Pigeon Pea
Permanent URI for this collectionhttp://104.225.218.216/handle/123456789/22
All Pigeon Pea research conducted over the years both at National and Zonal level is housed in this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Item Effect of plant spacing on pigeonpea grain yield in Northern Uganda(Brazilian Journal of Science, 2024-05-13) Alfred Kumakech; Tonny Opio; Frank Laban TuryagyendaThe aim of crop production is to achieve the highest possible yield per unit area. One way of increasing productivity per unit area is through plant spacing optimization. The effect of plant spacing (90 cm x 60 cm, 150 cm x 120 cm and 150 cm x 180 cm) on yield of three pigeonpea genotypes (KAT 60/8, ICEAP 00540 and ICEAP 00554) was investigated on-station in a small-plot field experiments in 2018. Significant differences were recorded in grain yield of all the three genotypes. The highest yield for all the three genotypes was recorded for row spacing of 90 cm and inter plant spacing of 60 cm, and the lowest for row spacing of 150 cm and inter plant spacing of 180 cm. Plant spacing effect on other yield parameters (number of pods per plant and 100 seed weight) were not significant. Similar effects were recorded for plant growth parameters (plant height and number of primary branches). Thus, it can be concluded that row spacing of 90 cm and interplant spacing of 60cm is appropriate for pigeonpea grain production in Uganda.Item A Typology and Preferences for Pigeon Pea in Smallholder Mixed Farming Systems in Uganda(Agriculture, 2022-08-09) Dorothy Birungi Namuyiga; Till Stellmacher; Christian Borgemeister; Jeroen C. J. GrootPigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) remains an under-researched ‘orphan crop’ yet is important for food and nutrition security of smallholders. Furthermore, smallholders are heterogeneous, with varying perceptions and resource capacities. Against this backdrop, we clustered smallholders and assessed their preferences for pigeon pea. Data were gathered through a cross-sectional survey of 257 smallholders from northern Uganda, corroborated with key informant interviews. Using multivariate analysis, we generated six clusters that explained 63% of the total variance. Three farm types (LEX—low-resourced and experienced, LUN—low-resourced and inexperienced, and LED—low-resourced and educated) represented 15, 10, and 17% of the farms, respectively, and were resource-constrained with low farm size, low livestock units, low education level and low pigeon pea sales. Three other types (MEX—medium-resourced and experienced, HEX—high-resourced and experienced, HED—high-resourced and educated) represented 7, 6, and 7% of the samples and were highly-resourced given their above-average level of endowment. Pigeon pea was mainly produced for household consumption, especially by the low-resourced farm types. Across farm types, smallholders preferred pigeon pea because it fixed nitrogen (94%), is relatively easy to harvest (90%) and it provided more biomass (89%) compared to other crops. The developed typology allows for tailored pro-poor agricultural policies to address particular necessities of specific farm types. Understanding varied preferences can facilitate investments into improving pigeon pea traits, which are particularly desirable and appropriate for smallholders.