| Literature DB >> 29934563 |
Kiros Gebretsadik1, Nigussie Dechassa2.
Abstract
Onion is important in the daily Ethiopian diet though the average yield obtained by farmers is very low. This is attributed to a number of constraints among which are poor agronomic practices. Therefore, field experiment was conducted at Tahtay Koraro district to study the effect of nitrogen fertilizer and intra-row spacing on growth and yield of onion. The treatments consisted of a factorial combination of four rates of nitrogen (0, 50, 100 and 150 kg N ha-1) and four intra- row spacings (4, 6, 8, and 10 cm). Bombay Red was the variety of onion used in the experiment. The experiment was laid out as RCBD with three replications. The analysis of variance revealed that N and intra-row spacing were significant. Both N and intra-row spacing significantly affected percentage of Bolting plants, leaf length, bulb diameter, and marketable yield. 100 kg N ha-1 and a population of 833,300 plants ha-1 was found to be the optimum rate to obtain higher marketable bulb yield of 26.72 t ha-1 and economically attractive benefits. Therefore, Bombay red variety could be planted at an optimum spacing of 6 cm × 20 cm or 833,300 plant population density ha-1 in Tahtay koraro district of northern Ethiopia.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29934563 PMCID: PMC6015013 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-27762-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Geographical location of the study area; Tahtay Koraro district, in Tigray Regional State, Northern Ethiopia.
Soil Physico-chemical properties of the experimental site before planting.
| Soil property | Result | Type (Quality) |
|---|---|---|
| Soil particle size (%) | ||
| Sand | 67.20% | |
| silt and | 11.30% | |
| clay | 21.50% | |
| Textural class | Sandy clay loam | |
| pH | 6.57 | Neutral in reaction |
| Total N (%) | 0.08 | Very low or deficient |
| Organic Carbon (%) | 1.29 | Moderate |
| Organic matter % | 2.23 | Moderate |
| Exchangeable K (cmol (+)) kg−1 | 1.55 | High |
| Available P (ppm) | 43.62 | Very high |
| EC (dSm−1) | 0.225 | Non-saline |
| CEC (cmol kg−1 soil) | 14.93 | Moderate |
Source: Mekelle Soil laboratory of Tigray Regional Soil Laboratory.
Treatment combinations of fertilizer rates, plant spacing and plant populations.
| Nitrogen Rate (kg ha−1) | Intra row Spacing (m) | Plant Spacing (m) | Equivalent area (m2) | Plants per m2 | Plants ha−1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.10 | 0.10 × 0.20 | 0.020 | 50.0 | 500,000 |
| 0.08 | 0.08 × 0.20 | 0.016 | 62.5 | 625,000 | |
| 0.06 | 0.06 × 0.20 | 0.012 | 83.3 | 833,300 | |
| 0.04 | 0.04 × 0.20 | 0.008 | 125.0 | 1,250,000 | |
| 50 | 0.10 | 0.10 × 0.20 | 0.020 | 50.0 | 500,000 |
| 0.08 | 0.08 × 0.20 | 0.016 | 62.5 | 625,000 | |
| 0.06 | 0.06 × 0.20 | 0.012 | 83.3 | 833,300 | |
| 0.04 | 0.04 × 0.20 | 0.008 | 125.0 | 1,250,000 | |
| 100 | 0.10 | 0.10 × 0.20 | 0.020 | 50.0 | 500,000 |
| 0.08 | 0.08 × 0.20 | 0.016 | 62.5 | 625,000 | |
| 0.06 | 0.06 × 0.20 | 0.012 | 83.3 | 833,300 | |
| 0.04 | 0.04 × 0.20 | 0.008 | 125.0 | 1,250,000 | |
| 150 | 0.10 | 0.10 × 0.20 | 0.020 | 50.0 | 500,000 |
| 0.08 | 0.08 × 0.20 | 0.016 | 62.5 | 625,000 | |
| 0.06 | 0.06 × 0.20 | 0.012 | 83.3 | 833,300 | |
| 0.04 | 0.04 × 0.20 | 0.008 | 125.0 | 1,250,000 |
0.1 m, 0.08 m, 0.06 m and 0.04 m are the intra row spacing when multiplied each by 0.2 m common inter row spacing provides 500000, 625000, 833300 and 1250000 plant population density ha−1.
The effects of nitrogen and intra row spacing on plant height, bolting percentage, leaf length, number of leaves per plant, field stand count, neck diameter and marketable yield.
| Nitrogen (kg ha−1) | Plant height after 30 days (cm) | Bolting percentage (%) | Leaf length (cm) | Number of leaves/plant | Field stand count (%) | Neck diameter (cm) | Marketable yield (t ha−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 33.917 | 5.408 | 44.142 | 7.833 | 94.089 | 0.937 | 16.588 |
| 50 | 34.917 | 3.503 | 44.692 | 6.667 | 94.360 | 0.988 | 24.114 |
| 100 | 34.883 | 2.290 | 46.467 | 8.667 | 94.301 | 1.046 | 31.455 |
| 150 | 34.458 | 2.065 | 52.141 | 8.333 | 94.479 | 1.210 | 29.669 |
| F-test | Ns | * | * | ** | Ns | * | ** |
| LSD(0.05) | 0.639 | 5.362 | 0.783 | 0.115 | 2.097 | ||
| Intra-row Spacing (cm) | |||||||
| 4 | 34.783 | 3.305 | 46.373 | 6.583 | 91.286 | 1.080 | 24.23 |
| 6 | 34.380 | 3.293 | 47.360 | 8.167 | 94.169 | 1.055 | 26.72 |
| 8 | 34.442 | 3.340 | 46.892 | 8.167 | 94.361 | 0.998 | 25.43 |
| 10 | 34.575 | 3.328 | 46.817 | 8.583 | 97.413 | 1.049 | 25.45 |
| F-test | Ns | Ns | Ns | ** | * | Ns | * |
| LSD(0.05) | 0.783 | 2.71 | 2.097 | ||||
| CV (%) | 3.771 | 23.115 | 13.724 | 11.925 | 3.446 | 13.204 | 9.882 |
Means in columns sharing a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance Ns = non-significant. *,**, significant at 5% and 1% respectively.
Partial budget analysis.
| Treatments | Marketable yield (t ha−1) | Adjusted yield (t ha−1) | Gross field benefit (Birr ha−1) | Total VC (Birr) | Net Benefit (Birr) | Dominance* | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (kg ha−1) | Spacing(cm) | ||||||
| 0 | 10 | 15.88 | 14.292 | 128628 | 234 | 128394 | Undominated |
| 8 | 15.98 | 14.382 | 129438 | 305 | 129133 | Undominated | |
| 6 | 15.97 | 14.373 | 129357 | 375 | 128982 | Dominated | |
| 4 | 18.52 | 16.668 | 150012 | 429 | 149583 | Undominated | |
| 50 | 10 | 24.42 | 21.978 | 197802 | 1573 | 196229 | Undominated |
| 8 | 24.16 | 21.744 | 195696 | 1644 | 194052 | Dominated | |
| 6 | 26.50 | 23.85 | 214650 | 1714 | 212936 | Undominated | |
| 4 | 21.38 | 19.242 | 173178 | 1768 | 171410 | Dominated | |
| 100 | 10 | 31.99 | 28.791 | 259119 | 2913 | 256206 | Undominated |
| 8 | 31.86 | 28.674 | 258066 | 2984 | 255082 | Dominated | |
| 6 | 33.22 | 29.898 | 269082 | 3054 | 266028 | Undominated | |
| 4 | 28.75 | 25.875 | 232875 | 3108 | 229767 | Dominated | |
| 150 | 10 | 29.53 | 26.577 | 239193 | 4252 | 234941 | Dominated |
| 8 | 29.71 | 26.739 | 240651 | 4323 | 236328 | Dominated | |
| 6 | 31.18 | 28.062 | 252558 | 4393 | 248165 | Dominated | |
| 4 | 28.26 | 25.434 | 228906 | 4447 | 224459 | Dominated | |
*When the new technology surpassed the conventional practice, it is said to be Undominated. When the new technology yields lower benefit then the technology is indicated as dominated.
Analysis of marginal rate of return.
| Treatments | Adjusted Marketable yield (tha−1) | Net Benefit (Birr) | Total variable Cost (Birr) | Marginal increase net benefit (Birr) | Marginal increase variable Cost (Birr) | MRR % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (kg ha−1) | Spacing (cm) | ||||||
| 0 | 10 | 14.292 | 128394 | 234 | 739 | 71 | 1040.9 |
| 0 | 8 | 14.382 | 129133 | 305 | 20450 | 124 | 16491.9 |
| 0 | 4 | 18.52 | 149583 | 429 | 46646 | 1144 | 4077.5 |
| 50 | 10 | 24.42 | 196229 | 1573 | 16707 | 141 | 11848.9 |
| 50 | 6 | 26.50 | 212936 | 1714 | 43270 | 1199 | 3608.9 |
| 100 | 10 | 31.99 | 256206 | 2913 | 9822 | 141 | 6966.0 |
| 100 | 6 | 33.22 | 266028 | 3054 | |||
MRR is calculated by dividing the marginal increase in net benefit with the marginal increase in variable cost and multiplied by 100.