Free Essay

Factorial Design and Analysis

In: Science

Submitted By obshzl
Words 9728
Pages 39
A FACTORIAL DESIGN TO STUDY THE EFFECT OF SPACINGS AND FERTILIZER LEVELS ON
CROP GROWTH, SEED YIELD AND QUALITY IN LABLAB BEANS (Lablab purpureus.)
(A CASE STUDY OF MAIN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION FARM, UNIVERSITY OF
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD )
BY
ADENIYI OBANLA A.

ABSTRACT
This research work is an attempt to apply experimental design to boost the yield of vegetables (Lablab purpureus) through the application of fertilizer levels and spacing. The field experiment consists of two spacing viz., 45x15 cm
(S1) and 60x15 cm (S2) and eight fertilizer levels viz., F1-25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (RdF), F2-33:50:25 kg NPK per ha, F3-25:67:25 kg NPK per ha, F4-25:50:33 kg NPK per ha, F5-33:67:25 kg NPK per ha, F6-25:67: 33 kg NPK per ha, F7-33:50:33 kg NPK per ha and F8-33:67:33 kg NPK per ha. This is laid out in RBD with factorial concept in three replication. Significantly higher pod yield (20.19 q/ha), seed yield (16.81 q/ha), were recorded in S1 compared to S2 spacing, Whereas, pods per plant (20.60), seeds per pod (19.29), seed yield per plant (16.54g), 100 seed weight
(28.43 g), germination (70.65%), and field emergency (66.92) were higher in S2 compared to S1 spacing. More pod yield per ha (22.24 g), seed yield per ha (18.50 q), and seed yield per plant (19.95 g), 100 seed weight (32.26 g), and germination percentage (73.35) and field emergency (83.97) were higher in F8 fertilizer level compared to F1 fertilizer level. The interaction effects of S1xF8 recorded significantly more pod yield (23.48 q/ha), seed yield
(20.00 q/ha) compared to S2xF1.

1

1)

INTRODUCTION
GENERAL STUDY

Experimental design is about theory, methods and application of techniques to remove subjectivity and systematic variation, to enhance the scope of inference, isolate experimental error and optimize precision of estimates and test in experimentation.
This include the designs of all information gathering exercise where variation is present whether under the full control of experimental or not often the experimental is interested in the effect of some process of intervention
(treatment) on some objects (experimental units).
In any experiment, the experimenter is attempting to draw certain inferences or make decision about some hypothesis that he has concerning the situation being studied.
Agricultural researches have been conducted in many countries including Nigeria with a view of identifying fact so affecting crop yield and bring unto balance those factors in order to further boost food and fiber productions. For good yield, crops need sufficient nutrient in proper ratio. Hence to established adequate amount of such nutrients under condition cropping of the same land, field experiments are carried out by researcher to study the relationship between these various factors. Crop performance depends on the genotype, the environment in which the crops are grown and the interaction between the genotype and the environment.
Genotype and some factors of the environment such as fertilizer rate, plant population, and pest can be controlled. THE VEGETABLE UNDER STUDY
The vegetable (Lablab purpureus) belongs to the family leguminosae with 2n=22, 24 and is an annual herbaceous vegetable and commonly called as dolichos bean, hyacinth bean, sem, butter bean, Egyptian kidney bean and lubia bean. It is one of the oldest vegetable crops grown as pod vegetable in the world and in India particular. It is a native of tropical Asia, probably India and from there it spread to tropical and subtropical countries of the world like China, Sudan, Egypt and other countries. Its green pods and dry grains are highly nutritive in nature and are rich in carbohydrates (6.7 g), protein (3.8 g), fat (0.7 g), minerals (0.9 g), magnesium (34.0 g),calcium 210 mg), phosphorus (68.0 mg), sodium (55.4 mg), iron (1.7 mg), potassium (74.0 mg), sulphur (40.0 mg), vitamin A (312
I.U), riboflavin (0.06 mg) and vitamin C (9.0 mg) nicotinic acid (0.7 mg) and fibre (1.8 g) per 100 g of edible portion(Aykroyd, 1963) and Thamburaj and Narendra Singh (2003).
It is generally grown for pods as edible vegetable and dry seeds as pulse. Its mature grains are used as wholly or in splits for the preparation of sambar and spicy foods either alone or with potato its medicinal properties are also reported (Smith, 1976). Its foliage is also used as hay, silage and green manure. Its many uses in Nigeria include the preparation of different local dishes, as both processed and unprocessed vegetables and grains nutrition has not matched the popularity it is gaining an important complement of Nigeria diets.
DISTRIBUTION
Native to:
Africa: Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Cote D'Ivoire, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa (Cape Province, Natal, Orange Free State,
Transvaal), Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Western Indian Ocean: Madagascar. It's now widely cultivated pan-tropically.
NUTRITIONAL VALUE
Nutrition is probably the least important consideration in determining whether a consumer purchases a commodity, since most essential nutrient can neither be seen or tasted. Vegetables are the sole source of vitamin C in the diet of many people.
Improved nutritive value should be aimed at by all connected with any aspect of the vegetable industry, as it is a means of upgrading the health of the community without changing their food habits.
Some farmers have indicated that variety of vegetables and grain are affected by the interaction between nitrogen and phosphorous in the soil. Hence, a balanced application of these nutrients is required for vegetables and grains yield and effective nodulation.

2

Providing sufficient nitrogen and other essential nutrients like phosphorus to vegetables and grain can be difficult, but when these nutrients are applied in their right proportions enhances the growth of the variety. Sampling and analyses of soil for nutrient determination before fertilizer use is highly important.
To ensure proper usage of result from field trails, statistical knowledge on planning and designing of experiment is required. Good experimental designs are products' of the technical l knowledge of one's field and understanding of statistical technique and skill in designing experiments.
MOTIVATION
The technique used or employed in this project is most likely easy to work with and also fascinating. Also it's seen economically in most situations where many farmers experience low turnout in farm produce due to inappropriate inputs of fertilizer relative to spacing and ample flaws encountered in its application. Therefore I feel motivated to fast rack native methods construct positive ideas and induce unparalleled solution to tackle all incoherent issues that constitutes a major problem in this aspect of farm production relating to fertilizer levels and spacing.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The progressive increase in level of soil infertility and sparsely population of crop production are some major problems which led to the engagement of study, Similar to spacing, judicious application of balanced and adequate nutrients play a decisive role in deciding the ultimate success of seed production of lablab bean crop by realizing higher yield of best quality seeds and when this is ignored, it turns otherwise. The growth, yield and quality of seed crop are largely influenced by the nutrient fertility status of the soil apart from genetic potential of the variety.
Altering the soil nutrients and fertility status by providing balanced and adequate major nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as per the crop requirement is one of the easiest ways to boost up seed crop productivity of lablab bean since the interception in the supply of major/main soil nutrients even for a brief period determines the pattern of crop growth and development which may produce less yield of poor quality seeds and it cannot be corrected or altered at later stages of the crop growth even by supplying with heavier doses of major nutrients
(Dwivadi et al., 2002).
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
(i.)

To find out the effect of different spacing on crop growth, seed yield and quality.

(ii.)

To study the effect of different fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality.

(iii.)

To ascertain out the interaction effect between spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and

quality.
JUSTIFICATION FOR STUDY
Generally, this project work in view of study was developed to positively restructure the system of farming to yield best quality bean product by studying the effects of different fertilizer levels and different spacing on growth, quality and yield parameter in lablab bean. With the use of factorial design to provide estimates of experimental error by estimating the variations associated with the set of treatment combinations due to consistent repetition or replication of experiment. As it is known, necessity is the mother of invention therefore the reasons for engagement of study are given below.


To study the influences of fertilizer and spacing levels on crop germination



Improving the quality of crop to suit consumers' taste.



To provide optimum plant population density per unit area by adjusting the space levels in lablab bean crop unlike in normal spacing, the plants grown in normal spacing exhibited more vertical growth but gives less yields and poor quality seeds for need of sufficient space, light, nutrient and moisture due to heavier plant population pressure (Dhanraj et al., 2001).

SCOPE OF STUDY
This research work covered the study of the effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality in lablab bean, with full experimentations examined under rain fed conditions during kharif season
(2013-2014) at the Main Agricultural Research Station Farm, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad which is situated at 150 261 North latitude, 750 07 East longitude and altitude of 678 m above mean sea level.
LIMITATION OF STUDY
This research work covers only a specific periodic year (2013-2014) of experimental work studied under review.
This project is limited to only two factors which are spacing {45x15 cm (S1) and 60x15 cm (S2)} and fertilizer
3

levels {F1-25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (RdF), F2-33:50:25 kg NPK per ha, F3-25:67:25 kg NPK per ha, F4-25:50:33 kg NPK per ha, F5-33:67:25 kg NPK per ha, F6-25:67: 33 kg NPK per ha, F7-33:50:33 kg NPK per ha and F833:67:33 kg NPK per ha} consisting of two and eight factor levels respectively.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.

DAS: Days after sowing, meaning the number of days the experimental measurement was carried out after sowing. 2.

RDS: Randomized spacing for treatment effect.

3.

RDF: Randomized fertilizer levels for block effect.

4.

NPK: Fertilizer ingredients, N (nitrogen), P (potassium), and K (calcium).

4

2)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
SOURCE OF DATA
The data for this project work was collected from a field experiment conducted to examine

productivity in growth, yield and quality on the specified vegetable (lablab purpureus) lablab bean at Main
Agricultural Research Station Farm, University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad India.
EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS TO BE STUDIED
EFFECT ON GROWTH PARAMETER
1. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on plant height at different growth stages in lablab bean.
2. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on number of branches per plant at different growth stages in lablab bean.
EFFECT ON SEED YIELD PARAMETER
1. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on seed yield components in lablab bean.
2. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on pod seed yield components in lablab bean.
EFFECT ON SEED QUALITY PARAMETER
1. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on 100 seed weight (g), germination (%) and field emergence (%) in lablab bean 2. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on shoot length (cm), root length (cm) and seedling vigour index in lablab bean EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality of lablab bean at Main Agricultural Research Station Farm, University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad.
The details of the experiment are as below.
TREATMENTS
The field experiment consisted of 16 treatment combinations involving two factors as detailed below.
LEGEND
a) Spacing(S)
S1= 45x15cm
S2=60x15cm
b) Fertilizer levels (F)
F1- 25:50:25Kg NPK per ha
F2 -33:50:25Kg NPK per ha
F3- 25:67:25Kg NPK per ha
F4 -25:50:: 33Kg NPK per ha
F5-33:67:25 Kg NPK per ha
F6-25:67:25Kg NPK per ha
F7-33:50:33Kg NPK per ha
F8-33: 67:33Kg NPK per ha
TREATMENT COMBINATIONS
S1xF1 S1xF2 S1xF3 S1xF4 S1xF5 S1xF6 S1xF7 S1xF8
S2xF1 S2xF2 S2xF3 S2xF4 S2xF5 S2xF6 S2xF7 S2xF8
DESIGN OF LAYOUT
The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) in Factorial concept with three replications.
PLOT SIZE
Gross plot size: 3.6 x 3.0 m
Net plot size: 2.7 x 2.7 m (45 x 15 cm)
2.4 x 2.7 m (60 x 15 cm)
Each plot as per treatment schedule was recorded in kilograms.
COLLECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
Ten healthy and normal plants were selected randomly and were tagged with a label in each plot as per treatments schedule for recording various observations on growth, yield, and quality parameters as detailed below.

5

GROWTH PARAMETERS
PLANT HEIGHT (CM)
Plant height was measured from base of the plant to the tip of the main shoot having fully opened top leaf of the ten randomly tagged plants at 30, 60 days after sowing (DAS) and at harvest stages for each treatments and replications.
The average of ten tagged plants was computed and expressed as plant height in centimeters (cm) for respective stage of crop growth.
NUMBER OF BRANCHES PER PLANT
The total numbers of branches were counted from the earlier ten tagged plants and the average was computed and expressed as average number of branches per plant at 30, 60 DAS and harvest stages.
SEED YIELD PARAMETERS
NUMBER OF PODS PER PLANT
The numbers of pods picked up manually from ten randomly tagged plants were counted and the average was worked out and expressed as number of pods per plant at harvest each treatment.
NUMBER OF SEEDS PER POD
The pods selected from each of the ten tagged plants were obtained for counting number of seeds per pod and their average was expressed as number of seeds per pod treatment wise.
POD YIELD PER PLANT (G)
The pods harvested from the ten tagged plants were carefully weighed on an electronic balance and their average was calculated and expressed as pod yield in grams (g) per plant.
POD YIELD PER HECTARE (Q)
The pods obtained from net plot area of all treatments replication wise were dried under sun. Pod yield of ten tagged plants harvested separately and at the plants uprooted for recording plant dry matter were also included to the net plot pod yield before calculating the total pod yield per ha. The average pod yield was computed and expressed in quintal per ha.
SEED YIELD PER PLANT (G)
The seed yield obtained from each of the ten earlier tagged plants were dried in sun to around 8.0 per cent moisture content, weighed on analytical balance and average was expressed as seed yield in gram per plant for each treatments. SEED YIELD PER HECTARE (Q)
Seed yield obtained from the corresponding experimental plots of each treatment was cleaned manually, dried in the sun to 8.0 per cent moisture and weighed. Seed yield per hectare was computed from the net plot yield data and recorded as seed yield in quintals per hectare.
SEED QUALITY PARAMETERS
100 SEED WEIGHT (G)
The eight replicates of 100 randomly selected seeds in each treatment were weighed on an analytical balance as per the procedure given by ISTA Rules (Anon., 1999) and the average was expressed in gram.
GERMINATION PERCENTAGE
The germination test was carried out in four replicates of hundred seeds for each treatments in the laboratory seed germinator by using the ‘Between paper' method at 25 + 20C and 96 + 2 per cent RH as per the procedure stated by
ISTA Rules (Anon., 1999). The number of normal seedlings was counted on fourteenth day of germination testing and the average of four replications was expressed as germination percentage for each treatments.
FIELD EMERGENCE (%)
The randomly chosen one hundred seeds in four replications were sown in the well prepared raised nursery bed as per the treatment schedule and were adequately irrigated. The field emergence count was taken up on 21st day after sowing by considering the Net returns (Rs. /ha) B:C ratio = Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) No. of seeds infested
Seed infestation (%) = ------------------------------------------ x 100
Total number of seeds examined such seedlings with five centimeter height above the soil surface as germinated once and their average was expressed in percentage treatment wise.

6

SHOOT LENGTH (CM)
The shoot length was measured on individual seedling basis from point of junction of the cotyledon to the apex of the shoot for ten random normal seedlings on fourteenth day of germination testing and the mean was recorded as shoot length in centimeters (cm).
ROOT LENGTH (CM)
The root length was measured on single seedling basis between points of junction of the cotyledon to the tip of the root for ten randomly selected seedlings on fourteenth day old normal seedlings. The mean root length was expressed in centimeters (cm).
SEEDLING VIGOUR INDEX
The seedling vigour index was computed by using the following formula as given by Abdul-Baki and Anderson
(1973) and expressed in whole number for each treatments and replications. Seedling vigour index (SVI) =
Germination percentage x Seedling length (cm).
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
The mean data obtained from the experimentation were statistically analysed and subjected to the Analysis of variance using excel as a tool for analysis. The critical differences were calculated at five per cent level of probability wherever 'F' test was significant. The percentage data were transformed in to arc sine root transformation before analysis. l Statistical (Effects) Model
Since we are considering two treatment factors of interest i.e. Spacing and Fertilizer levels, the randomized block design model can be expressed as:

Ï i = 1, 2,..., a
Ô
yijk = m + t i + b j + (tb )ij + e ijk Ì j = 1, 2,..., b
Ôk = 1, 2,..., n
Ó

m is the overall mean, t i is the effect of the ith level of the row factor A, b j is the effect of the jth level of the column factor B and

(tb ) ij is the interaction between t i and b j where i = 1, ..., a, j = 1, ..., b, and k = 1, ..., n.

Thus we have two factors in a factorial structure with n observations per cell. As usual, we assume the σ2), i.e. independently and identically distributed with the normal distribution.
Testing Hypotheses

H 0 : t 1 = L = t a = 0 v.s. H1 : at least one t i π 0
H 0 : b1 = L = b b = 0 v.s. H1 : at least one b j π 0
H 0 : (tb ) ij = 0 "i, j v.s. H1 : at least one (tb ) ij π 0
Estimating the Model Parameters


The model is

yijk = m + t i + b j + (tb ) ij + e ijk
The normal equations a b

i =1



a

j =1

i =1 j =1

b

b

j =1



j =1

t i : bnm + bnt i + n  b j + n (tb ) ij = yi◊◊◊ a ∑

a

i =1



b

m : abnm + bnÂt i + an b j + n (tb )ij = y◊◊◊

i =1

b j : anm + nÂt i + anb j + n (tb ) ij = y◊ j◊
(tb )ij : nm + nt i + nb j + n(tb )ij = yij ◊

7

e ijk ~ n (0,

Constraint a Ât



i =1

b

i

a

b

j =1

i =1

j =1

= 0, Â b j = 0, Â (tb )ij = Â (tb )ij = 0

Estimations


ˆ m = y◊◊◊



tˆi = yi◊◊ - y◊◊◊



ˆ b j = y◊ j◊ - y◊◊◊



(tb )ij = yij◊ - yi◊◊ - y◊ j◊ + y◊◊◊

Fitted value

ˆ
ˆ ˆ ˆ yijk = m + t i + b j + (tb )ij = yij ◊



MODEL ASSUMPTIONS
Ascertain Normality
Independence
Equality of variance
3)

DATA ANALYSIS
The field experiment was conducted to know the effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality in lablab bean (Dolichos lablab L.). The results obtained from the above experiment are presented in this chapter.
Experiment: Effect of plant spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality in lablab bean
(Lablab purpureus L.).
Growth parameters
Results for table 1
Plant height at 30 days after sowing (DAS)
The data on plant height at 30 days after sowing (DAS) as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 1; an average of 31.92 was recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Plant height at 30 DAS varied significantly between the spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Plant height at 30 DAS showed non- significant differences due to fertilizer levels over spacing used. 33:67:33
NPK kg/per ha (F8) level was noticed to have significantly maximum plant height (34.05) while 25:50:25 NPK kg/per (F1) ha, (29.80) was least minimum.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The statistical differences on plant height at 30 DAS due to interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels (SxF) were found to be non-significant.
Plant height at 60 DAS
The data on plant height at 60 DAS due to spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are presented in Table
1. Statistically non-significant differences on plant height at 60 DAS were notice for all effects.
a.

Spacing (S)

At 60 DAS, plant height was non-significant due to spacing over fertilizer levels.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Non-significant differences amongst the fertilizer levels were noticed for plant height with 60 DAS irrespective of spacing c.

Interaction (SxF)

Non-significant differences on plant height at 60 DAS due to interaction of spacing and fertilizer levels were recorded. 8

Plant height at harvest
The data on plant height at harvest as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 1.No marked differences on plant height were seen at harvest due to fertilizer levels and interaction effects except for spacing.
a.

Spacing (S)

Between the two spacing adopted, 45x15 cm (S1) recorded numerically taller plants (54.61 cm) plant height at harvest as against 60x15 cm (S2) spacing (53.72 cm) which was seen to be significant.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

No marked (no significant) differences on plant height at harvest were seen due to fertilizer levels over spacing. At harvest, plant height was significantly the highest (57.16 cm) in 33:50:33 kg NPK per ha (F7) level and it was at par with F5 (33:67:25 kg NPK/ha) (56.78 cm), F8 (33:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (54.76 cm) and F1 (33:50:25 kg NPK/ha)
(53.72 cm). Whereas, significantly the lowest plant height (51.68 cm) was seen in 25:50:33 kg NPK per ha (F4) fertilizer level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

Interaction effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on plant height at harvest was found to be non-significant.
However, it was numerically more (57.63 cm) in S1xF7 followed by S1xF5 (56.80 cm), S2xF5 (56.76 cm), S2xF7
(56.68 cm) while it was less.
Table 1
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on plant height at different growth stages in lablab bean
Plant height (cm)

Fertilizer levels (F)

30DAS
Spacing (cm) (S)

60DAS
Spacing (cm) (S)

At harvest
Spacing (cm) (S)

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

30.00

29.60

29.80

52.10

53.60

52.85

53.02

54.41

53.72

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

31.60

31.33

31.46

53.20

52.32

52.76

53.61

53.37

53.49

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

32.03

30.63

31.33

54.23

50.63

52.43

55.06

51.26

53.16

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

31.30

31.23

31.26

51.43

50.47

50.95

52.42

50.94

51.68

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

32.70

32.36

32.53

54.62

55.63

55.13

56.80

56.76

56.78

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

31.60

31.00

31.30

50.64

51.09

50.87

53.04

52.07

52.56

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

33.60

33.66

33.63

55.65

55.34

55.50

57.63

56.68

57.16

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha

34.20

33.90

34.05

54.22

53.90

54.06

55.29

54.23

54.76

32.13

31.71

31.92

53.26

52.87

53.07

54.61

53.72

54.16

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Mean
For comparing means of

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Spacing

13.1036

0.0035

4.7472

3.3583

0.0918

4.7472

6.4395

0.0261

4.7472

Fertilizer

0.6169

0.4474

4.7472

0.1889

0.6715

4.7472

0.9713

0.3438

4.7472

SxF

0.0516

0.8241

4.7472

0.4446

0.5175

4.7472

0.0234

0.8809

4.7472

9

Results for table 2
Number of branches per plant at 30 DAS
The statistical variations on number of branches per plant as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 2.an average of 3.06 number of branches per plant at 30 das was recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Number of branches per plant at 30 DAS varied significantly between the spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Number of branches per plant at 30 DAS showed non- significant differences due to fertilizer levels over spacing used. c.

Interaction (SxF)

The statistical differences on number of branches per plant at 30 DAS due to interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels (SxF) were found to be non-significant.
Number of branches per plant at 60 DAS
The data on number of branches per plant at 60 DAS due to spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are presented in Table 2. Statistically non-significant differences on plant height at 60 DAS were also notice for all effects. a.

Spacing (S)

Number of branches per plant differed non-significantly due to spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Non-significant differences amongst the fertilizer levels were noticed for number of branches per plant at 60 DAS irrespective of spacing.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

Non-significant differences on number of branches per plant at 60 DAS due to interaction of spacing and fertilizer levels are recorded.
Number of branches per plant at harvest
The data on number of branches at harvest as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 2.No marked differences on number of branches per plant were seen for all effect.
a.

Spacing (S)

Between the two spacing adopted, 60x15 cm (S2) recorded highest number of branches per plant (7.18 cm) number of branches per plant at harvest as against 45x15 cm (S1) spacing (6.69cm) which was seen to be non-significant.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

No marked differences on number of branches per plant at harvest were seen due to fertilizer levels over spacing.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

Interaction effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on number of branches per plant at harvest was found to be nonsignificant.

10

Table 2
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on number of branches per plant at different growth stages in lablab bean
Number of branches per plant
Fertilizer levels (F)
30DAS
Spacing (cm) (S)

60DAS
Spacing (cm) (S)

At harvest
Spacing (cm) (S)

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

2.23

2.26

2.25

4.62

4.75

4.30

5.81

6.25

6.00

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

3.30

3.40

3.35

5.62

5.32

5.35

7.26

7.91

7.20

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

2.53

2.70

2.61

5.69

5.72

4.45

7.54

8.26

6.25

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

2.33

2.73

2.53

4.71

4.60

4.53

6.00

6.30

6.15

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

3.46

3.53

3.50

5.46

5.50

5.45

7.35

7.54

7.25

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

2.66

2.73

2.70

4.12

4.24

4.81

5.63

6.50

6.43

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

3.66

3.73

3.70

5.39

5.67

5.68

6.21

6.56

7.45

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha

3.73

4.03

3.78

6.07

6.46

6.18

7.75

8.12

7.90

2.99

3.14

3.06

5.21

5.28

5.25

6.69

7.18

6.94

Mean
For comparing means of

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Spacing

9.0860

0.0108

4.7472

0.4182

0.5300

4.7472

0.0079

0.9308

4.7472

Fertilizer

0.3634

0.5578

4.7472

0.0398

0.8452

4.7472

1.0917

0.3167

4.7472

SxF

0.0090

0.9261

4.7472

0.1380

0.7176

4.7472

0.0079

0.9308

4.7472

Results for table 3
Seed yield parameters
Number of pods per plant
The data on number of pods per plant at harvest due to spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 3. An average number of 20.25 pods per plant were recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels. a.

Spacing (S)

Number of pods per plant differed significantly due to spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels. It was significantly more (20.60) in 60x15 cm (S2) compared to 45x15 cm (S1) (19.89) spacing.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Irrespective of spacing, no marked differences between the fertilizer levels were recorded for number of pods per plant. It was significantly the highest (25.55) in fertilizer level of 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8), which was at par with F6 (25.52), F5 (25.33) and F7 (25.12) levels. Whereas, 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) recorded the lowest pod number (13.28).
c.

Interaction (SxF)

No significant differences on number of pods per plant were noticed due to interaction effect of spacing and fertilizer levels. It was significantly the height and lowest in S2xF8 (26.03) and S1xF1 (13.23) respectively.
Number of seeds per pod
The data on number of seeds per pod as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are furnished in Table 3.
a.

Spacing (S)

Irrespective of fertilizer levels, the significant variations on number of seeds per pod were seen between the spacing.
Significantly higher (19.29) number of seeds per pod were noticed in S2 (60x15 cm) than S1 (45x15 cm) (17.22).

11

b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

The marked differences amongst the fertilizer levels were noticed for number of seeds per pod over spacing. It was significantly the highest (22.50) in 33:67:33kg NPK per ha (F8), which was on par with F6 (22.25), F7 (21.99) and
F5 (21.75). Whereas, 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) recorded significantly the lowest (12.73) seed number.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The non-significant interaction effect between spacing and fertilizer levels was seen for number of seeds per pod.
However, it was numerically more and less number in S2xF8 (24.00) and S1xF1 (12.50) respectively.
Pod yield per plant (g)
The data on pod yield per plant as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are presented in Table 3. An average pod yield of 20.67 g per plant was recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Pod yield per plant showed significant differences between the spacing over fertilizer levels. It was significantly higher (21.47 g) in 60x15 cm (S2) than 45x15 cm (S1) spacing (19.87 g).
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Pod yield per plant depicted marked variations i.e. statistically significant differences where noticed amongst the fertilizer levels irrespective of spacing. It was significantly maximum (23.68 g) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) and it was on par with F6 (25:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (23.55 g), F4 (23.10 g) and F7 (22.65 g) levels. Whereas, significantly minimum (17.20 g) pod yield was seen in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1).
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The statistical variations for SxF interaction effect were found to be significant for pod yield per plant. Significantly, the highest (25.20 g) pod yield per plant was noticed in S2xF8, which was on par at S2xF6 (24.70 g) and S2xF5
(24.20 g), S2xF7 (23.70 g) levels while it was significantly the lowest (16.80g) in S1xF1 level.
Table 3
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on seed yield components in lablab bean
Number of seeds per pod

Number of pods per plant

Pod yield per plant

Spacing (cm) (S)

Spacing (cm) (S)

Spacing (cm) (S)

Fertilizer levels (F)
S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

12.50

12.96

12.73

13.23

13.33

13.28

16.80

17.60

17.20

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

13.00

13.70

13.35

13.53

13.63

13.58

17.40

17.73

17.56

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

15.26

17.00

16.13

16.93

17.43

17.18

18.60

19.60

19.10

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

14.70

16.00

15.35

15.63

17.23

16.43

18.00

19.00

18.50

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

20.00

23.50

21.75

24.93

25.73

25.33

22.00

24.20

23.10

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

20.80

23.70

22.25

25.03

26.00

25.52

22.40

24.70

23.55

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

20.50

23.48

21.99

24.83

25.43

25.12

21.60

23.70

22.65

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha

21.00

24.00

22.50

25.06

26.03

25.55

22.16

25.20

23.68

17.22

19.29

18.26

19.89

20.60

20.25

19.87

21.47

20.67

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Mean
For comparing means of
Spacing

170.633 1.87E-08 4.7472

206.496

6.3E-09

4.7472

203.961

6.8E-09

4.7472

Fertilizer

12.2578

0.0044 4.7472

0.9856

0.3404

4.7472

19.566

0.0008

4.7472

SxF

2.9837

0.1097 4.7472

0.0351

0.8545

4.7472

5.0894

0.0436

4.7472

*Figures with 'E' are decimal values in base 10.

12

Results for table 4
Pod yield per ha (q)
The data on pod yield per ha as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are furnished in Table 4. An average pod yield of 18.81 q per ha was recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Between two spacing, significant differences were noticed, with 45x15 cm (S1) spacing having the highest pod yield in quantity per ha over 60x15 cm (S2) spacing, (20.19) and (17.43) respectively.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Irrespective of spacing, significant variations on pod yield per ha were observed due to different fertilizer levels. It was significantly the highest (22.24 q/ha) in a fertilizer level of 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8), which was on par with
F6 (25:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (21.25 q/ha) and F5 (33:67:25 kg NPK/ha) (20:54 q/ha) levels. While, it was the lowest
(15.60 q/ha) in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels was found to be non-significant. A treatment combination of
S1xF8 recorded significantly maximum pod yield (23.48 q/ha) and it was on par with S1xF6 (23.00 q/ha) and S1xF5
(22.20 q/ha) whereas, it was minimum in S2xF1 (14.99 q/ha).
Seed yield per plant (g)
The data on seed yield per plant due to spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 4.
An average seed yield of 15.98 g per plant was recorded irrespective of spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Seed yield per plant showed marked differences between the spacing over fertilizer levels. It was significantly higher (16.54g) in 60x15 cm (S2) over 45x15 cm (S1) (15.42 g) spacing.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

The no marked differences on seed yield per plant were noticed amongst the fertilizer levels irrespective of spacing.
It was significantly maximum (19.95 g) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) and minimum in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha
(F1) (10.86 g).
c.

Interaction (SxF)

Non-significant variations of seed yield per plant were observed due to interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels. However, it was numerically more (21.70 g) in S2xF8 level and it was less (10.43 g) in S1xF1interaction.
Seed yield per ha (q)
The data on seed yield per ha as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are presented in Table 4. An average seed yield of 16.04 q per ha was recorded over spacing and fertilizer levels.
a.

Spacing (S)

Seed yield per ha differed markedly due to spacing over fertilizer levels. Significantly more seed yield (16.81 q/ha) was recorded in 45x15 cm (S1) spacing than in 60x15 cm (S2) (15.27 q/ha) spacing.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Irrespective of spacing, the fertilizer levels depicted non-significant variations on seed yield per ha. It was significantly the highest (18.50 q/ha) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8), which was on par at F6 (25:67:33 kg NPK/ha)
(18.20 q/ha), F5 (33:67:25 kg NPK/ha) (18.00 q/ha) and F7 (33:50:33 kg NPK/ha) (17.96 q/ha), and also with rest of the fertilizer levels. However, it was the least yield (11.92 q/ha) in 25:50:25 kg NPK/ha) (F1).
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels differed non-significantly for seed yield per ha. It was significantly maximum (20.00 q/ha) in the S1xF8 interaction, which was at par with S1xF6 (19.77 q/ha), S1xF5
(19.39 q/ha) and S1xF7 (19.06 q/ha) and minimum (11.57 q/ha) in S2xF1interaction level.

13

Table 4
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on pod seed yield components in lablab bean
Pod yield (q) per ha

Seed yield (g) per plant

Seed yield (q) per ha

Spacing (cm) (S)

Spacing (cm) (S)

Spacing (cm) (S)

Fertilizer levels (F)
S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

16.20

14.99

15.60

10.43

11.30

10.87

12.26

11.57

11.92

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

17.60

15.00

16.30

12.23

12.90

12.57

14.80

12.49

13.65

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

19.30

16.98

18.14

14.23

15.46

14.82

16.00

14.87

15.44

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

18.03

15.57

16.80

14.53

15.23

14.88

15.40

13.97

14.69

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

22.30

18.87

20.54

17.40

19.30

18.35

19.39

16.60

18.00

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

23.00

19.50

21.25

18.13

20.40

19.27

19.77

16.62

18.20

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

21.68

17.56

19.62

18.18

16.10

17.14

16.86

19.06

17.96

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha
Mean

23.48
20.19

20.99
17.43

22.24
18.81

18.20
15.42

21.70
16.54

19.95
15.98

20.00
16.81

17.00
15.27

18.50
16.04

For comparing means of

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

P-value

Ftab

Spacing

54.4363 8.52E-06 4.7472

34.7250 7.33E-05 4.7472

34.3955

7.66E-05 4.7472

Fertilizer

23.3873

0.0004

4.7472

1.5100

0.2427

4.7472

4.5174

0.0550

4.7472

SxF

1.1335

0.3080

4.7472

0.0886

0.7711

4.7472

0.0416

0.8419

4.7472

Results for table 5
Seed quality parameters
100 seed weight (g)
The data on 100 seed weight as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and their interaction effects are depicted in Table 5.
a.

Spacing (S)

100 seed weight differed markedly between the two spacing adopted irrespective of fertilizer levels. Significantly higher 100 seed weight (28.43 g) was recorded in S2 (60x15 cm) as against S1 (45x15 cm) (26.51 g) spacing.
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

The marked variations on 100 seed weight were recorded due to the fertilizer levels irrespective of spacing. It was significantly maximum (32.26 g) in a fertilizer level of 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par with F7
(33:50:33 kg NPK/ha) (30.81 g), F6 (25:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (29.80 g) and F5 (33:67:25 kg NPK/ha) (27.03 g) levels while, it was minimum (23.76 g) in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction effect between spacing and fertilizer levels exhibited marked variations for 100 seed weight. A treatment combination of S2xF8 recorded significantly maximum 100 seed weight (33.31 g), which was on par with
S2xF7 (32.02 g) and S1xF8 (31.20 g) levels. It was the minimum weight (22.00 g) in S1xF1level.
Germination (%)
The data on germination percentage due to spacing, fertilizer levels and interactions are furnished in Table
5. An average (88.64%) of germination was recorded over of spacing and fertilizer levels
a.

Spacing (S)

Marked variations on germination percentage were noticed due to spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels.
Significantly higher (88.95%) germination was noticed in 60x15 cm (S2) as against 45x15 cm (S1) (88.33%) spacing. 14

b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Germination percentage revealed non-significant differences due to fertilizer levels over spacing. It was significantly the highest (91.78%) in a fertilizer level of 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par with F7 (33:50:33 kg
NPK/ha) (90.60%), F6 (25:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (89.58%), F5 (33:67:25 kg NPK/ha) (89.12%) levels. Whereas, the lowest germination (86.32%) was seen in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels showed non-significant variations for germination percentage.
It was significantly maximum (92.24%) in the treatment combination of S2xF8, which was on par at S1xF8
(91.32%), S2xF7 (90.76%) and S1xF7 (90.43%) levels and it was minimum (86.23%) in S1xF1interaction level.
Field emergence (%)
The data on field emergence due to spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are presented in Table 5.
a.

Spacing (S)

Irrespective of fertilizer levels, significant variations on field emergence were seen due to spacing. It was numerically higher (84.59%) in 60x15 cm (S2) compared to 45x15 cm (S1) (83.35%).
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Significant differences on field emergence were recorded in different fertilizer levels over spacing. It was significantly maximum (86.39%) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par with F7 (85.64%), F6 (84.59%) and F4 (83.83%) levels and minimum (81.82%) in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) level, respectively.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction effect between spacing and fertilizer levels was found to be non-significant for field emergence.
Numerically more (87.45%) and less (81.36%) field emergence was seen in S2xF8and S1xF1interactions respectively. Table 5
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on 100 seed weight, germination (%), and field emergency (%) in lablab bean
Fertilizer levels (F)

100 Seed weight g
Spacing (cm) (S)

Germination (%)
Spacing (cm) (S)

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

22.00

25.51

23.76

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

24.60

26.32

25.46

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

24.09

25.67

24.88

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

25.30

26.28

25.79

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

26.70

27.36

27.03

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

28.60

31.00

29.80

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

29.60

32.02

30.81

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha

31.20

33.31

32.26

Mean

26.51

28.43

27.47

For comparing means of

Fcal

P-value

(86.23)
(68.22)*
(86.34)
(68.31)*
(87.06)
(68.92)*
(87.34)
(69.16)*
(88.62)
(70.29)*
(89.32)
(70.93)*
(90.43)
(71.98)*
(91.32)
(72.87)*
(88.33)
(70.09)*
Fcal

(86.40)
(68.36)*
(87.14)
(68.99)*
(87.22)
(69.05)*
(88.35)
(70.04)*
(89.61)
(71.20)*
(89.84)
(71.41)*
(90.76)
(72.30)*
(92.24)
(73.83)*
(88.95)
(70.65)*
P-value

(86.32)
(68.29)*
(86.74)
(68.65)*
(87.14)
(68.99)*
(87.85)
(69.60)*
(89.12)
(70.75)*
(89.58)
(71.17)*
(90.60)
(72.14)*
(91.78)
(73.35)*
(88.64)
(70.37)*
Ftab

(81.36)
(64.42)*
(82.24)
(65.08)*
(82.96)
(65.62)*
(83.45)
(65.99)*
(82.78)
(65.48)*
(84.02)
(66.44)*
(84.66)
(66.94)*
(85.32)
(67.47)*
(83.35)
(65.93)*
Fcal

(82.27)
(65.10)*
(82.96)
(65.62)*
(83.33)
(65.90)*
(84.21)
(66.59)*
(84.72)
(66.99)*
(85.16)
(67.34)*
(86.62)
(68.54)*
(87.45)
(69.25)*
(84.59)
(66.92)*
P-value

Ftab

Mean

Field emergency (%)
Spacing (cm) (S)
S1-45x15 S2-60x15

Mean
(16.20)
(64.76)*
(16.20)
(65.35)*
(16.20)
(65.76)*
(16.20)
(66.29)*
(16.20)
(66.24)*
(16.20)
(66.89)*
(16.20)
(67.74)*
(16.20)
(68.36)*
(83.97)
(66.43)*
Ftab

Spacing

32.6188 9.74E-05 4.7472

41.251

3.29E-05

4.7472

18.6869

0.0010

4.7472

Fertilizer

4.8176

0.0486

4.7472

1.4797

0.2472

4.7472

5.8265

0.0327

4.7472

SxF

0.0008

0.9777

4.7472

0.0516

0.8242

4.7472

1.2744

0.2810

4.7472

* Figures in parenthesis are arcsine values

15

Results for table 6
Shoot length (cm)
The data pertaining to shoot length due to the effect of spacing, fertilizer levels and their interactions are revealed in Table 6.
a.

Spacing (S)

The statistical differences for shoot length due to spacing were found to be significant. A wider row spacing of
60x15 cm (S2) recorded significantly more shoot length (25.02 cm) than narrow spacing of 45x15 cm (S1) (25.01 cm). b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Irrespective of spacing, shoot length differed non-significantly amongst the fertilizer levels. It was significantly the highest (28.07 cm) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par with F7 (26.88 cm), F6 (25.63 cm) and F5
(25.10 cm). Whereas, it was the lowest in 25:50:25kg NPK per ha (F1) (22.76 cm).
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The statistical differences on shoot length were non-significant due to SxF interaction effects. It was numerically more (28.99 cm) in S2xF8 and less (22.03 cm) in S2xF1interactions.
Root length (cm)
The statistical differences on root length due to spacing and fertilizer levels except their interactions were found to be significant, as shown in Table 6.
a.

Spacing (S)

Irrespective of fertilizer levels, root length differed significantly due to spacing. A wider spacing 60x15 cm (S2) recorded significantly more root length (23.56 cm) than narrow spacing of 45x15 cm (S1) (22.27 cm).
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

The significant differences on root length were seen due to fertilizer levels irrespective of spacing. It was significantly the highest (24.60 cm) in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par at F6 (23.32 cm), F7 (23.12 cm) and F5 (22.90 cm) levels and the lowest (22.01 cm) were recorded in 25:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F1) level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels revealed non-significant differences on root length. It was numerically more (25.71 cm) and less (21.36 cm) in the treatment combinations of S2xF8 and S1xF1levels, respectively. Seedling vigour index (SVI)
The data on seedling vigour index as influenced by spacing, fertilizer levels and interaction effects are presented in Table 6. An average 2477.56 seedling vigour indexes was recorded over the spacing and fertilizer levels. a.

Spacing (S)

Seedling vigour index varied markedly (significantly) due to spacing irrespective of fertilizer levels. A wider spacing of 60x15 cm (S2) recorded significantly more (2566.00) vigour index than narrow spacing of 45x15 cm (S1)
(2389.13).
b.

Fertilizer levels (F)

Among the different fertilizer levels irrespective of spacing adopted significantly the highest (2669.00) vigour index was recorded in 33:67:33 kg NPK per ha (F8) which was on par at F7 (33:50:33 kg NPK/ha) (2597.50) and F6
(25:67:33 kg NPK/ha) (2519.00) levels while it was the lowest (2352.50) at 33:50:25 kg NPK per ha (F2) level.
c.

Interaction (SxF)

The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels showed marked variations for vigour index (S2xF8) treatment combination exhibited significantly maximum vigour index (2759.00 ) which was on par with S2xF7 (2732.00),
S2xF6 (2642.00) and S2xF5(2598.00) interaction. However, it was significantly minimum at S1xF4 (2308.00) interaction level.

16

Table 6
Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on shoot length (cm), root length (cm) and seedling vigour index in lablab bean Shoot length (cm)

Root length (cm)

Seeding vigour index

Spacing (cm) (S)

Fertilizer levels (F)

Spacing (cm) (S)

Spacing (cm) (S)

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

S1-45x15 S2-60x15 Mean

F1 : 25:50:25 NPK kg/ha

23.48

22.03

22.76

21.36

22.65

22.01

2320.00

2386.00 2353.00

F2 : 33:50:25 NPK kg/ha

23.85

22.62

23.24

21.92

22.43

22.18

2294.00

2411.00 2352.50

F3 : 25:67:25 NPK kg/ha

24.96

23.35

24.16

22.07

23.12

22.60

2341.00

2437.00 2389.00

F4 : 25:50:33 NPK kg/ha

24.34

24.23

24.29

22.24

22.98

22.61

2308.00

2563.00 2345.50

F5 : 33:67:25 NPK kg/ha

24.52

25.67

25.10

22.30

23.49

22.90

2412.00

2598.00 2505.00

F6 : 25:67:33 NPK kg/ha

25.47

25.78

25.63

23.08

23.55

23.32

2396.00

2642.00 2519.00

F7 : 33:50:33 NPK kg/ha

26.31

27.45

26.88

21.68

24.56

23.12

2463.00

2732.00 2597.50

F8 : 33:67:33 NPK kg/ha

27.14

28.99

28.07

23.48

25.71

24.60

2579.00

2759.00 2669.00

25.01

25.02

25.01

22.27

23.56

22.92

2579.00

2759.00 2477.56

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Spacing

25.0053

0.0003

4.7472

10.4131

0.0073

Fertilizer

0.0001

0.9913

4.7472

13.5559

SxF

3.8789

0.0724

4.7472

1.2772

Mean
For comparing means of

Ftab

Fcal

P-value

Ftab

4.7472

30.2441

0.0001

4.7472

0.0031

4.7472

26.1755

0.0003

4.7472

0.2805

4.7472

1.5741

0.2335

4.7472

STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS
HYPOTHESIS A
H0:

There is no significant difference of spacing on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean.

H1:

There is significant difference of spacing on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean.
HYPOTHESIS B

H0:

There is no significant difference in levels of fertilizer application on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean.

H1:

There is significant difference in levels of fertilizer application on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean.
HYPOTHESIS C

H0:

There is no interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean.

H1:

There is interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield, and quality in lablab bean. 17

DISCUSSION
Lablab bean (Lablab purpurius L.) is an important vegetable crop grown in India for its green edible pods and also fodder purpose. Presently, lablab bean crop is being grown annually on 6.03 lakhs hectare area in India but average productivity is quite low (15 t/ha) of green pod yield due to several constraints like availability of poor quality seeds, lack of improved agronomic packages, inadequate post-harvest handlings etc. Among these factors, development of improved agronomic packages is the most important in enhancing the average productivity of lablab bean. Among the several agronomic packages, the higher yield of best quality seeds could be obtained in lablab bean by optimizing the spacing and fertilizer levels during its crop growth period. Although, sufficient work is carried out to enhance seed yield and quality by standardizing spacing and fertilizer levels in vegetable crops like fenugreek, garden pea, tomato, cabbage etc. Such systematic works are lacking in pod vegetable crops like lablab beans particularly in Karnataka under Dharwad conditions. Therefore, an attempt was made to standardize the different levels of spacing and fertilizer doses for getting higher yield and quality seeds in lablab bean. The field experiment was conducted to know the effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality in lablab bean at Main Agricultural Research Station farm, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad during kharif (2013-2014) and their results are discussed in this chapter.
PROPER INTERPRETATION OF RESULT
An important feature of the design of experiment is its ability to uniformly maintain all environmental factors that are not a part of the treatments being evaluated. This uniformity is both an advantage and a weakness of a controlled experiment. Although maintaining uniformly is vital to the measurement and reduction of experimental error, which are so essential in hypothesis testing, this same feature greatly limits the applicability and generalization of the experimental results, a limitation that must always be considered in the interpretation of results.
Clearly the result of experiments is strictly speaking, applicable only to condition that are the same as, or similar to, that under which the experiment was conducted. This limitation is especially troublesome because most agricultural research is done on experimentation where average productivity is higher than that for ordinary farms.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
An experimental investigation was carried out to study the effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on crop growth, seed yield and quality in lablab bean under field condition during kharif (2006-07) at the Main Agricultural
Research Station Farm, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Proper interpretations of results obtained from the present investigation are summarized in this chapter.

18

REREFERENCE
Amaregouda, C. P., 2002, Effect of NPK, ZnSO4 and MgSO4 on growth, yield and quality of gardenpea (Pisum sativum L.) cv. Bonneville. M.Sc. (Agri.). Thesis, Univ.
Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Anil Kumar, 2004, Standardization of seed production techniques in fenugreek. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. of Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Anonymous, 2004, Improved Package of Practices for Horticultural
Crops Publications, Univ. of Agric. Sci., Dharwad, p. 236.
Bahadur, A. and Singh, K. P., 2005, Optimization of spacing and drip irrigation scheduling in indeterminate tomato. The Indian J. Agric. Sci., 75: 563-565.
Dwivedi, Y. C., Kushwah, S. S. and Sengupta, S. K., 2002, Studies on nitrogen, phosphorus and potash requirement of dolichos bean. JNKVV Res. J., 36: 47-50.
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21(3) : 2008 Department of Seed Science and
Technology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, India
Kumar, M., Sinha, K. K. And Roysharma, R. P., 2004, Effect of organic manure, NPK and boron application on the productivity of French bean in sandy loam soil of North Bihar. Indian J. of Pulse Res., 17 : 42-44)
Mazumdar, S. N., Moninuzzaman, M., Rahman, S. M. M. And Basak, N. C., 2007,
Influence of support systems and spacing on hyacinth bean production in the eastern hilly area of Bangladesh. Leg. Res., 30: 1-9.
Noor, S., Huq, M. S., Washin, H. And Islam, M. S., 1992, Effect of fertilizer and organic manure on the yield of hyacinth bean (Dolichos lablab L.). Leg. Res., 15: 11-14.

19…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Instructional Design Analysis

...Instructional Design Analysis Linda Lee AIU Online Abstract This analysis will analyze the process of instructional design. It will discuss the instructional design disciplines. There will be a discussion on instructional design and how it aligns with scientific methods. The ADDIE model will be detailed in this essay. The difference between instructional theory and learning theory will be compared and defined. The most important component of the instructional design process will be visited. The task that instructional designers perform will be discussed as well as the skills that he or she is required to possess. The conclusions drawn will be included. Instructional Design Analysis The definition of Instructional Design is a systematic way to develop instructional materials that are structured well by using objectives, related teaching strategies, systematic feedback and evaluation. It can also be defined as the scientific way to create detail oriented specifications for the design, development, evaluation, and maintenance of instructional material, which facilitates performance and learning. According to Wilson, (2004) instructional design can be defined as a technology, a science, an art or a craft. The instructional designer observes what is happening and collects empirical data in order to improve a particular topic. Empirical data is what the designer observes with their eyes and ears. Principles of the discipline of instructional design ......

Words: 3597 - Pages: 15

Free Essay

Design Analysis

...Remote controls are used frequently at home, in the office, and even in the classroom. This pervasiveness stresses the importance of having a good design in order for the user to be able to interact with the TV with minimal problems. The manufacturers take this into consideration when they built the TV by aiming to provide a remote control that supplements the TV they have designed. However, remote controls fail over time and must be replaced and manufacturers don’t tend to offer a replacement for a specific TV model. Therefore, the TV owner must find a universal remote that is useful, it supports the capabilities of their TV, and that has good usability. With this in mind, through the course of this paper I will be reviewing the design of what I believe to be a bad universal remote compared to a good universal remote by giving a personal example of each. I had to replace the remote of my 25 year old Sony TV and I decided to get the cheapest one they had at RadioShack, which turned out to a very bad universal remote overall. Getting the universal remote setup with my TV required me to press certain buttons in the correct sequence and then entering the right code for my TV model. The whole process was straight forward enough, but there were multiple codes for my model TV so I had to perform the setup steps multiple times before I got it to sync with my TV. Once setup, I noticed that the remote did not have buttons for certain features offered by my TV, input selection......

Words: 942 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Essentials of Systems Analysis and Design

... This page intentionally left blank Download at www.Pin5i.Com Essentials of Systems Analysis and Design Download at www.Pin5i.Com Editorial Director: Sally Yagan Editor in Chief: Eric Svendsen Executive Editor: Bob Horan Editorial Assistant: Ashlee Bradbury Director of Marketing: Patrice Lumumba Jones Executive Marketing Manager: Anne Fahlgren Senior Managing Editor: Judy Leale Production Project Manager: Kelly Warsak Senior Operations Supervisor: Arnold Vila Operations Specialist: Cathleen Petersen Creative Director: Blair Brown Senior Art Director/Design Supervisor: Janet Slowik Text Designer: Michael Fruhbeis Creative Director/Cover: Jayne Conte Cover Designer: Suzanne Duda Cover Art: Fotolia/3d mosaic/©Redshinestudio Manager, Rights and Permissions: Hessa Albader Media Project Manager: Lisa Rinaldi Media Editor: Denise Vaughn Full-Service Project Management: Tiffany Timmerman/S4Carlisle Publishing Services Composition: S4Carlisle Publishing Services Printer/Binder: Courier/Kendallville Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color/Hagerstown Text Font: ITCCentury Book Credits and acknowledgments borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this textbook appear on appropriate page within text. Microsoft® and Windows® are registered trademarks of the Microsoft Corporation in the U.S.A. and other countries. Screen shots and icons reprinted with permission from the Microsoft Corporation. This book is not sponsored or endorsed by or affiliated with the......

Words: 179288 - Pages: 718

Free Essay

Object-Oriented Analysis and Design

...Generic Exam: Object-Oriented Analysis and Design Time: 2.5 hours Marking: 100 marks, plus 10 marks for the bonus question. Purpose This purpose of this generic exam is to allow you to see what the real final exam will look like, and the relative weighting in terms of marks. The only significant difference between this generic exam and the final one is that the latter will include a specific case study. Exam Process This examination is composed of multiple sections. Each subsequent section relies upon standard solutions from the previous sections. You are required to submit your section answers—on completion—to the examination coordinator, and trade it for the standard solution. Use the provided standard solution as the basis for your subsequent work. On completion of the examination, hand in the entire set of standard solutions. Do not reveal or discuss the standard solutions, either during or after the examination. Marking ▪ Please note that the use case questions have the least marks, since they are relatively straightforward and not an object-oriented skill. In contrast, the questions on responsibility assignment, patterns, and design of collaborations have the most marks, since these are the most important object-oriented design skills. Evaluation Objectives ▪ Ability to identify primary use cases and record them in expanded, essential form. ▪ Ability to identify outstanding concepts, associations, and attributes......

Words: 688 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

System Analysis and Design

...have outputs that the people project will need to draw on. For example, the process of creating data models and data flow diagrams may raise questions of data ownership, which need to be fed to the people project to resolve, perhaps through a redefinition of rolesand responsibilities or the introduction of a new procedure. Likewise, if systems analysts have done a detailed assessment of costs and benefits, this will give the people project some idea of the messages they can use to sell the new IT system to users and managers. Analysts can also draw on the people project for valuable help in areas such as human–computer interface design, discussed in Chapter 15. The look and feel of the HCI can be one of the most significant factors in determining a user’s response to a system. The people project can help create the conditions in which HCI design can be done collaboratively, thus ensuring that both sides get what they need from this all-important aspect of the system. Very often, analysts and designers do more communicating about an IT Project than any other group. Analysts have extensive contact with the people who will ultimately use the system, as well as with the budget-holders who are actually paying for and steering the development project. They probably know more about the user community’s expectations and desires than line managers. They are often more up to date on decisions about the final size and shape of the system, when it will be implemented; even what......

Words: 11373 - Pages: 46

Premium Essay

Nokia Product Design Analysis

...Webster University Nokia Product Design Analysis A Product Design Project for the new Lumia Century Jaqui Melton Business 6110 Professor Gary Sample December 20, 2013 Nokia Product Design Analysis 2 Abstract Having been made project manager for the design of Nokia’s new cell phone, the Lumia Century, the purpose of this report is to provide management with an anticipated project schedule and calculated project duration. In doing this, a project network has been created; and the slack times, not along the critical path were identified. Additionally, the impact of two possible changes was investigated and evaluations were made regarding whether or not the changes would be in Nokia’s best interest to pursue. Utilizing the work breakdown structure provided by supervisors this product design project develops the plan for ensuring the successful and timely launch of our highly anticipated new cell phone. Keywords: [telecommunications, network planning, critical path, supplier integration] Nokia Product Design Analysis 3 As a leader in mobile communications, Nokia has made its mark on the global ecosystem by enabling mobility through its different businesses. Our Nokia Solutions Network creates innovative mobile products and telecommunication infrastructures for people around the world. In regards to our cellular services, we believe that Windows phone and the broader Windows platform offer unique and compelling experiences that make Nokia Lumia......

Words: 3038 - Pages: 13

Premium Essay

Job Analysis and Job Design

...San Beda College GRADUATE SCHOOL OF BUSINESS 1 BUS 117-C1 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Job Analysis and Job Design Reported by: Josephine dela Cruz Garces Job Analysis and Job Design Clearly, the case above is a manifestation of poor human resource practice. There is an apparent lack of job analysis and job design that could have produced the document and the system that would minimize, if not totally eradicate, cases similar to that mentioned from occurring. Meaning and Nature of Job Analysis Job analysis, as a human resource practice, pertains to “the systematic process of determining the skills, duties, and knowledge required for performing jobs in an organization.” (Mondy, 2012). In similar manner, Dr. Roque (2005) defined job analysis as “the process of determining and reporting pertinent information relating to the nature of a specific job” (Roque and Edralin, 2005). As such, job analysis is an activity that sets in detail the tasks necessary in performing one‟s duties in an organization. It so to speak acts as the employees‟ „bible‟ that would set the standards and needed qualifications in successfully performing one‟s functions in the organization. In any organization, this function is the starting point of human resources management. Clearly, other HR functions such as, but not limited to, hiring, performance appraisal, training needs analysis, compensation management, cast dependence on it. This can be manifested in the following paradigm: “That In All......

Words: 2529 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Accounting System Analysis & Design

...ACCOUNTING SYSTEM ANALYSIS & DESIGN ANSWER FOR TUTORIAL 3 There are several methods that systems analysts use to determine requirements for a proposed system. The requirements gathering techniques can be categorized into traditional, modern, or radical. The traditional requirements gathering techniques are interviews, questionnaires, , and documents analysis. The modern requirements determination techniques include Joint Application Design (JAD), group support systems, prototyping, and CASE tools. Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a radical method for determining system requirements. Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages to system implementation and operation. 1. Briefly describe systems analysis and the major activities that occur during this phase of the systems development life cycle. (4 Marks) Answer: Systems analysis involves determining how the current information system functions and assess what users would like to see in a new system. Requirements determination, requirements structuring, and alternative generation and selection are the three primary systems analysis activities. 2. Describe THREE (3) traditional techniques for collecting information during analysis. When might one be better than another? (6 Marks) Answer: Traditional techniques for collecting requirements include interviewing individuals, interviewing groups, observing users, and document and procedure......

Words: 689 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

System Analysis and Design

...Written Assignment: 1. Chapter 1 – Introduction to System Analysis and Design Answer questions 1, 2, 3, found on page 34 of the reading, and answer minicase 1 Learning Outcomes: LO1, LO2, LO3) a. What are the six general skills all project team members should have? Six general skills all project team members should have are technical, business, analytical, interpersonal, management, and ethical. b. What are the major roles on a project team? There are five major roles on a project team that have to work together to succeed. The five roles that are needed is a business analyst, systems analyst, infrastructure analyst, change management analyst, and a project manager. c. Compare and contrast the role of a systems analyst, business analyst, and infrastructure analyst. The roles of systems analyst is to identify how technology can improve business processes, design new business processes, design the information system, and ensuring that the system conforms to information systems standards. The roles of a business analyst is to analyze the key business aspects of the system, identify how the system will provide business value, and design the new business process and policy. The roles of an infrastructure analyst is to ensure that the system conforms to infrastructure standards and identify infrastructure changes needed to support the system. d. Minicase 1 i. LO1 Follow the original plan given to you by the IS experts. ...

Words: 771 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Systems Analysis & Design

...|Module Title: |Systems Analysis & Design | |Programme: |Computer Science/Computer Science with Business Informatics | |Level: |Level 5 | |Awarding Body: |Plymouth University | |Module Leader: |Nikita Mazurov | |Format: |Systems Analysis and Design Portfolio Document | |Presentation: |No | |Any special requirements: |No | |Word Limit: |Between 1500-2000 words. | |Deadline date for submission: |Week 10, specifically: Wednesday, 12th August 2015, 12:00 pm (noon). | |Learning outcomes to be examined |Demonstrate an understanding of how business needs determine system design. | |in this......

Words: 2100 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Design and Analysis of a Chassis

...DESIGN AND ANALYSIS OF A CHASSIS FOR A 60 TON PAY LOAD Abstract: As the chassis frame forms the backbone of a heavy vehicle, its principal function is to safely carry the maximum load for all designed operating conditions. To achieve a satisfactory performance, the construction of a chassis is the result of careful design and rigorous testing. Various manufacturers have individual design concepts and different methods of achieving the desired performance standards for the complete chassis, not all chassis components are interchangeable between various makes and models of vehicles. So, there is no standard design for chassis frame. Even though start with the chassis frame design start with selection of the section for side rails and cross members. In this paper we have designed a chassis for storage cum resting fixture. Storage cum resting fixture is a structure of length 11000mm & width 2300mm, used to store cylindrical specimens of various sizes and weights in horizontal configuration. The storage cum resting fixture is used to carry the propellant stored in the cylindrical specimens. The trolley fixture should be designed for a maximum pay load of 60 tons. The Objective of my project is to design a chassis for a pay load of 60 Tons. The design process involves manual design calculations, 3d modeling using UNIGRAPHICS software and analysis to validate the design. Ansys package has been implemented to perform the structural analysis. ...

Words: 13647 - Pages: 55

Premium Essay

System Design & Management Analysis

...SYSTEM DESIGN & MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS System Design & Management Analysis Veronica Brown-Corbin University of Phoenix Contemporary Systems Management MGT/736 Brian E. Polding, Ph.D March 12, 2007 System Design & Management Analysis Management must recognize the system design and management of an organization are subject to internal and external influences. The internal influences include the management team and employee; and the external influences can include competitors and customers. There are contextual/cultural factors and stakeholders that have an influence on the management system that is designed and implemented. The contextual/cultural factors include key characteristics of the organization, internal and external relations, competitive landscape, strategic opportunities and challenges, and performance improvement. This is an opportunity for executive management to become acquainted with how these influences shape the organization’s context and maximize value for stakeholders. “Leadership’s job was to get the strategy right, design the correct structure, and then tie the strategy to structure through defined systems to deliver high-quality performance” (Nowicki & Summers, 2007, p.118). This is not an easy process and takes time and input from several sources. The leadership in the organization has to guide the organization so that the goals and objectives are met. The performance of the organization will benefit from a well carried out strategic......

Words: 1974 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Analysis, Modeling, and Design

...Analysis, Modeling, and Design COURSE DESCRIPTION: Systems development life cycle, analysis and design techniques, information systems planning and project identification and selection, requirements collection and structuring, process modeling, data modeling, design of interface and data management, system implementation and operation, system maintenance, and change management implications are covered in this course, as are the globalization issues in systems. Students will use current methods and tools such as rapid application development, prototyping, and visual development. Course Rationale: Analysis, modeling and design is a foundation course for all IS professionals. In today’s business environment, information systems are continuously being developed, updated, or reengineered and as an IS professional you can be assured you will play some role in the system analysis or design of those systems. That role may be as a customer, user, or developer; understanding requirements or expectations from the different perspectives is critical to a successful development process. GOALS AND LEARNING OUTCOMES: GOALA: The student will gain an understanding of the relationship of systems analysis and design to business problem solving and computer applications. Learning Outcome:Students will be able to: A-1 Identify stakeholders...

Words: 2068 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Planning and Design Analysis

...Planning and Design Analysis of a Qualitative Research Study NUR/443 Evidence-Based Nursing Research and Practice Planning and Design Analysis of a Qualitative Research Introduction A qualitative research is a “systematic, subjective approach used to describe life experiences and give them meaning” (Burns & Grove, 2011). With this type of research, the data are collected through interviews, focus groups, observations, and review of documents. Thus, qualitative research uses words instead of numbers. This paper is going to analyze the planning and design of a qualitative research paper titled: Patient’s experience of pain and pain relief following hip replacement surgery, published in the Journal of Clinical Nursing on October, 2010. Research questions Although the research question or questions are not clearly labeled in the study, the research questions were as follows: 1) How do patients describe their experience with pain after hip replacement surgery?, 2) How do patients describe their pain relief following hip replacement surgery?, 3) How does pain affect patients after hip replacement surgery? Problem A research problem is “an area of concern in which there is a gap in the knowledge base needed for nursing practice” (Burns & Grove, 2011). In this research, it was identified that many patients undergo hip replacement every year and previous research has focused largely on the long-term effects of pain for these patients but not so much on their......

Words: 1076 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Job Analysis and Job Design

...Human Resource Management: Assignment 1 1 Job Analysis and Job Design Introduction Human Resource Management (HRM) systems consist of two major components: job analysis and job design. They have widely-differing contributions on building HRM systems attributed to the change of organizational strategy. This regards to job descriptions, specifications, and different approaches to redesigning the organizational HR systems. The implications of a boundary-less organization are examined that all context of the boundary organization is interdependent in communications, recruitment, selection, compensation and training (Fombrun et al. 1984). It also examines how environment, strategy, and organization are correlated to each other regarding to the conceptual framework for both job analysis and design of work. It initially becomes the most significant element to organizational strategy as to maximize organizational performance. This essay discuss how job analysis and design of work contribute in terms of building a more sophisticated human resource management (HRM) systems, regarding to both positive and negative outcomes from different approaches. It also illustrates the contributions of changeable job analysis in a regular basis as to fulfill the rapid-changing demand of working environment, in addition to a well-developed job redesign approach to support organizational strategy. Job Analysis and Competencies Job analysis could be categorized into job......

Words: 1537 - Pages: 7