See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322069770

Diagnosis of nutritional problems of cassava

Chapter · December 2017

CITATIONS READS
2 3,955

1 author:

Reinhardt Howeler
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia
286 PUBLICATIONS 3,166 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reinhardt Howeler on 26 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 305

CHAPTER 12

DIAGNOSIS OF NUTRITIONAL PROBLEMS OF CASSAVA 1

Reinhardt Howeler2

INTRODUCTION

If plant growth is not optimal and/or yields are low, and if other causes such as
insects and diseases, drought, shade or cold have been ruled out, plants may be suffering
from nutritional deficiencies and/or toxicities. Before effective remedial measures can be
taken, it is essential to diagnose the problem correctly. This can be done in several ways,
but the best diagnosis is usually obtained from a combination of different methods:

1. Observation of Deficiency and Toxicity Symptoms

Cassava has relatively low phloem mobility. As such, plants do not readily
translocate nutrients from the lower to the upper leaves. Instead, when certain nutrients are
in deficient supply, plants respond by slowing the growth rate, producing fewer and smaller
leaves and sometimes shorter internodes. Leaf life is also reduced. As nutrients are not
readily mobilised to the growing point, symptoms for N, P or K deficiencies, normally
found in the lower leaves, tend to be less pronounced in cassava than in other crops. For
that reason farmers may not be aware that plant growth is reduced because of nutritional
deficiencies. Oftentimes, the initial diagnosis based on deficiency or toxicity symptoms
needs to be confirmed by soil or plant tissue analyses or from experiments. Nevertheless,
visual identification is a quick and easy method to diagnose many nutritional problems.

The various nutrients the plant needs also vary in their mobility in the phloem.
Thus, N, P, K, Mg, Na and Cl are considered relatively mobile, so in case of insufficient
supply of these nutrients, the plant will translocate these nutrients from the lower part of the
plant to the growing point, resulting in deficiency symptoms appearing mainly in the lower
leaves. In contrast, Ca and B are very immobile and will not readily translocate to the
upper part of the plant, resulting in deficiency symptoms of these two nutrients being
confined mainly to the growing points of both shoots and roots. Finally, S, Cu, Fe, Mn and
Zn have intermediate mobility, so their deficiency symptoms can appear in various parts of
the plant or throughout the plant.

Symptoms have been described and color photos have been included in several
publications (Lozano et al., 1981; Asher et al., 1980; Howeler, 1981; 1989; 1996a; 1996b;
Howeler and Fernandez, 1985). The symptoms of nutrient deficiencies and toxicities are
briefly described in Table 1, while some symptoms are shown in the photos at the end of
this chapter..

1
For color photos see pages 761-766.
2
Formerly, CIAT cassava agronomist and soil scientist at CIAT, Dept of Agriculture, Chatuchak,
Bangkok 10900, Thailand. Currently, cassava consultant. r.howeler@cgiar.org
 306

Table 1. Symptoms of nutrient deficiencies and toxicities in cassava.

Deficiencies Symptoms
Nitrogen (N)  Reduced plant growth
 In some cvs., uniform chlorosis of leaves, starting with lower leaves, but soon
spreading throughout the plant

Phosphorus (P)  Reduced plant growth, thin stems, short petioles; sometimes pendant leaves
 Under severe conditions 1-2 lower leaves turn yellow to orange, become
flaccid and necrotic; may fall off
 In some cvs. lower leaves turn purplish/brown

Potassium (K)  Reduced plant growth with excessive branching, resulting in prostrate plant
type
 Small, sometimes chlorotic upper leaves; thick stems with short internodes
 Under severe conditions premature lignification of upper stems with very short
internodes, resulting in zigzag growth of upper stems
 In some cvs. purple spotting, yellowing and border necrosis of lower leaves
 In other cvs. upward curling of lower leaf borders, similar to drought stress
symptoms

Calcium (Ca)  Reduced root and shoot growth

(seldom seen in the  Chlorosis, deformation and border necrosis of youngest leaves with leaf tips or
field) margins bending downwards

Magnesium (Mg)  Marked intervenal chlorosis or yellowing in lower leaves

(often seen in field)  Slight reduction in plant height

Sulfur (S) (similar  Uniform chlorosis of upper leaves, which soon spreads throughout the plant
to N deficiency)

Boron (B) (seldom  Reduced plant height, short internodes, short petioles and small deformed
seen in field) upper leaves
 Purple-grey spotting of mature leaves in the middle part of the plant
 Under severe conditions gummy exudate on stem or petioles (almost never
seen in field)
 Suppressed lateral development of fibrous roots

Copper (Cu)  Deformation and uniform chlorosis of upper leaves, with leaf tips and margins
(mainly in peat bending up- or down-ward
soils)  Petioles of fully expanded leaves long and bending down
 Reduced root growth
 307

Iron (Fe) (mainly  Uniform chlorosis of upper leaves and petioles; under severe conditions leaves
in calcareous soils) turn white with border chlorosis of youngest leaves
 Reduced plant growth; young leaves small, but not deformed

Manganese (Mn)  Intervenal chlorosis or yellowing of upper or middle leaves; uniform chorosis
(mainly in sandy and under severe conditions
high pH soils)  Reduced plant growth; young leaves small, but not deformed.

Zinc (Zn) (often  Intervenal yellow or white spots on young leaves

seen in high pH or  Leaves become small, narrow and chlorotic in growing point; necrotic spotting
calcareous soils; also on lower leaves as well
in acid soils)  Leaf lobes turn outward away from stem
 Reduced plant growth; under severe conditions, death of young plants

Toxicities Symptoms
Aluminium (Al)  Reduced root and shoot growth
(only in very acid  Under very severe conditions yellowing of lower leaves
mineral soils)

Boron (B) (only  Necrotic spotting of lower leaves, especially along leaf margins
observed after
excessive B
application)

Manganese (Mn)  Yellowing or oranging of lower leaves with purple-brown spots along veins
(mainly in acid soils  Leaves become flaccid and drop off
and when plant
growth stagnates)

Salinity (observed  Uniform yellowing of leaves, starting at bottom of plant but soon spreading
only in saline/ throughout
alkaline soils)  Symptoms very similar to Fe deficiency
 Under severe conditions border necrosis of lower leaves, poor plant growth and
death of young plants

2. Soil Analysis
This method is advantageous in that problems can be detected before planting and,
if necessary, lime and/or nutrients can be applied before plant growth is affected by the
problem. Soil analyses are particularly useful for detecting P, K, Ca, Mg and Zn
deficiencies, while soil pH will indicate whether Al and/or Mn toxicity or micronutrient
deficiencies are likely to occur. Analysis for OM content is not very reliable in predicting
N responses as high-OM soils may still produce a significant N response if N
mineralization is slow, especially in very acid soils.
 308

Representative soil samples should be taken in areas that appear to be uniform in

terms of plant growth and previous management. About 10-20 subsamples are taken in
zigzag fashion across the whole area. These subsamples are thoroughly mixed together and
then about 300-500 g is air dried or dried at about 65oC in a forced-air oven. This
compound sample is then finely ground, screened and sent to the lab for analysis.

Soil analyses usually determine the amount of available or exchangeable nutrient

as this part of the total soil nutrient is best correlated with plant uptake. These “available”
fractions are usually determined by shaking the soil sample with certain extracting
solutions and determining the amount of nutrient in the extract. Different laboratories may
use different extracting agents as there is no one method that is optimal for all soil types;
thus results from one lab may differ from those of another. In interpreting the results,
therefore, it is important to consider the methodology used.
Results of the soil analysis can be compared with published data obtained from
correlation studies, which indicate either the “critical level” of the nutrient, as determined
with a specific extracting agent or the nutrient ranges according to the particular nutritional
conditions of the crop. The ranges are defined according to the various nutritional states of
the plant, as shown in Figure 1. Table 2 shows the ranges for soil nutrients determined for
cassava.

D E
100

C
80 F
B Rel yield.
A = Very deficient (< 40%)
Relative yield (%)

60 B = Deficient (40-80%)
C = Low (80-90%)
D = Sufficient (90-100%)
E = High (100-90%)
40 F = Toxic (< 90%)

20 A

0
Nutrient concentration in the plant
Figure 1. Relation between the relative yield or dry matter production of the plant and the
concentration of the limiting nutrient in the soil or plant tissue. The curve is
divided into six defined nutritional states, ranging from very deficient to toxic.
 309

Table 2. Approximate classification of soil chemical characteristics according to the

nutritional requirements of cassava.

Soil parameter Very low Low Medium High Very high

pH1) <3.5 3.5-4.5 4.5-7 7-8 >8

Organic matter2) (%) <1.0 1.0-2.0 2.0-4.0 >4.0
Al saturation3) (%) <75 75-85 >85
Salinity (mS/cm) <0.5 0.5-1.0 >1.0
Na saturation (%) <2 2-10 >10
P4) (ppm) <2 2-4 4-15 >15
K4) (meq/100 g) <0.10 0.10-0.15 0.15-0.25 >0.25
Ca4) (meq/100 g) <0.25 0.25-1.0 1.0-5.0 >5.0
Mg4) (meq/100 g) <0.2 0.2-0.4 0.4-1.0 >1.0
S4) (ppm) <20 20-40 40-70 >70
B5) (ppm) <0.2 0.2-0.5 0.5-1.0 1-2 >2
Cu5) (ppm) <0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-1.0 1-5 >5
Mn5) (ppm) <5 5-10 10-100 100-250 >250
Fe5) (ppm) <1 1-10 10-100 >100
Zn5) (ppm) <0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-5.0 5-50 >50
1)
pH in H2O. 1:1
2)
OM = Walkley and Black method.
3)
Al saturation = 100 x Al(Al+Ca+Mg+K) in meq/100 g.
4)
P in Bray II; K, Ca, Mg and Na in 1N NH4-acetate; S in Ca phosphate.
5)
B in hot water; and Cu, Mn, Fe and Zn in 0.05 N HCl+0.025 N H2SO4.
Source: Howeler, 1996a, b.

The data in Tables 2 and 3 were determined from many fertilizer experiments
conducted in Colombia and in various Asian countries, as well as from reports in the
literature. The data on ranges or critical levels were determined by relating the relative
yield in the absence of a particular nutrient (yield without the nutrient over the highest yield
obtained with the nutrient) with the corresponding available nutrient content in the soil.
Figure 2 shows an example of the determination of critical levels from NPK
experiments conducted in nine locations in four Asian countries. A line was drawn visually
through the points to show the relationship and to estimate the “critical level” of the
nutrient or soil parameter. This critical level is normally considered as the concentration of
the nutrient in the soil or plant tissue above which there is no further significant response to
application of the nutrient (usually defined as corresponding to 90 or 95% of maximum
yield). Critical levels for cassava were found to be about 3.2% for OM, 7 ppm for P (Bray
II) and 0.14 meq/100 g for exchangeable K. The critical levels for P and K are close to
those reported earlier in the literature (Table 3). Those for available soil-P reported for
cassava (4-10 ppm) are much lower than for most other crops (10-18 ppm), indicating that
cassava will grow well in soils that are low in P and where other crops would suffer from P
deficiency. This is due to the effective association between cassava roots and vesicular-
arbuscular mycorrhizae (VAM) occurring naturally in the soil (Howeler, 1990) (see
Chapter 19).
 310

100

80

Relative yield (%)

60

40

20

0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Organic matter (%)
100

80
= Nanning
Relative yield (%)

= Guangzhou
60 = Danzhou (CATAS)
= Hung Loc
= Traco
40 = Umas Jaya
= Yogyakarta
= Jatikerto
20 = VISCA

0
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Available P (ppm, Bray II)
100

80
Relative yield (%)

60

40

20

0
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35
Available
AvailableKK(me/100 g)
(meq/100g)
Figure 2. Relation between the relative yield of cassava (i.e. the yield without the nutrient as a
percent of the highest yield with the nutrient) and the OM, available P and exchangeable
K contents of the soil in nine long-term NPK trials conducted in Asia from 1993-1996.
Source: Howeler, 1998.
 311

Table 3. Critical levels1) of nutrients for cassava and other crops according to various methods
of soil analysis, as reported in the literature.

Soil parameter Method3) Crop Critical Source

level

Organic matter (%) Walkley and Cassava 3.1 Howeler, 1998

Black

P (ppm) Bray-I Cassava 7 Howeler, 1978

Cassava 8 Kang et al., 1980
Cassava 4.22) Cadavid, 1988
Cassava 7 Howeler, 1989
Maize 14 Kang et al., 1980
Soybean 15 Kang et al, 1980

Bray II Cassava 8 CIAT, 1982

Cassava 4 Howeler, 1985a
Cassava 6 CIAT, 1985a
Cassava 5.82) Cadavid, 1988
Cassava 10 Howeler, 1989
Cassava 10 Hagens & Sittibusaya, 1990
Cassava 4 Howeler & Cadavid, 1990
Cassava 4.5 Howeler, 1995
Cassava 7 Howeler , 1998
Common bean4 10-15 Howeler & Medina, 1978

Olsen-EDTA Cassava 3 Zaag van der, 1979

Cassava 7.52) Cadavid, 1988
Cassava 8 Howeler, 1989

North Carolina Cassava 5.02) Cadavid, 1988

Cassava 9 Howeler, 1989
Common beans 18 Goepfert, 1972

K (meq/100 g) NH4-acetate Cassava 0.09-0.15 Obigbesan, 1977

Cassava <0.15 Kang, 1984
Cassava <0.15 Kang & Okeke, 1984
Cassava 0.18 Howeler, 1985b
Cassava 0.1752) Cadavid, 1988
Cassava 0.15 Howeler, 1989
Cassava 0.18 Howeler & Cadavid, 1990
Cassava 0.08-0.10 Hagens & Sittibusaya, 1990
Rice 0.21 Jones et al., 1982
Potatoes 0.20-1.00 Roberts & McDole, 1985
Sugarcane 0.16-0.51 Orlando Filho, 1985

Bray II Cassava 0.15 CIAT, 1985a

Cassava 0.17 Howeler, 1985b
Cassava 0.16 CIAT, 1988b
Cassava 0.1752) Cadavid, 1988
 312

Soil parameter Method Crop Critical level Source

Bray II Cassava 0.17 Howeler & Cadavid, 1990
Cassava 0.12 Howeler, 1995
Cassava 0.14 Howeler, 1998

North Carolina Cassava 0.15 Howeler, 1989

Ca (meq/100 g) NH4-acetate Cassava 0.25 CIAT, 1979

Common beans 4.5 Howeler & Medina, 1978

Mg (meq/100 g) NH4-acetate Cassava <0.20 Kang, 1984

pH 1:1 in water Cassava 4.6 and 7.8 CIAT, 1977, 1979

Common beans 4.9 Abruña et al., 1974

Al-saturation (%) KCl Cassava 80 CIAT, 1979

Common beans 10-20 Abruña et al., 1974
1)
Critical level defined as 95% of maximum yield
2)
Critical level defined as 90% of maximum yield
3)
Methods: Bray I = 0.025 N HCl+0.03 N NH4F
Bray II = 0.10 N HCl+0.03 N NH4F
Olsen-EDTA = 0.5 N NaHCO3+0.01N Na-EDTA
North Carolina = 0.05 N HCl+0.025 N H2SO4
NH4-acetate = 1N NH4-acetate at pH 7

The critical levels for exchangeable K for cassava (0.08-0.18 meq K/100 g) (Table
3) are also lower than for most other crops (0.16-0.51 meq K/100 g), indicating that despite
the crop’s relatively high K requirement, it will still grow well on soils with only
intermediate levels of K.

As mentioned above, there is seldom a good relationship between the relative

response to N and the soil OM content (Howeler, 1995). Using data from 56 NPK trials
conducted in Brazil from 1950-1983 (Gomes, 1998), the critical level determined for OM
was only 1.3%, considerably lower than the 3.1% determined in Asia (Howeler, 1998).

Using data from 20 NPK cassava trials conducted in Colombia to compare

different methods of extracting available P, Cadavid (1988) reported the highest correlation
between relative cassava yields and available soil P using Bray I, followed by Bray II,
North Carolina and Olsen-EDTA extracting agents. For determining exchangeable K,
Cadavid (1988) found no significant difference between the use of Bray II and NH4-acetate;
both resulted in a critical level of 0.175 meq K/100 g.

3. Plant Tissue Analysis

Analysis of plant tissue indicates the actual nutritional status of the plants at the
time of sampling. The total amount of each nutrient is determined, resulting in data that are
fairly similar among different laboratories. These analyses are particularly useful for
diagnosing N and secondary or micronutrient deficiencies.
 313

Given that nutrient concentrations vary among different plant tissues as well as in
different parts of the plant (Table 4), it is imperative to use a specific “indicator” tissue, the
nutrient concentration of which is best related to plant growth or yield. For cassava, the
best “indicator” tissue was found to be the blade of the youngest fully expanded leaf
(YFEL), i.e. normally about the 4th-5th leaf from the top. Leaf petioles should never be
mixed with the leaf blades and analyzed together, as nutrient concentrations are quite
different in these two tissues. Nutrient concentrations also change during the growth
cycle, depending on the rate of plant growth (Figure 3) (Howeler and Cadavid, 1983;
CIAT, 1985a,b). Since the concentrations of most nutrients tend to stabilize when cassava
plants are 3-4 months old, leaf samples should be taken at about 3-4 months after planting
(MAP). However, they should not be taken during periods of severe drought or low
temperature when plant growth has slowed down. In that case, leaf samples can be taken
2-3 months after normal growth has resumed.

About 20 leaf blades (without petioles) are collected from a plot or uniform area in
the field and combined into one sample (Howeler, 1983). If leaves are dusty or have
received chemical sprays, they should be washed gently and rinsed in distilled or deionized
water. To prevent continued respiration with consequent loss of DM, leaves should be
dried as soon as possible at 60-80oC for 24-48 hours. If no oven is available, leaves should
be dried as quickly as possible in the sun, preferably in a hot, but well-ventilated area, and
away from dust. After drying, samples are finely ground in a lab mill. For Cu analysis
samples should be passed through a stainless steel sieve. For Fe analysis the dry leaves
should be ground with an agate mortar and pestle. Plant tissue samples are normally
collected in paper bags to facilitate drying, but for analysis of B, plastic bags should be
used. Once ground and sieved, samples are stored in plastic vials until analysis
To diagnose nutritional problems, the results are compared with the nutrient ranges
corresponding to the various nutritional states of the plant (Table 5), or with critical levels
reported in the literature (Table 6). Although the numbers may vary somewhat, depending
on the varieties, soil and climatic conditions (Howeler, 1983), the data in these tables can
be used as a general guide for interpreting plant tissue analyses.

4. Greenhouse and Field Experiments

If analysis of soil or plant tissue is not possible, one can also diagnose nutritional
problems by planting cassava in pot experiments using the soil in question, or directly in
the field. To diagnose nutrient deficiencies in a particular soil in either pot or field
experiments, it is recommended to use the “missing element” technique, where all nutrients
are applied to all treatments at rates that are expected to be non-limiting, while one nutrient
is missing in each treatment (i.e. -N, -P, -K etc.). Treatments with the poorest growth or
yield indicate the element that is most deficient.

For pot experiments it is recommended not to sterilize or fumigate the soil, in order
not to kill the native mycorrhizae. Rooted plant shoots rather than stakes should be used as
the stakes have high nutrient reserves and their use would therefore delay responses to
nutrient additions. In pot experiments cassava plants are generally harvested at 3-4 MAP,
and dry weights of top growth are used as indicators of nutrient response.
 314

Table 4. Nutrient concentration in various plant parts of fertilized and unfertilized cassava,
cv. M Ven 77, at 3-4 MAP in Carimagua, Colombia.

N P K Ca Mg S Fe Mn Zn Cu B
(%) (ppm)
Unfertilized
Leaf blades
Upper 4.57 0.34 1.29 0.68 0.25 0.29 198 128 49 9.9 26
Middle 3.66 0.25 1.18 1.08 0.27 0.25 267 185 66 8.7 37
Lower 3.31 0.21 1.09 1.48 0.25 0.25 335 191 89 7.6 42
Fallen1 2.31 0.13 0.50 1.69 0.25 0.22 4850 209 121 9.4 39

Petioles
Upper 1.50 0.17 1.60 1.32 0.37 0.10 79 172 40 4.4 16
Middle 0.70 0.10 1.32 2.20 0.43 0.10 76 304 72 2.9 15
Lower 0.63 0.09 1.35 2.69 0.45 0.13 92 361 110 2.8 15
Fallen 0.54 0.05 0.54 3.52 0.41 0.13 271 429 94 2.5 18

Stems
Upper 1.64 0.20 1.22 1.53 0.32 0.19 133 115 36 9.7 14
Middle 1.03 0.18 0.87 1.45 0.30 0.16 74 103 39 8.9 13
Lower 0.78 0.21 0.81 1.19 0.32 0.16 184 95 54 7.9 10

Roots
Rootlets1 1.52 0.15 1.02 0.77 0.38 0.16 5985 191 165 - 10
Thick roots 0.42 0.10 0.71 0.13 0.06 0.05 127 10 16 3.0 4

Fertilized
Leaf blades
Upper 5.19 0.38 1.61 0.76 0.28 0.30 298 177 47 10.6 26
Middle 4.00 0.28 1.36 1.08 0.27 0.26 430 207 63 9.6 30
Lower 3.55 0.24 1.30 1.40 0.22 0.23 402 220 77 8.5 37
Fallen1 1.11 0.14 0.54 1.88 0.23 0.19 3333 247 120 8.9 38

Petioles
Upper 1.49 0.17 2.18 1.58 0.36 0.10 87 238 33 4.9 17
Middle 0.84 0.09 1.84 2.58 0.41 0.07 88 359 49 3.0 14
Lower 0.78 0.09 1.69 3.54 0.42 0.07 95 417 70 3.2 15
Fallen 0.69 0.06 0.82 3.74 0.20 0.08 294 471 155 3.1 17

Stems
Upper 2.13 0.23 2.09 2.09 0.47 0.14 94 140 37 9.8 14
Middle 1.57 0.21 1.26 1.30 0.26 0.11 110 120 46 10.8 12
Lower 1.37 0.28 1.14 1.31 0.23 0.09 210 99 36 10.0 10

Roots
Rootlets1 1.71 0.19 1.03 0.71 0.33 0.20 3780 368 136 - 10
Thick roots 0.88 0.14 1.05 0.16 0.06 0.05 127 15 15 3.9 4
1
Fallen leaves and rootlets were probably contaminated with micronutrients from the soil.
Source: Howeler, 1985a.
 315

Figure 3. Concentration of N, P and K in leaf blades from the upper, middle and lower part
of the plant, as well as from fallen leaves of fertilized cassava cv. M Col 22
during a 12-month growth cycle in Quilichao, Colombia.
Source: CIAT, 1985a.
 316

Table 5. Nutrient concentrations in YFEL blades of cassava at 3-4 MAP, corresponding to

various nutritional states of the plants; data are averages of various greenhouse and
field trials.

Nutritional states1)
Nutrient Very deficient Deficient Low Sufficient High Toxic

N (%) <4.0 4.1-4.8 4.8-5.1 5.1-5.8 >5.8 -2)

P (%) <0.25 0.25-0.36 0.36-0.38 0.38-0.50 >0.50 -
K (%) <0.85 0.85-1.26 1.26-1.42 1.42-1.88 1.88-2.40 >2.40
Ca (%) <0.25 0.25-0.41 0.41-0.50 0.50-0.72 0.72-0.88 >0.88
Mg (%) <0.15 0.15-0.22 0.22-0.24 0.24-0.29 >0.29 -
S (%) <0.20 0.20-0.27 0.27-0.30 0.30-0.36 >0.36 -
B (ppm) <7 7-15 15-18 18-28 28-64 >64
Cu (ppm) <1.5 1.5-4.8 4.8-6.0 6-10 10-15 >15
Fe (ppm) <100 100-110 110-120 120-140 140-200 >200
Mn (ppm) <30 30-40 40-50 50-150 150-250 >250
Zn (ppm) <25 25-32 32-35 35-57 57-120 >120
1)
Very deficient = <40% maximum yield
Deficient = 40-80% maximum yield
Low = 80-90% maximum yield
Sufficient = 90-100% maximum yield
High = 100-90% maximum yield
Toxic = <90% maximum yield
2)
- = no data available
Source: Howeler, 1996a, b.
 317

Table 6. Critical nutrient concentrations for deficiencies and toxicities in cassava plant tissue,
as reported in the literature.

Element Method Plant tissue Critical level1 Source

N deficiency Field YFEL blades 5.1% Fox et al., 1975

Field YFEL blades 5.7% Howeler, 1978
Field YFEL blades 4.6% Howeler, 1995
Field YFEL blades 5.7% Howeler, 1998
Nutrient solution Shoots 4.2% Forno, 1977

P deficiency Field YFEL blades 0.41% CIAT, 1985a

Field YFEL blades 0.33-0.35% Nair et al., 1988
Nutrient solution Shoots 0.47-0.66% Jintakanon et al., 1982

K deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 1.1% Spear et al., 1978a

Field YFEL blades 1.2% Howeler, 1978
Field YFEL blades 1.4% CIAT 1982
Field YFEL blades 1.5% CIAT, 1982
Field YFEL blades <1.1% Kang, 1984
Field YFEL blades 1.5% CIAT, 1985a
Field YFEL blades 1.7% Howeler, 1995
Field YFEL blades 1.9% Nayar et al., 1995
Field YFEL blades 1.9% Howeler, 1998
Nutrient solution Petioles 0.8% Spear et al., 1978a
Field Petioles 2.5% Howeler, 1978
Nutrient solution Stems 0.6% Spear et al., 1978a
Nutrient solution Shoots and roots 0.8% Spear et al., 1978a

Ca deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 0.46% CIAT, 1985a

Field YFEL blades 0.60-0.64% CIAT, 1985a
Nutrient solution Shoots 0.4% Forno, 1977

Mg deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 0.29% Edwards and Asher, 1979
Field YFEL blades <0.33% Kang, 1984
Field YFEL blades 0.29% Howeler, 1985a
Nutrient solution YFEL blades 0.24% CIAT, 1985a
Nutrient solution Shoots 0.26% Edwards and Asher, 1979

S deficiency Field YFEL blades 0.32% Howeler, 1978

Nutrient solution YFEL blades 0.27% CIAT, 1982
Field YFEL blades 0.27-0.33% Howeler, unpublished

Zn deficiency Field YFEL blades 37-51ppm CIAT, 1978

Nutrient solution YFEL blades 43-60 ppm Edwards and Asher, 1979
Nutrient solution YFEL blades 30 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c
Field YFEL blades 33 ppm CIAT, 1985a

Zn toxicity Nutrient solution YFEL blades 120 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c
 318

Element Method Plant tissue Critical level1 Source

B deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 35 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c

Nutrient solution Shoots 17 ppm Forno, 1977

B toxicity Nutrient solution YFEL blades 100 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c
Nutrient solution Shoot 140 ppm Forno, 1977

Cu deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 6 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c

Cu toxicity Nutrient solution YFEL blades 15 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c

Mn deficiency Nutrient solution YFEL blades 50 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c

Nutrient solution Shoots 100-120 ppm Edwards and Asher, 1979
Mn toxicity Nutrient solution YFEL blades 250 ppm Howeler et al., 1982c
Nutrient solution Shoots 250-1,450 ppm Edwards and Asher, 1979
Al toxicity Nutrient solution Shoots 70->97 ppm Gunatilaka, 1977
Nutrient solution Roots 2,000-14,000 Gunatilaka, 1977
ppm
1)
Range corresponds to values obtained in different varieties.

REFERENCES
Abruña, F., R. Perez-Escolar, J. Vicente-Chandler, J. Figarella and S. Silva. 1974. Response of
green beans to acidity factors in six tropical soils. J. of Agriculture. University of Puerto Rico
58(1): 44-58.
Asher, C.J., D.G. Edwards and R.H. Howeler. 1980. Nutritional Disorders of Cassava (Manihot
esculenta Crantz). University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld., Australia. 48 p.
Cadavid, L.F. 1988. Respuesta de la yuca (Manihot esculenta Crantz) a la aplicacion de NPK en
suelos con diferentes características (Response of cassava to the application of NPK in soils
with different characteristics). Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Palmira, Colombia. 185 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1977. Annual Report for 1976. CIAT, Cali,
Colombia. 344 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1978. Annual Report for 1977. CIAT, Cali,
Colombia. 386 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1979. Annual Report for 1978. CIAT,
Cassava Program, Cali, Colombia. pp. A76-84.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1982. Cassava Program. Annual Report for
1981. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 259 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1985a. Cassava Program. Annual Report for
1982 and 1983. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 521 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1985b. Cassava Program. Annual Report for
1984. Working Document No. 1. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 249 p.
Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT). 1988. Cassava Program. Annual Report for
1986. Working Document No. 43. CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 254 p.
Edwards, D.G. and C.J. Asher. 1979. Nutrient requirements of cassava (unpublished).
Forno, D.A. 1977. The mineral nutrition of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) with particular
reference to nitrogen. PhD thesis. University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld, Australia.
 319

Fox, R.H., H. Talleyrand and T.W. Scott. 1975. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on yields and
nitrogen content of cassava, Llanera cultivar. J. of Agriculture. University of Puerto Rico 56:
115-124.
Goepfert, C.F. 1972. Experimento sobre o efeito residual da adubaçao fosfatada em feijoeiro
(Phaseolus vulgaris) (Experiment on the residual effect of phosphate fertilizers in common
bean). Agron. Sulriograndense 8: 41-47.
Gomes, J. de C. 1998. Adubação de mandioca (The fertilization of cassava). In: International
cassava course of Portuguese speaking African countries. Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil. April
13-30, 1998. 73 p.
Gunatilaka, A. 1977. Effects of aluminium concentration on the growth of corn, soybean, and four
tropical root crops. MSc thesis. Univ. of Queensland, St. Lucia, Qld, Australia.
Hagens, P. and C. Sittibusaya. 1990. Short- and long-term aspects of fertilizer applications on
cassava in Thailand. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Proc. 8th Symp. Intern. Society of Tropical Root
Crops, held in Bangkok, Thailand. Oct. 30-Nov. 5, 1988. pp. 244-259.
Howeler, R.H. 1978. The mineral nutrition and fertilization of cassava. In: Cassava Production
Course. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. pp. 247-292.
Howeler, R.H. 1981. Mineral Nutrition and Fertilization of Cassava. Series 09EC-4, Centro
Internacional de Agriculture Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. 52 p.
Howeler, R.H. 1983. Análisis del Tejido Vegetal en el Diagnóstico de Problemas Nutricionales:
Algunos Cultivos Tropicales (Plant tissue analysis for the diagnosis of nutritional problems:
some tropical crops). Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT), Cali, Colombia. 28
p.
Howeler, R.H.1985a. Mineral nutrition and fertilization of cassava. In: Cassava; Research,
Production and Utilization. UNDP-CIAT Cassava Program, Cali, Colombia. pp. 249-320.
Howeler, R.H. 1985b. Potassium nutrition of cassava. In: W.D. Bishop. et al. (Eds.). Potassium in
Agriculture. Intern. Symp., held in Atlanta, GA, USA. July 7-10, 1985. ASA-CSSA-SSSA,
Madison, WI, USA. pp. 819-841.
Howeler, R.H. 1989. Cassava. In: D.L. Plucknett and H.B. Sprague (Eds.). Detecting Mineral
Deficiencies in Tropical and Temperate Crops. Westview Press. Boulder, CO, USA. pp. 167-
177.
Howeler, R.H. 1990. Phosphorus requirements and management of tropical root and tuber crops. In:
Proc. Symp. on Phosphorus Requirements for Sustainable Agriculture in Asia and Oceania,
held at IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines. March 6-10, 1989. pp. 427-444.
Howeler, R.H. 1995. Agronomy research in the Asian Cassava Network – Towards better
production without soil degradation. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy
Research and Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4th Regional Workshop, held in Trivandrum,
Kerala, India. Nov. 2-6, 1993. pp. 368-409.
Howeler, R.H. 1996a. Diagnosis of nutritional disorders and soil fertility maintenance of cassava. In:
G.T. Kurup, et al. (Eds.). Tropical Tuber Crops: Problems, Prospects and Future Strategies.
Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India. pp. 181-193.
Howeler, R.H. 1996b. Mineral nutrition of cassava. In: E.T Craswell, C.J. Asher, and J.N.
O’Sullivan. (Eds.). Mineral Nutrient Disorders of Root Crops in the Pacific. Proc. Workshop,
held in Nuku’alofa, Kingdom of Tonga. April 17-20, 1995. ACIAR Proc. no. 5, Canberra,
Australia. pp. 110-116.
Howeler, R.H. 1998. Cassava agronomy research in Asia – An overview, 1993-1996. In: R.H.
Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy and Farmer Participatory Research in Asia. Proc.
5th Regional Workshop, held in Danzhou, Hainan, China. Nov. 3-8, 1996. pp. 355-375.
Howeler, R.H. and L.F. Cadavid. 1983. Accumulation and distribution of dry matter and nutrients
during a 12-month growth cycle of cassava. Field Crops Research 7: 123-139.
 320

Howeler, R.H. and L.F. Cadavid. 1990. Short- and long-term fertility trials in Colombia to determine
the nutrient requirements of cassava. Fertilizer Research 26: 61-80.
Howeler, R.H. and C.J. Medina. 1978. La fertilizacion en el frijol Phaseolus vulgaris: Elementos
mayores y secundarios (The fertilization of beans: major and secondary nutrients). A literature
review for the Bean Production Course. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT),
Cali, Colombia.
Howeler, R.H. and F. Fernandez. 1985 Nutritional Disorders of the Cassava Plant. Study Guide.
CIAT, Cali, Colombia. 36 p.
Howeler, R.H., D.G. Edwards and C.J. Asher. 1982. Micronutrient deficiencies and toxicities of
cassava plants grown in nutrient solutions. I. Critical tissue concentrations. J. of Plant Nutrition
5: 1059-1076.
Jintakanon, S., D.G. Edwards and C.J. Asher. 1982. An anomalous, high external phosphorus
requirement for young cassava plants in solution culture. In: Proc. 5th Symp. of Intern. Society
Tropical Root Crops, held in Manila, Philippines. Sept 17-21, 1979. pp. 507-518.
Jones, U.S., J.C Katyal, C.P. Mamaril and C.S. Park. 1982. Wetland-rice nutrient deficiencies other
than nitrogen. In: Rice Research Strategies for the Future. IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines. pp.
327-378.
Kang, B.T. 1984. Potassium and magnesium responses of cassava grown in an Ultisol in southern
Nigeria. Fertilizer Research 5: 403-410.
Kang, B.T. and J.E. Okeke. 1984. Nitrogen and potassium responses of two cassava varieties grown
on an Alfisol in southern Nigeria. In: Proc. 6th Symp. of Intern. Society of Tropical Root Crops,
held in Lima, Peru. Feb. 21-26, 1983. pp. 231-237.
Kang, B.T., R. Islam, F.E. Sanders and A. Ayanaba. 1980. Effect of phosphate fertilization and
inoculation with VA-mycorrhizal fungi on performance of cassava (Manihot esculenta, Crantz)
grown on an Alfisol. Field Crops Research 3: 83-94.
Lozano, J.C., A. Bellotti,, J.A. Reyes, R. Howeler, D. Leihner and J. Doll. 1981. Field Problems in
Cassava. CIAT Series No. 07EC-1, Cali, Colombia. 206 p.
Nair, P.G., B. Mohankumar, M. Prabhakarand and S. Kabeerathumma. 1988. Response of cassava
to graded doses of phosphorus in acid lateritic soils of high and low P status. J. of Root Crops
14(2): 1-9.
Nayar, T.V.R., S. Kabeerathumma, V.P. Potty and C.R. Mohankumar. 1995. Recent progress in
cassava agronomy in India. In: R.H. Howeler (Ed.). Cassava Breeding, Agronomy Research
and Technology Transfer in Asia. Proc. 4th Regional Workshop, held in Trivandrum, Kerala,
India. Nov. 2-6, 1993. pp. 61-83.
Obigbesan, G.O. 1977. Investigations on Nigerian root and tuber crops: Effect of potassium on
starch yield, HCN content and nutrient uptake of cassava cultivars (Manihot esculenta). J. of
Agricultural Science 89: 29-34.
Orlando Filho, J. 1985. Potassium nutrition of sugarcane. In: W.D. Bishop et al. (Eds.). Potassium
in Agriculture. ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. pp.1045-1062.
Roberts, S. and R.E. McDole. 1985. Potassium nutrition of potatoes. In: Bishop, W.D. et al. (Eds.).
Potassium in Agriculture. Intern. Symp., held in Atlanta, GA, USA. July 7-10, 1985. ASA-
CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, USA. pp. 800-818.
Spear, S.N., C.J. Asher and D.G. Edwards. 1978a. Response of cassava, sunflower, and maize to
potassium concentration in solution. I. Growth and plant potassium concentration. Field Crops
Research 1: 347-361.
Zaag, P. van der. 1979. The phosphorus requirements of root crops. PhD thesis, Univ. of Hawaii,
USA.

View publication stats