Journal of Horticultural Science 47:457–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (1970). Production Year Book. Rome, Italy: Food and Agricultural Organization of United Nations.Google Scholar
Gifford, R. M., Thorne, J. H., Hits, M. D. & Glaquinta, R. T. (1984). Crop productivity and photo-assimilate partitioning. Science 225:801–808.Google Scholar
Indira, P. & Sinha, S. K. (1969). Colorimetric method for determination of HCN in tubers and leaves of cassava. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 39:1021–1023.Google Scholar
Jennings, D. L. (1970). Cassava in Africa. Field Crops Abstracts 23:271–278.Google Scholar
Ramanujam, T. & Indira, P. (1978). Linear measurement and weight methods for estimation of leaf area in cassava and sweet potato. Journal of Root Crops 4:47–50.Google Scholar
Ramanujam, T. (1985). Leaf density profile and efficiency in partitioning dry matter among high and low yielding genotypes of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Field Crops Research 10:291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramanujam, T. (1987). Source-sink relationship in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 30:297–299.Google Scholar
San Jose, J. J. & Mayobre, F. (1982). Quantitative growth relationship of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). I. Crop Development in savanna wet season. Annals of Botany 50:309–316.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1947). Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops. I. Variation in NAR and leaf area between species and variaties and within and between years. Annals of Botany 11:41–76.Google Scholar
Williams, C. N. (1972). Growth and productivity of tapioca (Manihot utilissima) III. Crop ratio, spacing and yield. Experimental Agriculture 8:15–23.Google Scholar