International Journal of Research and Review

www.gkpublication.in ISSN: 2349-9788

Original Research Article

Determination of Seed Rate and Inter Row Spacing for Finger Millet
Production (Eleusine Coracana Gaertn.) in North Western Ethiopia
Yayeh Bitew, Fekremariam Asargew

Agronomist, Adet Agricultural Research Centre, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, P .O. Box 08, Bahir Dare,
Ethiopia
Corresponding author: Yayeh Bitew

Received: 12/11/2014 Revised: 18/12/2014 Accepted: 18/12/2014

ABSTRACT

Finger millet is one of the main crops grown in Northwestern Ethiopia. Broadcasting is the dominant
planting method of finger millet production in the country. An experiment was conducted on the effect of
seed rate and row spacing on the growth, yield and yield component of finger millet at Adete and Finoteselam
research station during 2011-2012 cropping seasons. Four seed rates (10, 15, 20 and 25 kg/ha) and four row
spacing (20, 30, 40 and 50 cm) were factorially combined. The experimental design was a completely
randomized block with three replications. JMP5-SAS, computer software was used to compute the
analysis of variance. Seed rate did not significantly affect plant height, number of heads, number of
fingers, lodging, blast diseases, total dry biomass and grain yield of finger millet. Similarly, interaction
between seed rate and row spacing had not significant effect on the yield and yield component of finger
millet. On the other hand, row spacing significantly affect lodging and grain yield of finger millet. Thus,
due to relative increment in yield components and reduction of lodging and blast diseases infestation,
highest grain yield was recorded when finger millet was planted at 30 cm row spacing. Planting finger
millet at the lowest seed rate (10kg/ha) at 30 cm row spacing gave the optimum grain yield of finger
millet. However, when the farmers consider the straw yield as business, partial budget analysis showed
that at the current cost of the grain and straw yield of finger millet, planting 25 kg/ha and 20 kg/ha seed
rate of finger millet in 30 cm row spacing gave the first and second highest net benefit.
Key words: Finger millet, seed rate, row spacing.

INTRODUCTION level up to about 2400 m a.s.l and grown in

Finger millet (Eleucine coracana a wide range of soil types and tolerate
(L.) Gaertn.) is a staple cereal food crop for notable high rainfall and certain degree of
millions of people in the semi arid region of alkalinity. It is used in many forms for
the world, particularly in Africa and India, human food. The grain serves for
and especially those who live by subsistence preparation of both food and malt items. [3]
farming. [1] Ethiopia is the center of diversity Finger millet is one of the dominant cereal
for finger millet. [2] It is mainly grown in crops grown in the Amhara region
northern, north-western and south-western specifically in West Gojam (77417 ha),
part of the country. It is grown from sea South Gondar (31673 ha), North Gondar

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 1

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
(62441 ha) and Awi zone (54095 ha). [4] component of finger millet was conducted
Finger millet is a more nutritious food than for three years, 2010-2012 at Adete and
other cereals. [5,6] Even though, the area Fenotselam research stations in North
cultivated to finger millet using customary western Ethiopia. The Former is located
method increased by 5.7 % from 2008 to between11017, N latitude and 370 43, E
2011, the research effort was very limited longitude with an altitude of 2240 m.a.s.l
and lacked improved production packages and the later is located between 370 16, E
for the production of the crop. latitude and100 42, N longitude with an
Consequently, farmers used the traditional altitude of 1917 m.a.s.l. At Adete area the
system of production and the yield was mean annual total rain fall is 1257mm,
limited to 1507 kg/ha [4] though finger millet ranging between 860 mm and 1771 mm and
has high yield potential of 3000 kg/ha. [7] the average annual temperature is ranging
Seeding rate and row spacing are tied from 90C to 25.50C. At Finoteselam area the
together. If the population is too high, plants average monthly rain fall is ranging between
compete with each other and often lodge. If 4 mm to 210 mm and the average monthly
the population is too low, a producer is temperature is ranging from 80C to 170C.
wasting growing space and lowering yield. The rainfall and temperature during the
[8]
Row planting in general has many experimental months are presented in
advantageous in contrast to broadcasting. Figures 1 and 2 below. The chemical
Previous research work on plant population characteristics of the soil at Adet are: total N
studies on finger millet indicated that most (%), organic carbon (%), CEC,
vigorous finger millet was observed when exchangeable K, available P and PH 0.8,
finger millet was planted at 20-30cm 2.47, 37.97, 33.29, 1.98 and 5.17,
spacing and 10-15 kg seed rate per hectare. respectively. Similarly, the chemical
[1]
Planting finger millet in rows gives the characteristics of the soil at Finoteslam are:
highest grain yield as compared to total N (%), organic carbon (%), organic
broadcasting. [1,9] The planting method for matter (%), available P and PH 0.02, 3.57,
finger millet in the major producing areas of 6.164, 1.98 and 5.17, respectively. [11] The
Ethiopia is broadcasting. One of the major experimental designs were factorial
constraints of broadcasting in finger millet randomized complete block design with
production in the field is weed management three replications. Four seed rates (10, 15,
[10]
which leads to difficulty in crop 20 and 25 kg/ha) and four inter-row spacing
management and as such requires high (20, 30, 40 and 50 cm) were factorially
labour input from seed sowing to crop combined. Seeds of the improved variety
harvesting. Hence, determination of Degu were drilled at proposed row
optimum seed rate and inter row spacing for spacing and seed rate at both locations. The
finger millet is one area to be considered for net plot size was 3m width by 5m length and
raising productivity and production of finger the distance between each plot and
millet in the region. This therefore calls for replication were 0.5 m and 1m, respectively.
the present study aimed at determining the Data for plant height, length of fingers, No of
most suitable seed rate and row spacing that heads per m2, fingers per m2and biomass and
can give the optimum yield of finger millet grain yield in kg per hectare were collected
in Ethiopia. from the proposed net plot size. Disease
levels were determined by using the 0-9
MATERIALS AND METHODS score. [12] Lodging index was calculated
The experiment on the effect of seed using the formula developed by; [13]
rate and row spacing on yield and yield

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 2

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
 [15]
The marginal rate of return (MRR) was
calculated for each non dominated treatment
and minimum acceptable MRR of 100% was
assumed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of combined analysis of
variance across years and location showed
that except for length of fingers at Adet,
seed rate did not significantly affect
(P>0.05) plant height, number of heads,
number of fingers lodging, blast diseases,
total dry biomass and grain yield of finger
millet (Tables 1-3). The length of fingers
was significantly longer at seed rate 15 kg as
Figure 1: Rain fall (mm) distribution at the experimental sites
compared to seed rate 20 kg at Adet (Table
during the experimental seasons. 1). Similarly, except combined grain yield
across years at Adet results of combined
analysis of variance across years at each
location (Adet and Finoteslam) and across
location illustrated that interaction between
seed rate and row spacing had no significant
effect (P>0.05) on the yield and yield
component of finger millet. The highest
grain yield at Adet was recorded at 10 kg/ha
seed rate and 30 cm row spacing (3235.98
kg/ha) while the lowest was recorded at 20
kg/ha seed rate and 20 cm row spacing
(2862.63 kg/ha)) (Table 1).
In the present study, the combined
Figure 2: Mean temperature (0C) at the experimental sites during
the experimental seasons. analysis of the two years at Adet, showed
that row spacing significantly affected
Data Analysis (P<0.01) the plant height, blast diseases
Thedatasweresubjected to analysis infestation, lodging index and grain yield
of variance using [14] computer software. (Table 1). Though, in combined of two years
Combined analysis of variance was made planting finger millet in 30 cm and 40 cm
over the two locations and years for all row spacing were on par with each other on
agronomic traits. Diseases and lodging data grain yield, the highest mean lodging index
were transformed using square root and grain yield were observed when finger
transformation method. In all the millet was planted in 20 cm (45.27%) and
comparisons, the level of significance was 30 cm (2883.77 kg/ha) row spacing whereas
set at = 0.05. Mean comparison for the the lowest value were recorded in 50 cm
treatments were computed using Tukey (16.39 %) and 20 cm (2457.52 kg/ha) row
HSD Test. The combined mean grain and spacing, respectively (Table 3). At Adet the
straw yield data were adjusted down by 10 highest and the lowest blast diseases were
% and subjected to Partial budget analysis. recorded at 20 cm (2.280 and 50 cm (1.58),
respectively. On the other hand, at
International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 3
Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
Finoteslam except, grain yield and lodging, finger millet (Table 2). The combined
all other yield components as indicated in analysis of the two location showed that
Table 2 were not significantly affected by 30cm row spacing (2883.77 kg/ha) give the
row spacing. The highest and the lowest maximum while 20cm (2457.52 kg/ha) give
grain yield were recorded at 30 cm (2432.47 the minimum grain yield (Table 3).
kg/ha) and 50 cm (2147.23 kg/ha), Similarly, row spacing of 20cm (6.4) and
respectively. At Fenoteslam, row spacing of 50cm (3.2) gave the maximum and the
20cm (7.44) and 50cm (3.63) gave the minimum lodging of finger millet (Table 3).
maximum and the minimum lodging of

Table 1 Combined main and interaction effects across two years (2011-2012) on the yield and yield component of finger millet at Adet research
station.
Source of variations PH LF N0H N0F LI BD TDB GY
Effect of seed rate on the yield and yield component of finger millet
10 kg/ha 99.29 11.67a 216.00 1443.75 3.50 1.78 8083.87 3136.96
15 kg/ha 99.27 11.10b 210.83 1379.17 3.45 1.78 8416.35 3095.43
20 kg/ha 99.45 11.26ab 202.92 1335.67 4.50 2.07 8495.05 2977.37
25 kg/ha 99.87 11.24ab 208.25 1399.92 4.48 2.05 8755.13 3022.66
Mean 99.47 11.32 209.50 1389.63 3.98 1.92 8437.60 3058.11
LSD (5%) NS * NS NS NS NS NS NS
Effect of row spacing on the yield and yield component of finger millet
20 cm 95.72b 11.25 201.92 1321.08 5.35a 2.28a 8160.26 2747.88b
30 cm 99.12ab 11.36 210.83 1382.50 3.99ab 1.94ab 8795.14 3335.07a
40 cm 103.18a 11.43 213.58 1398.58 3.85ab 1.89ab 8470.00 3059.58ab
50 cm 99.87ab 11.27 211.67 1456.33 2.75b 1.58b 8325.00 3089.88ab
Mean 99.47 11.33 209.50 1389.62 3.99 1.92 8437.60 3058.10
LSD (5%) ** NS NS NS ** ** NS **
Interaction between seed rate and row spacing
Mean 99.47 11.32 209.50 1389.63 3.98 1.92 8437.59 3058.10
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS *
CV (%) 5.6 4.5 25.7 11.8 48.5.0 9.9 11.9 10.4
Note: Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% of probability level according to Tukey HSD Test. On the
table PH , LF , N0H, N0F, LI, BD, TDB and GY refers to plant height in cm, Length of fingers in cm, number of heads per m2, Number of fingers
per m2 , Lodging index in % (Square-root transformed), Blast diseases infestation (0-9 scale),Total dry biomass in kilogram/ha and Grain yield
in kilogram/ha, respectively

Table 2 Combined main and interaction effects across two years (2011-2012) on the yield and yield component of finger millet at finoteslam
research station
Source of variations PH LF N0H N0F LI BD TDB GY
Effect of seed rate on the yield and yield component of finger millet
10 kg/ha 108.10 12.69 181.11 1302.81 4.69 3.10 10376.8 2330.83
15 kg/ha 112.04 12.22 172.56 1238.21 4.97 3.10 10782.6 2283.59
20 kg/ha 118.27 12.62 169.87 1221.73 5.96 3.10 10042.0 2277.74
25 kg/ha 114.41 12.92 174.44 1247.97 6.37 3.10 10461.4 2255.93
Mean 113.21 12.61 174.49 1252.68 5.49 3.10 10415.70 2287.02
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Effect of row spacing on the yield and yield component of finger millet
20 cm 117.25 12.89 170.25 1218.29 7.44a 3.21 9834.8 2167.15b
ab
30 cm 114.73 12.55 174.83 1252.01 5.15 3.05 10156.7 2432.47a
40 cm 114.16 12.55 186.09 1328.64 5.78ab 3.05 10545.9 2401.25a
50 cm 106.69 12.46 166.79 1211.77 3.63b 3.09 11125.4 2147.23b
Mean 113.21 12.61 174.49 1252.68 5.50 3.10 10415.70 2287.03
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS * NS NS *
Interaction between seed rate and row spacing
Mean 113.21 12.61 174.49 1252.68 5.50 3.10 10415.69 2287.02
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
CV (%) 10.2 6.2 14.8 13.6 46.7 6.4 11.4 13.5
Note: Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% of probability level according to Tukey HSD Test. On the
table PH , LF , N0H, N0F, LI, BD, TDB and GY refers to plant height in cm, Length of fingers in cm, number of heads per m2, Number of fingers
per m2 , Lodging index in % (Square-root transformed), Blast diseases infestation (0-9 scale),Total dry biomass in kilogram/ha and Grain yield
in kilogram/ha, respectively.

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 4

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
 Table 3 Combined main and interaction effects across two locations and years on the yield and yield component of finger millet
Source of variations PH LF N0H N0F LI BD TDB GY
Effect of seed rate on the yield and yield component of finger millet
10 kg/ha 103.69 12.19 198.55 1373.28 4.095 2.44 9230.32 2733.89
15 kg/ha 105.65 11.66 191.69 1308.69 4.21 2.44 9599.47 2689.51
20 kg/ha 108.86 11.94 186.39 1278.70 5.23 2.59 9268.50 2627.56
25 kg/ha 107.14 12.08 191.35 1323.94 5.425 2.58 9608.28 2639.29
Mean 106.33 11.97 191.99 1321.15 4.74 2.51 9426.64 2672.56
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Effect of row spacing on the yield and yield component of finger millet
20 cm 106.49 12.06 186.09 1269.69 6.395a 2.75 8997.51 2457.52b
30 cm 106.92 11.95 192.83 1317.26 4.57ab 2.50 9475.90 2883.77a
40 cm 108.67 11.99 199.84 1363.61 4.815ab 2.47 9507.95 2730.42a
50 cm 103.28 11.86 189.23 1334.05 3.19b 2.33 9725.20 2618.55ab
Mean 106.34 11.97 192.0 1321.15 4.7425 2.51 9426.64 2672.57
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS * NS NS **
Interaction between seed rate and row spacing
Mean 106.34 11.97 191.99 1321.15 4.74 2.51 9426.65 2672.56
LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
CV (%) 5.6 4.2 10.9 8.9 48.5.0 9.9 8.2 9.3
Note: Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% of probability level according to Tukey HSD Test. On the
table PH , LF , N0H, N0F, LI, BD, TDB and GY refers to plant height in cm, Length of fingers in cm, number of heads per m 2, Number of fingers
per m2 , Lodging index in % (Square-root transformed), Blast diseases infestation (0-9 scale),Total dry biomass in kilogram/ha and Grain yield
in kilogram/ha, respectively.

Table 4 partial budgets for an experiment on finger millet seed rate and drill row planting
Treatments Adjusted grain GGB Adjusted straw GSB TGFB TVC NB MRR
(Seed rate by row yield (kg/ha) (Eth. birr/ha) yield (kg/ha) (Eth. birr/ha) (Eth. (Eth.birr) (Eth.birr) (%)
spacing) birr/ha)
10kg/ha@50cm 2434.86 24348.6 9512.64 23781.6 48130.2 160 47970.2
10kg/ha@40cm 2703.87 27038.7 12059.1 30147.75 57186.45 180 57006.45 4510
10kg/ha@30cm 2680.56 26805.6 12425.67 31064.18 57869.78 200 57669.78 3316
15kg/ha@50cm 2624.31 26243.1 10748.16 26870.4 53113.5 210 52903.5 D
10kg/ha@20cm 2339.46 23394.6 12233.61 30584.03 53978.63 220 53758.63 D
15kg/ha@40cm 2442.78 24427.8 12306.24 30765.6 55193.4 230 54963.4 D
15kg/ha@30cm 2514.24 25142.4 14373.27 35933.18 61075.58 250 60825.58 6311
20kg/ha@50cm 2501.46 25014.6 11898.54 29746.35 54760.95 260 54500.95 D
15kg/ha@20cm 2381.22 23812.2 13437.99 33594.98 57407.18 270 57137.18 D
20kg/ha@40cm 2542.41 25424.1 12276.63 30691.58 56115.68 280 55835.68 D
20kg/ha@30cm 2544.93 25449.3 14892.57 37231.43 62680.73 300 62380.73 3110
25kg/ha@50cm 2303.64 23036.4 12426.39 31065.98 54102.38 310 53792.38 D
20kg/ha@20cm 2115.63 21156.3 12947.85 32369.63 53525.93 320 53205.93 D
25kg/ha@40cm 2402.64 24026.4 12801.33 32003.33 56029.73 330 55699.73 D
25kg/ha@30cm 2807.73 28077.3 14479.74 36199.35 64276.65 350 63926.65 3091
25kg/ha@20cm 2253.96 22539.6 13259.52 33148.8 55688.4 370 55318.4 D
Note: GGB, GSB, TGFB, TVC, NB and MRR indicates: Gross grain yield benefit, Gross straw yield benefit, Total Gross field benefit, Total
variable cost, Net benefit and Marginal rate of return, respectively. Price of finger millet= Birr 10/kg, Price of finger millet straw= Birr 2.50/kg,
Seed cost of finger millet = Birr 10/kg (Average of 2013 and 2014), man power needed for 20 cm, 30cm, 40 cm and 50 cm row planting of finger
millet = 6, 5, 4 and 3 man days/ha, respectively and labour cost/ man day= Birr 20

As planting finger millet from 20 cm spacing. [16] The highest lodging and
to 30 cm row spacing the grain yield biomass at narrower row spacing might be
increased by 14.8 % in the combined of due to low plant strength due to nutrient
location (Table 3). This might be due to competition and higher plant population,
relative increment in yield components and respectively. Further increase in row spacing
reduction of lodging and blast diseases from 30 cm to 40 cm and 50 cm caused 5.3
infestation. Highest gain yield in 30 cm as % and 9.2 % yield reduction, respectively
compared to narrow spacing (20 cm) could (Table 3). These imply there could be
be also due to fewer nutrients, less light optimal row spacing, suggesting increasing
competition among the same plant in narrow row spacing could increase grain yield

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 5

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
initially, reach an optimum and further number of heads, number of fingers lodging,
increases in row spacing would reduce yield. blast diseases, total dry biomass and grain
[17,18]
This result is in accordance with the yield of finger millet. Similarly, interaction
results of, [9] who recommended that row between seed rate and row spacing had not
spacing of 30 cm and closer plant to plant significant effect on the yield and yield
spacing helps in better establishment of component of finger millet. On the other
finger millet. The research of [19,20] indicated hand, row spacing significantly affect
a lower rate of yield loss in cereals with row lodging and grain yield of finger millet.
space widening as plant populations Hence, due to relative increment in yield
increased. In contrary, [1] reported narrow components and reduction of lodging and
spacing (10 cm) gave a better yield and blast diseases infestation, highest grain yield
weed control than wider spacing. was recorded when finger millet was planted
However, when farmers consider the at 30 cm row spacing. Planting finger millet
straw yield as business, according to partial at the lowest seed rate (10kg/ha) at 30 cm
budget analysis as indicated in Table 4, the row spacing gave the optimum biological
first and the second highest net benefit were yield. However, when we consider the straw
obtained from 25 kg/ha and 20 kg/ha seed yield as business, partial budget analysis
rate of finger millet were planted in 30 cm showed that at the current cost of the grain
row spacing, respectively. and straw yield of finger millet, planting 25
kg/ha and 20 kg/ha seed rate of finger millet
CONCLUSION in 30 cm row spacing gave the first and
The present study revealed that seed second highest net benefit.
rate did not significantly affect plant height,
generation, transfer and gap analysis
REFERENCE work shop.18-21 march 1997, Bahir
1. Shinggu C.P., Dadari S.A., Shebayan, Dar, Ethiopia
J.A, Adekpe, D.I., Mahadi, M.A, 4. CSA (Central statistical agency), 2011.
Mukhtar A. A and sala S.W., 2009. Agricultural sample survey. 2011/2012
Influence of Spacing and Seed Rate on Volume I. Report on area and
Weed Suppression in Finger Millet production of major crops. Statistical
(Eleucine carocana gaertn). Middle- bulletin. May, 2012 Addis Ababa.
East Journal of Scientific Research 4 5. Bhandari B, Gyawali S, Baral KP,
(4): 267-270 Chowin KR, Rijal DK, 2005. Promoting
2. Zonary, D., 1970. Centers of diversity the Utilization of Fingermillet and its
and centers of origin, in Frankel, O.M. Products through Public Awareness
& E. Bennett, E. (eds), Genetic activities in Kaski, Nepal. Proceeding of
Resources in Plants, Their Exploration Progress Review Workshop on Finger
and Conservation, Oxford: Blackwell, millet under IFAD-NUS Project: Nepal
pp. 33-42. Component, NARC and LiBird.
3. Settie, A., Yagzaw, D. and Mulu, m., 6. Dida MM, Devos K.M, 2006. Finger
1998. Production states, Limitation and Millet. In Genome Mapping and
Research Achievements of barley, maize Molecular Breeding in Plants, Vol 1
and finger millet in north western Cereals and Millets (C.Kole (Ed.))
Ethiopia. In: Beyene, S., and Abera D., pringer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg p.
(eds.), 1998. Agricultural research and 333-343
technology transfer attempts and 7. Tadesse M., 1995. Finger millet: A
achievements in north Ethiopia. potential crop in Ethiopia. In: Samwiri
Proceeding of the fourth technology Z, and Ejeta G. (eds.). Sorghum and

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 6

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014
 Millet Research in Eastern and Central Journal of Agriculture and Botany 15:
Africa. Proceeding of a workshop 88-91
organized to reestablish Sorghum and 14. SAS Institute Inc., 2002). JMP-5
Millet Research networks in the region. Statistical Software, Version 5.Cary,
6-9 November 1995 Kampala, Uganda. NC, USA.
8. Robinson Andrew P. and Conley Shawn 15. CIMMT, 1988. From agronomic data to
P., 2008. Plant Populations and Seeding farmer recommendations: An
Rates for Soybeans Purdue University. Economics training manual. Completely
Accessed in 2013 at revised edition. Mexico, D.F.
www.agry.purdue.edu 16. Curran, S.W., G.W. Roth, E.L. Werner
9. GRDC (Grain research and development and D.L. Lingenfelter, 1998. Can
cooperation), 2011. Crop placement and Roundup- Ready and narrow rows
row spacing fact sheet, Blackball Street, improve post emergence weed control in
Barton. Accessed in, October, 2013 at: corns? Agronomy Gleanings, pp: 98: 1.
www.coretext.com.au 17. Smith D. B, Rainbow R.W, Faulkner M,
10. Anon, 1998. Needs Assessment of the Chigwidden S.J, Braunach-Mayer E.T,
Teso farming. A report of a RRA of 1995. Row spacing - Do wider seed
Teso farming system SAARI/ rows reduce yield? In 'Workshop on
NARO/DFID tillage systems, rotations, nutrition and
11. Tilahun T., Minale L. and Alemayehu associated root diseases. Adelaide,
A., 2013. Maize fertilizer response at the South Australia'. pp. 40-41.
major maize growing areas of northwest 18. Zylstra J., 998. Seed row spacing and
Ethiopia. In: Ermias, A., Akalu, T., seeding rates in direct seeding. pp. 4.
Alemayehu, A. G., Melaku Available at
W.,Tadesse,.D., and Tilahun, T., 2007. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$departme
Proceeding of the 1st Annual Regional nt/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex1162
Conference On completed crop Research [Accessed 18April 2013].
Activities, 14-17 August 2006.Amhara 19. Fawcett R.G., 1964. Factors affecting
Regional Agricultural Research Institute. the development and grain yield of
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia spring wheats grown on the North West
12. Oliver, R.P., Rybak, k., Shankar, M., slopes and plains of New South Wales,
Loughman, R., Harry, N., and Solomon, with special reference to soil-water-
P. S., 2010).Quantitative disease plant relationships. PhD thesis,
resistance assessment by real-time PCR University of Sydney.
using the Stagonospora nodorum -wheat 20. Auld BA, Kemp DR, Medd RW, 1983.
pathosystem as a model. Journal of Plant The influence of spatial arrangement on
Pathology 57 (3): 527 532. grain yield of wheat. Australian Journal
13. Caldicott, J J.B. and Nuttall, A.M., of Agricultural Research 34, 99-
1979). A method for the assessment of 108.doi:10.1071/AR9830099
lodging in cereal crops. Netherland

How to cite this article: Bitew Y, Asargew F. Determination of seed rate and inter row spacing for
finger millet production (eleusine coracana gaertn.) in north western Ethiopia. Int J Res Rev. 2014;
1(4):1-7.

*******************

International Journal of Research & Review (www.gkpublication.in) 7

Vol.1; Issue: 4; December 2014