DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF WEED

COMPETITION FABA BEAN (Vicia faba L.) IN BALE HIGHLANDS,

SOUTH EASTERN ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS

GIRMA BUZUNA

MAY 2019
MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

I
 DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF WEED
COMPETITION IN FABA BEAN (Vicia faba L.) IN BALE HIGHLANDS,
SOUTH EASTERN ETHIOPIA

A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Plant Sciences,

School of Graduate Studies
MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (AGRONOMY)

By:

GIRMA BUZUNA

MAY 2019
Madda Walabu University

iii
 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

MADDA WALABU UNIVERSITY

As Thesis Research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared, under our guidance, by Girma Buzuna Gurmessa entitled Determination of the
Critical Period of Weed Competition in Faba Bean (Vicia Faba L.) in Bale Highlands,
South Eastern Ethiopia. We recommend that it can be submitted as fulfilling of the Thesis
requirements.

Jemal Abdulkerim (Ass.Prof.) ___________________ ______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Mengesha kebede (PhD.) _____________________ _________________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination, we
certify that we have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Girma Buzuna Gurmessa and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the thesis is accepted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy).

______________________ _________________ ______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

______________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

iv
 DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to the memory of my wife TARIKE AYALEW, who was responsible for
laying a great foundation in my life.

v
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

First, I declare that this thesis is my bonafide work and that all sources of materials used for this
thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for MSc. degree at the Madda Walabu University and is deposited at the University
Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I solemnly declare that this
thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma, or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate
acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major
department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, when in his or her judgment the
proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however,
permission must be obtained from the author.

Name: Girma Buzuna Gurmessa

Place: Madda Walabu University, Bale-Robe
Date of Submission: June, 2019
Signature: ------------------

VI
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born in Nunu Kumba Woreda, East Wollega Zone Oromia Regional State on
January, 1990. He attended his elementary and secondary school education at Nunu Geba Robi
Primary School and Argo Comprehensive Secondary School, respectively. He joined Wollega
University in 2012 and graduated with a BSc. degree in Plant Sciences in February 2014. After
graduation, the author was employed by Chewaka Woreda agricultural office in March 2014 to
September 2017. He joined School of Graduate Studies at Madda Walabu University to pursue
his MSc. in agronomy in October 2017.

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First and foremost I praise the Almighty God for I did everything through Him who gave me
strength and made me stand firm in my all ups and downs during my research work.

The research work contained in this thesis was motivated and strongly supported by my major
advisor Jemal Abdulkerim, whose inspiration, consistent guidance, critical remarks and
encouragement throughout the research not only enabled me to complete the study but also made
the undertaking educational and our many discussions concerning my work will remain a source
of wisdom for many years to come. Therefore, I would like to acknowledge him from the deepest
of my heart for his professional and personal involvement in my academic life. It is also my
great great pleasure to thank my co-advisor, Dr. Mengesha Kebede, for his guidance, critical
remarks, unreserved supports and encouragement in the course of this study.
I would like to extend my thanks to Madda Walabu University and Sinana Agricultural Research
Center for providing me with necessary facilities, land and equipment’s during the experimental
work. My thanks go to Oromia Regional Governmental State (ORGS) for financially supported
and granted me to study plant Agronomy at Madda Walabu University

I express my sincere gratitude to my father Buzuna Grmessa my Brothers Wagari Buzuna,

Geremu Buzuna, Moti Buzuna my sister Chaltu Teshome, to my wife’s family Ayalew Birru
Atsede Ayalew ,Shume Ayalew for their moral support, encouragement and valuable advice
during my study and whom I found them to be helpful in many ways. I have been wonderfully
blessed with a loving wife Tarike Ayalew that has supported me in countless ways staying with
me during my research work. Therefore, I would like to extend my many thanks to her.

Of innumerable people who helped me during this research, a few must be thanked specifically
my friend Bl’ina Hayilu, Werkineh Mosisa, Mulatu Tadele, Dinka Asefa, Girma Birhanu,
Abraham Wakena, Adisu Geleta, Abdela Adam, Amanu’el Gudeta, Tasfa selemon,
Yidinikachew Melese, and Befikadu H/Meriham who were consistently with me with their
constructive comment and positive attitude towards my work and helped me in many different
ways.

vi
 LIST OF ACRONOMY AND ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CSA Central statistical Authority
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
CPWC Critical Period of Weed Control
EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
EIAC Ethiopian Institute Agriculture Center
FAO Food and Agriculture Organizations
GDD Growth Degree Days
HARC Holeta Agricultural Research Center

ICARDA International center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas

IWM Integrated Weed Management
MoARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
RCBD Randomized Complete Block Design
RHS Royal Horticultural Society

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents page

DEDICATION v
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR VI
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
LIST OF ACRONOMY AND ABBREVIATIONS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES …x
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xii
ABSTRACT xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1. Origin and Geographical Distribution of Faba bean 5
2.2 Production and importance of faba bean in the world 5
2.3 Production and importance of faba bean in Ethiopia 6
2.4. Major Constraints of Faba Bean Production 7
2.5 Economic Impact of Weeds on faba bean production 7
2.6 Weed-crop interactions 8
2.6.1 Factors involved in weed - crop competition 9
2.7. Weed Problems 12
2.8 Damage and Losses caused by weeds in legumes 12
2.9 Faba bean yield loss due to weed competition 13
2.10. Role of Critical Period in Weed management 14
2.11. Critical Period of Weed Control in Faba bean 14
2.12. Factors Affecting Critical Period of Weed -Crop Competition 15
2.12.1. Weed density and intensity 15
2.12.2. Weed species 16
2.12.3. Crop density 16
2.12.4 .Weed emergence/periodicity 17
2.12.5. Climatic conditions 17
2.12.6. Edaphic factors 18
viii
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 19
3.1. Description of the study areas 19
3.2. Treatments and experimental design 20
3.3. Experimental Procedure and management practices 21
3.4. Data collection and measurements 21
3.4.1. Weed related parameters 21
3.4.2 Crop Phenological and Growth Parameters 22
3.4.3 Yield Components and Yield Parameters 23
3.5 Data analysis 24
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 25
4.1. Weed Component 25
4.1.1. Weed flora in the experimental fields 25
4.1.2. Weed density 26
4 .1.3. Weed dry weight 29
4.2. Crop Phenological and Growth Parameters 31
4.2.1. Days to 50% flowering 31
4.2.2.Days to 90% physiological maturity 31
4.2.3. Plant height (cm) 33
4.3. Yield Components and Yield Parameters 35
4.3.1 Number of pods per plant 35
4.3.2. Number seeds per pod 37
4.3.3. Stand count per ha at harvest 38
4.3.4. Above ground dry biomass(kg ha-1) 40
4.3.5. Hundred seed weight (g) 41
4.3.6. Grain yield (kg ha-1) 42
4.3.7. Harvest index(%) 45
4.4. Critical Periods of Weed Control 46
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 50
6. REFERENCE 52
7.APPENDICES 66

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1: Density (m-2) and relative density (%) of weed species in the experimental fields of faba bean
at Madda Walabu and Sinana in 2018 main cropping season.......................................................25
2: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on weed density and dry weight
of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season...................................................................................27
3: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on total weed density and dry
weight of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season.......................................................................30
4: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on crop phenology and plant
height of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season........................................................................35
5: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on number of pods per plant,
number of seeds per pod and stand count of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season................39
6: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on above ground dry biomass,
hundred seed weight and grain yield of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season.......................44
7: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on harvest index of faba bean in
2018 main cropping season.............................................................................................................46

x
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1:Map of study area.......................................................................................................................19

2: Rainfall (mm), minimum and maximum air temperatures (ºC) recorded in 2018 cropping
season at Madda Walabu and Sinana.............................................................................................20
3: Effect of weed crop competition on relative faba bean yield at Madda Walabu during 2018
main cropping season....................................................................................................................48
4 Effect of weed crop competition on relative faba bean yield at Sinana during 2018 main
cropping season.............................................................................................................................48

xi
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Table Page

1: Physical and chemical properties of soil at experimental fields................................................66

2: The meteorological data of Madda Walabu (Sinana) and Sinana research center Experimental
Fields from July to December.......................................................................................................66
3: Weed flora in both experimental fields.....................................................................................67
4: Analysis of variance for weed density broadleaved, grass, total number of Weeds and weed
dry weight of increasing duration of weedy and weed free period of faba bean in 2018 main
cropping season.............................................................................................................................67
5: Analysis of variance for 50 % flowering, Physiological maturity , plant height number of pods
-1 -1
plant and number of seeds pod of increasing duration weedy and weed free period of faba
bean in 2018 main cropping season...............................................................................................68
6: Analysis of variance for stands count ha-1, above ground dry biomass ,seed weight ,grain yield
and harvesting index of increasing duration of weedy and weed free period of faba bean in 2018
main cropping season....................................................................................................................68

xii
 DETERMINATION OF THE CRITICAL PERIOD OF WEED COMPETITION IN
FABA BEAN (Vicia faba L.) IN BALE HIGHLANDS, SOUTH EASTERN ETHIOPIA

ABSTRACT

The critical period for weed control is the period in the crop growth cycle during which weeds
must be controlled to prevent unacceptable yield losses. In view of this, the present study was
conducted to determine the critical periods of weed-crop competition and yield losses in faba
bean during 2018 main cropping season at Madda Walabu University and Sinana Agricultural
Research center. The experiment consisted of eighteen treatments in two sets, i.e one
weedy(increasing duration of weed interference) and one weed free(increasing duration of weed
free period) set each comprising weed competition durations up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60,70 and
80 days after crop emergence and up to harvest). It was laid out as a randomized complete block
design with three replications. The result revealed that the experimental fields were infested both
with broadleaved and grassy weeds. The dominant weed species were Guizotia scabra (29.7%),
Spergula arvensis L (15.9%) and Corrigiola capensis willd (8.8%) among broadleaved while
Digitaria abyssinica (19.7%) among grass weeds at Madda Walabu and Amaranthus spinosus
(37.0%) among broadleaved and Digitaria abyssinica (18.2%) among grass weeds at Sinana.
With increasing duration of weed interference, weed density, weed dry weight, days to50%
flowering at Madda Walabu and the number of days required to attain physiological maturity of
faba bean were increased whereas plant height, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per
pod, Stand count at harvest, aboveground dry biomass, hundred seed weight, grain yield, and
harvest index of the faba bean crop were reduced, but it was reverse in case of increasing
duration of weed free periods. At both Madda Walabu and Sinana, uncontrolled weed growth
significantly(P<0.01) reduced faba bean grain yield by 72 and 69.2%, respectively as compared
to the grain yield obtained from the weed-free check plots. To reduce the loss in the grain yield
of faba been by more than 10%, it is important to keep the crop weed-free between 210 to 822
growing degree days (20 to 80 days after crop emergence) at Madda Walabu and 166 to 916
growing degree days (14 to 80 days after crop emergence) at Sinana.

Keywords: faba bean; Critical period; Weed-crop competition; Yield loss

xiii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Faba bean (Vicia faba L.), is a legume member belonging to the family Fabaceae. Its center of
origin and domestication is probably in western Asia, from where it spread into Europe, Africa
and central Asia. China, Ethiopia and Afghanistan are considered secondary centers of diversity
(Zong et al., 2009). It was probably not grown to any extent in Japan and China before 1200 AD,
or in the Americas before the arrival of the Spaniards. ). The crop is a cool season grain legume
grown in many regions of the world. In colder regions it is more often planted as a spring crop
while in warm-temperate and subtropical climates it is planted into the winter (Duc, 1997 ; Singh
et al., 2013).

It is an important pulse crop produced in the world for human food as source of protein and
carbohydrate and animal feeds (Mousa and El-Sayed, 2016). It is an excellent complement of
crop rotations for fixing atmospheric nitrogen (Jensen et al., 2010; Ali et al., 2014) and as green
manure (Salmoeron et al., 2010). In addition, faba bean is used as a source of cash crop to
farmers and foreign currency in Ethiopia (Keneni and Jarso, 2002; Agegnehu and Fessehaie,
2006; Abebe et al., 2014). The seeds of faba bean are valuable for human and animal nutrition
mainly because of their high protein content (which can be greater than 30% on a dry matter
basis) and energy supply (starch content usually greater than 40%). Faba bean seeds may contain
some compounds (as tannins, vicine, and convicine) that may cause health problems in particular
situations. However, great genetic variability has been observed and new varieties with little or
none of these compounds are now available. The health benefits of a faba bean–enriched diet are
due to the fiber, vitamin, and mineral content (Champ, 2002; Ofuya and Akhidue, 2005) and
include a decrease in plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (Fruhbeck et al., 1997; Ruisi et
al., 2017). The majority of Ethiopians consume faba bean as a substitute for the rather expensive
animal products (meat, butter, milk, poultry, etc). Faba bean can be included in infant food to
improve nutrition and nutrient availability of traditional cereal-based complementary foods
(Kebebu et al., 2013).

It is the sixth most important grain legume with 4.3 million tones annual production worldwide.
Ethiopia is the second largest producer after China in the world (FAOSTAT, 2017). Its ranks

1
first among highland pulses in area coverage and grain production in Ethiopia (Mussa et al.,
2008; Shifa et al., 2011; CSA, 2018). According to Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA,
2018), faba bean is cultivated on nearly 0.44 million hectares of lands, accounting for about
35.5% of the total pulse area, with annual production of 0.92 million tones, contributing about
31 % of total pulse production. Ethiopia is considered as the secondary center of diversity for
faba bean. It is produced in diverse agro-ecology throughout the country . (Asfaw et al.,1994;
Hailu et al., 2014; Degife and Kiya, 2016). The crop is produced in many region of Ethiopia.
Oromia and Amhara are the two major producing regions in Ethiopia. The Oromia region has the
largest faba bean area 46.8% (204,387.86 ha) and contributes to the highest production 52.42%
(4.83 million quintals) in the country followed by the Amhara region, with 34.5% (150,934.92
ha) of the area and contributing 30.8% (2.84 million quintals) of national production (CSA,
2018). In Bale, 15,347.32 ha of land was covered by Faba bean and 372,557.31 quintals of grain
was produced with the productivity of 24.3 qt/ha (CSA, 2017).

Despite the importance of the faba bean in the country, its average yield under small-holder
farmers is not more than 2.1 t ha-1 (CSA; 2018), which remains far below the crop’s potential (>3
t/ha). Among major constraints faba bean crop reduction, Weeds are the main bottle-neck of
crop production in Ethiopia, especially during rainy season. The climate encourages rapid and
abundant growth of weeds, and consequently, the entire agricultural crop is heavily infested with
weeds. Weeds are therefore one of the most important crop production constraints in the country
(Kebede, 2000). The farmers in the country though are aware of weed problem in their fields, but
often they cannot cope up with heavy infestation during the peak period of agricultural activities
because of labour shortage. Hence, most their fields are either weeded late or left unweeded. As
a consequence one observes frequently poor crop on the weed infested fields (Mengistu, 1998).
The damage caused by weeds is multidimensional. It reduces the yield and quality of product by
depleting crop’s environment of nutrient, water and light. As indicated by Gupta (2004), yield
reduction due to weeds is a result of competition for mineral nutrients, moisture and space.
Weeds interfere with harvesting and thus increase costs. According to Smith and Hamel (1999)
weeds also lower the quality of the produce through contamination, prevent uniform maturity of
the crop and can become alternate host for insect pest and diseases. Uncontrolled weed

2
populations can substantially reduce the yield of the faba bean up to 80%, 46 % and 78.3%
(Mohamed, 1995), (kavurmaci et al., 2010) and (Nano and Sharma, 2018) respectively.
Identifying the critical period of weed control (CPWC) for a given legume crop is essential for
determining the appropriate timing of weed management and the efficient use of herbicides
(Evans et al., 2003; Bukun, 2004; Otto et al., 2009). Competition between the crop and weeds,
and thus the CPWC, are dependent on site-specific factors, such as climatic conditions,
management strategies, the composition of weed flora, weed density, and weed emergence time
(Rajcan and Swanton, 2001). Also, the critical period of weed control tends to vary widely with
grain legume species (Mohammad et al., 2005; Fedoruk et al., 2011). Different weeds differ in
their ability to compete with the crop at similar density levels and the relative competitive ability
of weeds for obtaining resources will depend on the weed species and the crop that is grown.
This is primarily because of the difference in their growth habits as well as due to the
allelopathic effects, which they may exert on the germination and growth of the crop. The degree
of interference with the crop is affected by the relative competitive ability of the weeds. The
competition often suppresses crop dry matter production and yield (Bhaskar and Vyas, 1988).
Since CPWC is the main and a key component of a successful integrated weed management
(IWM) program (Swanton and Weise, 1991), critical period studies help to regulate weed control
tactics and to explore the nature of weed-crop relations (Weaver and Tan, 1987). Studying the
critical period of weed competition also aids to plan appropriate and economic management
strategies that are environmentally friendly with little or no residual effects on the crop by
identifying the most favorable time periods for the optimum (IWM) program (Carvalho and
Christoffoleti, 2008). Developing a suitable (IWM) system requires the precise study of weeds
and their interference with crops (Cruse et al., 1995).

Weed growth prior to the beginning of the critical period of weed control does not affect yield
because the crop and the weeds are too small or too far apart to negatively influence each other
(Rajcan et al., 2004). Similarly, weeds that emerge after the end of the critical period of weed
control do not appreciably affect yield because the crop has a high competitive ability. Idris
(2001) reported that losses in faba bean yield due to weed infestation in the Sudan were 33 and
51% in 1999 and 2000, respectively . Alfonso et al. (2008) indicated that the end of the critical
period weed control of faba bean occurred at the early full-flowering stage when the canopy of

3
each crop enclosed the inter row space. Moreover, the critical period weed control at a 5% yield
loss level for faba bean ranged from 28 to 33 days in the Mediteranean basin.

Bale highlands are among the areas under which faba bean is produced largely. However, due to
the availability of high rain fall weeds are grown densely and diversely in the crop lands during
the growing season. Even though farmers are aware of the impact of weeds in yield reduction but
there is lack of information regarding the critical period of faba bean weed competition in the
study area (personal observation). Therefore, this study was under taken to determine the critical
period of weed-faba bean competition and yield loss in faba bean.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Origin and Geographical Distribution of Faba bean

Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is only known in cultivation. Its center of origin and domestication is
probably in western Asia, from where it spread into Europe, Africa and central Asia. China,
Ethiopia and Afghanistan are considered secondary centers of diversity (Zong et al., 2009). Faba
bean domestication occurred between 7000 and 4000 BC, and by the 3rd millennium BC it was
widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean region. The evolution of the large-seeded type
was much later (around 500 AD), and may have occurred in western Asia and in the
Mediterranean region. Faba bean was probably not grown to any extent in Japan and China
before 1200 AD, or in the Americas before the arrival of the Spaniards. Nowadays, faba bean is
widely grown in temperate and subtropical regions and at higher altitudes in the tropics. In
tropical Africa it is mainly found in East Africa, especially in Sudan and Ethiopia (Jarso et al.,
2006).

In Ethiopia cultivation of faba bean is generally limited to the mid and high altitudes (1800-3000
m.a.s.l.), where the mean annual rainfall ranges from 650 to 1500 mm (Negash et al., 2015, Kora
et al., 2016), where the need for chilling temperature is satisfied. The optimal temperature for
plant growth is 15-20°C, especially during the reproductive phases. It is believed that the crop
was probably brought to Ethiopia from the Middle East through Egypt (Yohannes, 2000) around
the fifth millennium B.C., immediately after domestication (Asfaw et al., 1994; Yohannes,
2000). Ethiopia is now considered as one of the centers of secondary diversity for faba bean
(Johannes, 2000; Torres et al., 2006).

2.2 Production and Importance of Faba Bean in the World

Faba beans, along with lentils, peas, and chickpeas, were among the early domesticates in the
Near East, complementing domesticated cereal grains, and these legumes continue to serve an
important role in culinary traditions throughout the region. Faba beans are also grown as a cold
season cover crop to prevent erosion and fix nitrogen. The crop is widely adapted to diverse soil

5
types, and is more tolerant to acidic soils than most legumes. Cold hardy cultivars tolerate
temperatures of -10°C without serious injury. Faba bean seeds are consumed from green to dry,
and pods are eaten when young. The grain is one of the most important winter crops in the
Middle East. Faba bean is a common breakfast food in the Middle East, Mediterranean region,
China and Ethiopia. Well-known dishes containing the legume include medamis, falafel, bissara,
and nabet soup. Salted, fried broad beans are eaten in China, Peru, Mexico, India and Thailand.
In the Sichuan cuisine of China, broad beans are combined with soybeans and chili peppers to
produce a spicy fermented bean paste. Faba beans are also used as animal feed, mainly for pigs,
horses, poultry and pigeons. Annually, faba bean is produced on 2.05 million hectares of land
and 4.3 million tons of faba bean is produced in the world (FAOSTAT, 2017).

2.3 . Production and Importance of Faba Bean in Ethiopia

Faba bean is the most important cool season food legume in Ethiopia in area coverage,
production, foreign exchange earnings, protein source, soil amelioration and cropping system
(Tafere et al., 2012). Faba bean is one of the most popular legumes, which is tightly coupled
with every life of the Ethiopians and grown during the main season primarily in Amhara,
Oromia, Tigray and Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Regional State (SNNPRs)
(IFPRI, 2010).. According to Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia (CSA, 2018), faba bean is
cultivated on nearly 437,106.04 hectares of lands, accounting for about 921,761.535 tones annual
production. Ethiopia is considered as the secondary center of diversity for faba bean. It is produced in
diverse agro-ecology throughout the country. (Asfaw et al., 1994; Hailu et al., 2014; Degife and
Kiya, 2016).

Although the faba bean crop plays a significant role for Ethiopian farmers as a source of food,
feed and cash crop, the yield generally is below the world average due to several factors,
including poor crop management practices, lack of high yielding cultivars, stress inflicted on by
harsh environmental conditions, poor soil fertility, plant diseases and weeds can be listed as
some of the causes of low yield (Getachew et al., 2006; Tafere et al., 2012). Since 1999,
production of faba bean in Ethiopia has steadily increased, which resulted in an annual
production of more than 800 metric tons in 2014

6
2.4. Major Constraints of Faba Bean Production

Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is one of the most important from food legumes cultivated throughout
the highlands of southeast Ethiopia. In most growing areas, however, the production of the crop
is constrained by several biotic and abiotic factors. There is a reduction in the cultivated area and
productivity of faba bean in many countries. Several adverse factors have been reported to this
decline which includes, weeds, disease and insect pests are the main biotic yield limiting factors
in its production (Torres et al., 2006; Pe´rez-de-Luque et al., 2010). Frost is one of the abiotic
stresses contributing for its low production. For example, in Ethiopian highlands 100% yield
losses can be experienced especially with late planting as the plants are exposed to frost damage
(Mola, 1996). Another abiotic factors such as water logging, cold, low Crop diversification, low
pH, inherently low yielding ability of local land races, drought at various stages of growth and
hotness during the reproductive growth and pod filling stages and salinity in some of the coastal
areas. Low crop inputs such as below recommended seed rate and as well as low fertilizer input
per hector, inappropriate cultural practices such as mono cropping and poor soil fertility (Mussa
et al., 2008; Stoddard et al., 2009).

2.5. Economic Impact of Weeds on Faba Bean Production

Weeds have been part of the agricultural scene, since Man first started cultivated crops, more
than 10,000 years ago and they are still a major problem today. They have been defined as
“plants growing in the wrong places” which means that every plant species is a potential weed
(Fletcher and Kirkwood, 1982).

Weeds encompass all types of undesirable plants trees, broadleaved plants, grasses, sedges,
ruches, aquatic plants and parasitic flowering plants (Klingman et al., 1982).Weeds compete
with crops for nutrients, moisture, light and space (Dew, 1972; Koch et al., 1982; Braun et al.,
1991; Al Thababi et al., 1994). The adverse effect of weeds on crops is not limited to
competition only. Many weeds are able to inhibit or suppress the growth of crops by releasing
chemical compounds that affect the growth of plant. This is called the allelopathic effect
(Klingman et al., 1982)

7
In addition to competition and allelopathic effect, some weed species harbour diseases and insect
pests that attack crop plants and cause indirect losses (Rao, 1983; Braun et al., 1991). Yassin
(1979) reported that pre-dominant weed species in Sudan, Acalyphaindica L., Daturastramonium
L., and Solanum dubium Fr., were found to be among the best alternative hosts of the leaf curl
virus, Nicotiana virus.

According to Ennis et al. (1963) the presence of weeds may further results in lowering of quality
of harvested product; contamination by weeds such as those of DaturastramoniumL.greatly
reduced the market value of the crop. Heavy infestation by perennial weeds such as
Cyperusrotundus L. could make the land less suitable for cultivation resulting in loss of its
monetary value (Rao, 1983). Presence of particular weeds such as Striga spp. which are serious
parasitic plants on many cereals and leguminous crops, may limit the choice of crop to be grown
(Klingman et al., 1982; Rao, 1983). Furthermore, harvesting costs, by hand and machine are also
increased (Akobundu, 1987)
.
Weeds also affect water management as very high losses of water caused by evapotranspiration
on rivers or canal infested by aquatic weeds. The reduction in fish population by dense
infestation and the spreading of the worm diseases bilharzia, in which certain snails are
harboured by aquatic plants was also reported (Vanrijn, 1979). Water flow in irrigation canals is
impeded; thus irrigation cost, will be increased through indirect costs for keeping canals weed-
free (Akobundu, 1987).

2.6. Weed-Crop Interactions

Competition is an important ecological process in both natural and agricultural plant

communities. Competition can be aboveground and/or belowground (Grace and Tilman, 1990).
Aboveground competition is mainly described as shoot competition where shoots of competing
species compete for light and CO2, while belowground competition involves roots of different
species growing in the same volume of soil competing for nutrients and water (Casper and
Jackson, 1997).
Weeds are perceived by most smallholding farmers as the greatest yield limiting constraint
(Vissoh et al., 2004). Weeds compete with crops for nutrients, space, light and water, thus

8
reducing crop yields and quality. Numerous studies have documented the negative effects on
yield of season-long weed competition in Africa. In Africa yield losses due to weeds average
30% but losses of 50% or more are frequently reported in some parts of sub-Saharan Africa
(Sibuga, 1997). In another study in Africa, yield losses in farmers’ fields ranged from 25% to
total crop failure because farmers were unable to perform the necessary weeding at the optimal
times (Vissoh et al., 2004). Uncontrolled weed populations can substantially reduce the yield of
the faba bean up to 80% (Mohamed, 1995). Under unweeded conditions, crop losses have been
measured for: common bean (50%) and cowpea (40-60%) (Ishaya et al, 2008b). One kilogram of
weeds reduced the yield of rice by 500-900 g in a Nigerian experiment (Adeosun, 2008).

Weeds need to be cleared from a field prior to planting a crop and during the growing season for
optimal yields to be achieved. Weed competition is most serious when the crop is young. The
critical period of crop-weed competition is approximately equal to the first one-third to one-half
of the life cycle of the crop. In weed-crop competition studies, the critical period is the stage
after which weed growth does not affect crop yields. Keeping the crop free of weeds for the first
one-third of its life cycle usually assures near maximum productivity (Doll, 2003). African crops
have been studied at experimental farms in order to define the weed free period required to
prevent yield reduction (weed free period required after planting) in common bean and cowpea
(Obuo et al., 1997).

2.6.1. Factors involved in weed - crop competition

2.6.1.1. Moisture

Weeds compete with crops for soil water, reduce water availability and contribute to intense crop
water stress. In general, for producing equal amounts of dry matter, weeds transpire more water
than do most of our crop plants. Competition for soil water becomes increasingly critical with
increasing soil moisture stress, as found in arid and semi-arid areas. Weeds require just as much
and often more moisture than crops and are often more successful in gaining it (Rao, 2000). In a
plant’s life span root of plants grow more rapidly earlier than shoots which leads to begin
competition for soil nutrients and soil water before competition for light (Patterson, 1985).

9
Competition for the relative root volume determines water occupied by competing plants and
may be greater when roots closely intermingle and crops and weeds try to obtain water from the
same volume of soil (Zimdahl, 2007). Less competition occurs if roots of crops and weeds are
concentrated in different soil areas or profiles. Plants that are more competitive are reported to
have fast-growing, large root systems so they are able to exploit a large volume of soil quickly
(Rao, 2000). If plants have similar root lengths, those with more widely spreading and less
branched root systems will have a comparative advantage in competition for water (Patterson,
1985).

2.6.1.2. Nutrients

In weed-crop competition studies, the knowledge of critical periods of weed competition may
help to determine the potential effectiveness of competitive cultivars and help producers to
develop and implement appropriate weed management measures to minimize yield losses in
crops (Zimdahl, 2007). Weed-crop competition should be viewed from the availability of
resources and nutrient use efficiency (NUE) of each competing species (Chikoye et al., 1996).
Weeds require the same nutrients as crops and weeds are believed to be more successful in
absorbing and utilizing both macro and micro nutrients and fertilizers benefit weeds more than
crops and the fertilizer application increase competitive ability of weeds (Burgos et al., 2006).
This competitiveness is associated with differences between members of the plant community in
growth habit and rate of roots and shoots growth and development (Rao, 2000). The primary
plant macro nutrients; Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are, the first nutrient to become
limited in crop weed competition. According to Zimdahl, (2007) fertilization is used to improve
crop growth, but may worsen the weed problem, if uninterrupted. The success in gaining
nutrients may lead to more rapid growth and successful competition for soil water and light.
Increasing fertilizer application rate is not an economic and agronomic way of avoiding or
reducing crop losses due to weed competition because weeds have a large nutrient requirement
and absorb as much or more than the crop (Zimdahl, 2007). Conversely, studies have also shown
that, in low fertility soils, weeds were more competitive than crops (Davis and Liebman, 2001).
Davis and Liebman (2001) described that, when the fertility status of the soil is lower weeds
utilize nitrogen more efficiently than the crops. Competition is severe when the weed emerged

10
earlier or if it grew longer periods than the crop. According to Vingris et al. (1985), the root
depth and root area of a plant determine its ability for natural resources utilization and relative
competitiveness for nutrients are largely determined by the soil volume occupied by roots of
competing species and the differences among species is limited by the rate of utilization.

2.6.1.3. Light

Light regulates many aspects of plant growth and development and it is the most reliable of the
several environmental resources for plant growth (Patterson, 1985). The processes of
photosynthesis in plants are motivated by light energy, which is converted into chemical energy
in the leaf of the plant. Rao, (2000) reported that the green leaf is the site of potential competition
for light. Neighboring plants reduce light supply by direct interception shading which brings
suppression of one plant by the other species. Any time, if another shades leaves, there is
competition for light. The severity of competition for light is maximum when the fertility level of
the soil is higher and when adequate moisture is available because plants grow vigorously and
have large leaf areas (Rao, 2000).
According to Holt (1995), plants with large leaf area indices can have more competitive
advantage over other plants with smaller leaf areas. Leaf area index, a measure of the
photosynthetic surface over a given area is correlated with potential light interception (Zimdahl,
2007). Thus, a plant’s ability to intercept light is determined by its angle of leaf inclination and
leaf arrangement (Zimdahl, 2007). It is also reported that plants with leaves disposed horizontal
to the earth’s surface are more competitive for light than those with vertical disposed leaves or
less perpendicular to the earth’s surface. Plants that are taller or erect have a more competitive
advantage for light over short, prostrate plants. If a plant is heavily shaded, the rate of
photosynthesis reduced, which may lead to poor growth, a smaller root system, and a reduced
capacity for water and mineral absorbtion (Jordan, 1993)
.
2.6.1.4 . Space

Crop-weed competition for space is the requirement for CO 2 and this competition occurs when
plants are under extremely crowded plant community condition and lead to lodging, shading out

11
and plants become slender and weak. Competition can be aboveground and/or belowground
(Grace and Tilman, 1990). Competition for space is an aboveground competition where shoots of
a competing species compete for CO2 (Casper and Jackson, 1997). A more efficient utilization of
CO2 by C4 type weeds may contribute to their rapid growth over C3 type of crop

2.7. Weed Problems

Weeds are the most universal of all crop pests, proliferating each year on every farm in Africa
(Obuo et al., 1997). A review of crop pests in Sub-Saharan Africa indicates that weeds are the
most important pest to control in all zones studied (Sibuga, 1997). A total of 263 weed species
belonging to 38 families were found in crop fields in Africa. Broadleaved weed (72%) and
grasses (24%) dominated the total weed spectrum, whereas sedges (4%) were minor. Mean weed
species richness per field was similar across all agro ecological zones and averaged about 16 per
field (Chikoye and Ekeleme, 2001). Unweeded fields in Nigeria produced between 17 and 30
tons per ha of fresh weed weight (Adigun et al., 1991). Weed problems are more severe in
African tropical regions than in Europe and North America because weeds grow more vigorously
and regenerate more quickly in the presence of warm climate and higher light intensity. High
humidity and high temperature, conditions characteristic of sub-Saharan Africa, favor rapid and
excessive weed growth (Akobundu, 1980). The yield loss due to weeds is almost always caused
by an assemblage of different weed species, and these can differ substantially in competitive
ability (Weaver and Ivany, 1998). Therefore, it is not easy to evaluate the relative importance of
different weed species in causing yield loss for producers.

2.8 . Damage and Losses Caused by Weeds in Legumes

Weeds compete vigorously with legumes for water, nutrients and light due to the low
competitive ability of legume crops during the early stages of their growth.In beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) (Parker and Fryer, 1975) reported that a variety of weeds infested dry beans and
reduce yields by 10-80% in the U.S.A. (Arnold et al, 1993) reported that weeds were strong
competitors with pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Reducing yields by 60 and 66% in 1989 and
1990 respectively.

12
(Bahn and Kukula 1987) reported that weeds cause considerable loss in yield of chickpea,
although weeding by hand to prevent weed competition during the period before the
development of a full canopy cover has invariably bean most effective, but limitations of labour
and high labour costs often prevent the adoption of this method. In Sudan result indicated that
weed competition reduced seed yield of chickpea 80% (Mohamed et al., 1992). Also studies
showed that unrestricted weed growth and delayed weeding accounted for up to 80% loss in
lentil grain yield (Mohamed and Nourai, 1993, 1994). In Sudan (Idris 2001) reported that losses
in bean yield due to weed infestation was 33% and 51% in 1999 and 2000 respectively. (Malik et
al 1993) .reported that unrestricted population of weeds.reduced white bean yields by 70. %
Herbicides are, therefore, of great potential importance to eliminate the early competition due to
weeds in legumes (Mohamed, 1996). According to (Fageiry 1987) seed yield of soybean was
reduced by 78-100% due to weed infestation and delay in first hand weeding beyond 30 days
after sowing adversely affected the soybean yield and three hand-weeding at intervals of 15 days
were necessary for adequate weed control and high yield.

Uncontrolled growth of weeds in Hudeiba reduced faba bean seed yield by 54% (Mohamed et al.
1994). The reduction in faba bean seed yield due to weeds was highly significant and was found
to be 17%, 28% and 29% at Aliab, Hudeiba and Wad Hamid (Mohamed et al., 1992). Mohamed
and Mohamed (1992) reported that unrestricted weed growth reduced grain and straw yield of
faba bean by 64% and 70% respectively.

2.9 . Faba bean Yield Loss due to Weed Competition

Crop yield reduction range can be as wide as nil to a complete yield loss in certain food crops
depending on the weed and crop density, weed species present, crop species and cultivar,
planting method, soil fertility level, rainfall and other cultural practices (Lavabra,1991).
Normally losses in crop yield in developed nations do not exceed 5-10%, however, in least
developed countries the average crop loss exceeds 36-94% (Stroud, 1989).

Apart from seed yield reduction, weed competition affects other growth and reproductive
performances. Weed interference with faba bean reduced leaf area, accelerated senescence of

13
lower leaves and impeded leaf expansion and emergence. Weed competition in faba bean,
generally reduces number of pod per plant, pod length, number of seeds per pod, plant height,
grain yield, seed weight and total dry biomass ( (kavurmaci, et al., 2010). When weeds were not
controlled seed yield was reduced. Mohamed and Mohamed (1992) reported that unrestricted
weed growth reduced grain and straw yield of faba bean by 64% and 70% respectively. When
weeds are left uncontrolled they caused serious loss on grain yield of faba bean amounting to
70% (Babiker and Khalid, 1990). Uncontrolled weed populations can substantially reduce the
yield of the faba bean up to 80% (Mohamed, 1995). Grain yield losses faba bean due to
uncontrolled weed growth throughout the crop cycle were 46% (kavurmaci, et al., 2010).
According to Nano and sharma, (2018) reported that faba bean yield loss due to weed
competition were 78.3 %.

2.10. Role of Critical Period in Weed Management

Critical period of weed Competition (CPWC) is the window in the crop growth cycle during
which weeds present around the crop must be controlled to prevent unacceptable yield losses
(Knezevic et al., 2002). According to Swanton and Weise (1991) described that the critical
period of weed competition as the main and key component of a successful integrated weed
management (IWM) program. Developing a suitable integrated weed management (IWM)
system requires the precise study of weeds and their interference with crops (Cruse et al., 1995).
Critical period studies can be used to regulate weed control tactics and to explore the nature of
weed crop relations (Weaver and Tan, 1987). It also identifies the most favorable time periods
for the optimum integrated weed management (IWM) program. In order to plan appropriate and
economical management strategies that are also environmental friendly with little or no residual
effects on the crop, the knowledge of the critical period of weed competition is essentially
required (Carvalho and Christoffoleti, 2008).

2.11. Critical Period of Weed Control in Faba bean

The concept of critical period was introduced by Nieto et al. (1968) and it has been used to
determine the period when management operations should be carried out to minimize yield

14
losses for many crops (Zimdahl, 1988). Crops are most susceptible to weed competition in the
first third of their total lifespan. The “critical period” defines the time up to or after which weeds
are tolerated by the crop without apparent losses through competition. The critical period
indicates the period in which weeding is really necessary (Braun et al., 1991). The critical period
of weed control is the window of the crop cycle when weed interference results in unacceptable
yield losses (Williams, 2006). Weed growth prior to the beginning of the CPWC does not affect
yield because the crop and the weeds are too small or too far apart to negatively influence each
other (Rajcan et al., 2004). Similarly, weeds that emerge after the end of the CPWC do not
appreciably affect yield because the crop has a high competitive ability. Competition between the
crop and weeds, and thus the CPWC, are dependent on sitespecific factors, such as climatic
conditions, management strategies, the composition of weed flora, weed density, and weed
emergence time (Rajcan and Swanton, 2001). The CPWC tends to vary widely within a grain
legume species (Mohammadi et al., 2005). Alfonso et al. (2008) indicated that the end of the
critical period weed control of faba bean occurred at the early full-flowering stage when the
canopy of each crop enclosed the inter row space. Moreover, the critical period weed control at a
5% yield loss level for faba bean ranged from 28 to 33 days in the Mediteranean basin

2.12. Factors Affecting Critical Period of Weed -Crop Competition

2.12.1. Weed density and intensity

In general, the increase in the weed density and intensity results in reduction of the growth and
yield of crops. There has to be some minimum amount of weed growth in either population or
yield in the field to exert a minimum biological stress on the crop performance. The numerical
superiority that weeds exhibit greatly reduce the availability of water, nutrient and light to crop
plants and accounts for much of what we consider to be weed competition. The damage to a crop
from weeds tends to increase as the density of infesting weeds increases, until a point where
further increases do not cause further reductions to the crop yield (Dawson, 1986). Such a
saturating population of weeds often occurs in annual crops, where weeds must be controlled to
prevent yield losses. Studies have focused on using weed densities to make decisions on
herbicide use through finding the lowest density at which control is economically feasible (Brain

15
and Cousens, 1990). Since weed density affects the level of interference on the crop, the critical
period will also be affected by weed density. The length of time that weed infestation could be
tolerated by the crop was also reduced, but the weed density had a greater effect on the minimum
weed free period than the maximum weed-infested period. Increasing the seeding rate will
usually leads to a higher crop density; this will cause the crop to gain competitive advantage over
weeds present and thus reduce overall weed interference. Increased weed density resulted in
increased length of time that tomatoes must be kept weed free to prevent yield loss. Therefore,
the critical period of weed control should be shorter at higher crop densities because the crop will
tolerate longer weed infestations and should not require weed-free maintenance for as long a
period (Weaver et al. 1992).

2.12.2. Weed species

Different weeds differ in their ability to compete with the crop at similar density levels and the
relative competitive ability of weeds for obtaining natural resources depend on the species of the
weed and the crop that is grown. This is primarily because of the difference in their growth
habits as well as due to the allelopathic effects, which they may exert on the germination and
growth for the crop. The degree of interference on the crop is affected by the relative competitive
ability of the weeds. Therefore, the critical period affected. The competition often suppresses
crop dry matter production and yield (Bhaskar and Vyas, 1988). At early stage of growth,
Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) is a better competitor of crops than many grass weeds
because it possesses broad leaves that shade the ground heavily. In dry areas, Canada thistle
(Cirsium arvense) and field bind weed (Convolvulus arvensis) are more competitive than annual
weeds because of their deep roots and early heavy shoot growth (Bhaskar and Vyas, 1988).

2.12.3. Crop density

Seeding rate is the cultural practice that has the greatest influence on the crop density. Increasing
the seeding rate will usually lead to a higher crop density; this will cause the crop to gain
competitive advantage over weeds present and thus reduce overall weed interference. Increase in
crop population density distributes available resources among the crop community, but increase

16
in weed population diverts available resources from the crop community. Therefore, the critical
period of weed control should be shorter at higher crop densities because the crop can tolerate
longer weed infestations and should not require weed-free maintenance for as long a period.

2.12.4 .Weed emergence/periodicity

The first plant that effectively obtains water, nutrient and sunlight from the site and becomes
established at that site has distinct competitive advantages over plants that develop later. The
effect of a weed competition is greatest when the crop is young since this is the stage which plant
growth is inhibited most by inadequate light, water and nutrients. The weeds that germinate and
grow at the same time as the crop seeds are most successful competitors. The length of the
critical weed-free period will largely depend on the germination pattern of the weed species
present (Weaver and Tan, 1987). If weeds are controlled at early period of crop growth, optimum
crop yield could be harvested, which may be quite close to the maximum. Weeds should be
removed at an early stage or at younger stages; otherwise they compete severely. A little delay in
weeding results in infestation of the crop for major parts of their critical growth periods. In
situations, where weeds germinate late (as in dry land wheat/sorghum), late stage weeding is
more useful than their early weeding. There is less competition when weeds are either removed
early or they germinate slowly because crop plants become sturdy and can tolerate competition.

2.12.5. Climatic conditions

Weeds germinate at different places at different times. Climate and seasonal variations are
greatly responsible for inducing wide differences in weed-crop competitions. Climatic conditions
exert a significant influence on the spread, population dynamics, life cycle duration, infestation
pressure and the overall occurrence of the majority of agricultural pests (Bale et al., 2002;
Petzoldt and Seaman, 2006). It is expected that climatic condition brings about a shift in the
floral composition of several ecosystems at higher latitudes and altitudes, as changes in
temperature and humidity reflected on flowering, fruiting and seed dormancy (Remigijus et al.,
2008). Moreover, weeds are among the agricultural pest that can be influenced by climate
change. In general, any direct or indirect consequence of increasing CO 2 or climate change,

17
which differentially affects the growth or fitness of weeds and crops, will alter crop weed
competitive interactions (Singh et al., 2011). Adverse weather conditions, example drought,
excessive rainfall, continuous rainfall and extreme of temperature intensify the weed-crop
interference since most of the crop varieties are highly susceptible to such climate influence,
whereas the weeds are tolerant to these stresses. However, in contrast to crops, weeds are
troublesome invaders, ecological opportunists and resilient plants with far more genetic
diversity. Weed populations include individuals with the ability to adapt and flourish in different
types of habitats.

2.12.6. Edaphic factors

Weeds compete with crops for mineral nutrients, particularly nitrogen, addition of fertilizers,
manures and other amendments will lessen weed stress on crop. According to Hall et al. (1992),
the amount of available soil nitrogen was reduced by weed interference in corn. Methods and
time of application of fertilizer to the crop fields are important in determining whether the added
fertilizers will suppress or increase weed growth in fields. Application of fertilizer early in the
crop season when weed growth is negligible is more beneficial to crop than when weeds are
already grown up. Weeds can grossly alter the fertilizer response curves of the crops. Some of
the weed species tolerate abnormal soil reactions much better than crop plants. Some weeds
grow vigorously on abnormal soil pH, where the majority of crop plants will be stunted in
growth. Weed/crop competition is more intense on high or low pH soils than on normal pH soils.
Soil moisture can also have a different effect on a given weed species. Higher water use
efficiency (WUE) of the crops has been noted in weed-free plots than in the weedy plots because
of higher level of crop yield in the weed-free plots. Increase in yield of the crop (weedy and
weed-free) by rains or irrigation have been found to differ with the crop and weed species, weed
growth, etc. Chenopodium album L. was less competitive with rapeseed under low rainfall
conditions than Sinapis arvesis (Blackshaw et al. 1987).

18
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Areas

The study was conducted during 2018/19 main cropping season at Madda Walabu University
research site and Sinana Agricultural Research Center.

Madda Walabu University is located at 60 5'55" N and 390 56’57‫ ״‬E an altitude of 2400 above
sea level and at a distance of 430 km away from Addis Ababa in Bale zone of Oromia regional
state. The site receives a mean annual rain fall of 823mm and minimum and maximum mean
annual temperatures are 9.4oC and 24.2oC, respectively. Agro-ecologically, it is one of the
highlands of Bale Zone with high rainfall of bimodal types. The main cropping season is locally
known as Gana (summer) and extends from half of July to December and the other cropping
season, locally called Bona (winter), extends from March to July (Chibsa, 2008). The soil of
Madda Walabu University experimental site has organic matter content of 1.75%, total nitrogen
content of 0.15%, available phosphorus content of 14.34 mg/kg soil-1, 26.11 of cation exchange
capacity (CEC), pH of 6.28 with clay texture (Horticoop, 2018).

Figure 1: Map of study area Source: own sketch

Sinana Agricultural Research Center is located at 06050′N and 390 17′E an altitude of 1700 to
3100 a.s.l. and 463 km away from Addis Ababa in Bale zone. The site receives an annual rainfall
of 900 to 1150mm and the minimum and maximum temperatures are 90C and 210C, respectively.

19
 The soil of Sinana has organic matter content of 2.35%, total nitrogen content of 0.17%,
available phosphorus content of 12.96 mg kg soil-1,49.46 of cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH
of 6.12 with clay texture (Horticoop, 2018).

Total rainfall during the cropping season (July-December) was 378 and 283 mm at Madda
Walabu and Sinana, respectively. The mean minimum and maximum temperatures during the
cropping season were 8.5 and 22°C at Madda Walabu, respectively. Also at Sinana the mean
minimum and maximum temperatures during cropping season were 8.8 and 24°C respectively
(Figure 2).

Rain fall Madda Walabu Rain fall Sinana Min. T. Madda Walabu
Max. T. Madda Walabu Min. T. Sinana Max. T. Sinana

180 30

160
25
140

120 20

Temperature(0C)
Rain fall(mm)

100
15
80

60 10

40
5
20

0 0

July Augu
st mber be r mb er mbe r
Septe Oc to Nove Dece
months

Figure 2: Rainfall (mm), minimum and maximum air temperatures (ºC) recorded in 2018
cropping season at Madda Walabu and Sinana (Source: Robe Meteorological Station)

3.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

20
The experimental treatments were arranged following the method described by (Neito et al.,
1968). Eighteen treatments in two series i.e. early (weedy up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 , 70 and 80
days after crop emergence) and late (weed free up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 ,70 and 80 days after
crop emergence) competition periods were compared with two checks namely complete weed
free and weedy check. The design of the experiment was randomized complete block design with
three replications.

The treatments were assigned to each plot randomly. The plot size was 3.2 m x 2.4 m with 8
rows spaced 40 cm apart and intra row spacing of 10 cm between plants. The net plot area was
1.6 m x 1.8 m. The space between block and plot was 1m and 0.5m, respectively. The outermost
two rows from each side were border rows. In addition, 3 plants on each end of rows were
excluded to remove edge effect. Thus, there were 72 plants in each net plot area. The total field
area required for this experiment was 619.52m2. Among faba bean seeds Walki (EH96049-2)
variety has been used for the experiment and it’s released by HARC/EIAC in 2008.
.
3.3. Experimental Procedure and Management Practices

The experimental field was ploughed to get a fine seedbed using tractor and the plots were
leveled manually. Seed of the faba bean Walki (EH96049-2) variety released by HARC/EIAC in
2008 was sown on August 9, 2018 at Madda Walabu and 18, 2018 at Sinana research center by
dropping two seeds per hill and finally the seedlings were maintained into one seedling per hill
by thinning. Fertilizer, NPS (19% N, 38% P2O5 and 7% S) was drilled in furrows at the
recommended rate of 100 kg ha-1 at planting (Melkamu et al., 2018).
The weeds were removed with hand hoeing and weeding whenever required as per the treatment.
Harvesting was done manually at harvest maturity on December 27, 2018 and January 3, 2019 at
Madda Walabu and Sinana respectively. The biomass after harvest was sun-dried for 6 days and
threshing and winnowing were done subsequently.

21
3.4. Data Collection and Measurements

3.4.1. Weed related parameters

Identification of weed species: The weed flora present in the experimental fields were recorded
from the weedy check plots in each replication just before flowering of the crop by placing a
quadrat (0.25 m × 0.25 m) randomly at two spots in each replication, which was converted into
m-2. The species were categorized into their botanical families with the help of flora books
(Stroud and Parker, 1989; Melaku, 2008) and expertise.
Weed density: The weed density was recorded from each plot by using quadrat of 0.25 m ×
0.25m thrown randomly at two places. The weeds from the quadrat were counted and
categorized as broadleaved, and grass. Data on weed density were taken at the time of weed
removal for early competition and about 15 days before final harvest in the case of late
competition to avoid possible foliage and seed shedding of the weeds. The weed density was
expressed in m2.
Weed dry weight (gm2): The samples, which were used to determine weed density, were used to
record weed dry weight, after three days of sun-drying, the samples were oven-dried at 65 oC to a

constant weight and their weight taken and subjected to square root transformation

to ensure normality before analysis. Each treatment average dry weight was converted into g m-2.

Relative density (RD) of broadleaved and grass were calculated as suggested by (Sukarwo 1991)

Where, RDW = Relative weed density

NPW = Number of a particular weed species per unit area

NTW = Number of total weed species per unit area

3.4.2 Crop Phenological and Growth Parameters

22
Days to 50% flowering: It was recorded as days from emergence to 50% flowering.
Days to 90% physiological maturity: this phenological parameter was recorded in each plot, as
the number of days from sowing to 90% of the 10 pre tagged plant leaves show yellow colour
and their pods turned yellow.
Plant height (cm): It was recorded at full maturity from the ground level to the top of the plant.

3.4.3. Yield Components and Yield Parameters

Crop plant stands: The plants in the net plot area were counted at harvest and converted in to
plants ha-1
Number of pods per plant: matured pods of the 10 plants were counted during harvest to
calculate the mean number of pods per plant.
Number of seeds per pod: from 10 sampled plants the numbers of seeds per pods were counted
and divided by total number of pods to find the number of seeds per pod.
100 seeds weight (g): The weight of 100 seeds was determined for each plot using a sensitive
balance.
Aboveground dry biomass (kg ha -1): It was measured at crop harvest from the net plot area
after 5 days sun drying and was converted to kg ha -1 and its value was used to calculate the
harvest index.
Grain yield (kg ha-1): grain yield was recorded from each net plot area. The moisture content
was adjusted to 10% before measuring the grain yield.
Harvest index (HI): Harvest index was calculated by dividing the adjusted grain yield per plot
by the total aboveground dry biomass yield per plot and multiplied by 100.

Harvest Index = Grain yield

____________________ X 100
Total aboveground biomass

The maximum faba bean yield loss due to weed competition was calculated as:

23
3.5. Data analysis

Data for each site were analyzed separately because of differences in weed composition, soil
type agro-climate, and planting date between the sites. The data were subjected to analysis of
variance (ANOVA) and means were compared with the Least Significant Difference (LSD) test
at 5% level of significance using SAS software program version 9.1 (SAS Institute, 2003).

To calculate the critical period of weed control in faba bean, the relative faba bean yield (Y) of
each treatment was calculated as:

The onset and end of critical period, which is the duration mandatory for controlling weeds was
estimated by the response curve when both curves attained 90% of the relative yield gain and
10% of the yield loss of the complete weed free period. The critical period was determined and
found to be in between these two threshold points.

24
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Weed Component

4.1.1. Weed flora in the experimental fields

The weed flora in the experimental field consisted of broadleaved and grass weeds. Weed
species diversity was more at Madda Walabu than at Sinana (Table 1). The weed community was
composed of 12 and 9 species at Madda Walabu and Sinana, respectively. Weed density in the
experimental field was counted up to 95 weeds m-2 at Madda Walabu and 67 weeds m-2 at Sinana.
Table 1: Density (m-2) and relative density (%) of weed species in the experimental fields of faba
bean at Madda Walabu and Sinana in 2018 main cropping season

Madda Walabu Sinana

Weeds Relative Weeds Relative
density density density density
-2 -2
Weed species Family (m ) (%) (m ) (%)
Broad leaved
Amaranthus hypridus Amaranthaceae 6 1.9 3 1.7
Corrigiola capensis Willd Caryophyllaceae 28 8.8 -
Cynoglossum lanceolatum Forsk Boraginaceae - - 21 11.6
Amaranthus spinosus Amaranthaceae 3 0.9 67 37
Chenopodium fasciculosum Aellen Chenopodiaceae - 9 4.9
Spergula arvensis L. Caryophyllaceae 51 15.9 16 8.8
Gnaphalium unionis sch .Bip. Composite 5 1.6 - -
Polygonum nepalense Meisn Polygonaceae 17 5.3 - -
Galium spurium L.var. Rubiaceae 10 3.1 12 6.6
Madicago polymorpha L. Leguminosae 1 0.03 - -
Guizotia scabra (vis) Chiov. Compositae 95 29.7 - -
Commelina subulatia Rott. Commelinaceae - - 11 6.1
Total 67.23 76.7
Grass
Digitaria abyssinica (A Rich)Stapf Gramineae 63 19.7 33 18.2
Cynodon nlemfuensis Vanderyst Gramineae 17 5.3 -
Pennisetum clandestinum Hochost Gramineae 25 7.8 9 4.9
Total 32.8 23.1
The probable reason for more weeds species occurrence at Madda Walabu could be the seed
bank of weeds, previous crop (Garlic at Madda Walabu and wheat at Sinana), and more relative
rainfall at Madda Walabu at early stage of the crop planting and growth season (Figure 2). This

25
result was agreed with the result of Mengesha et al. (2013) reported that the duration of rain fall
distribution and previous crop history were influenced weed species distribution.

The most dominant families were Compositae, Amaranthaceae, Caryophyllaceae and Gramineae.
Guizotia scabra, Spergula arvensis L and Corrigiola capensis willd, among broadleaved as well
as Digitaria abyssinica among grass weeds were the dominant weed species at Madda Walabu.
Whereas Amaranthus spinosus among broadleaved and Digitaria abyssinica among grass weeds
were the major weed species at Sinana. The broadleaved and grass weeds constituted 67.23 and
32.8% relative densities, at Madda Walabu and 76.7 and 23.1% at Sinana, respectively (Table 1).

4.1.2. Weed density

Statistical analysis showed that Broadleaved, grass and total weed density were significantly
(P<0.01) affected by duration of weed competition at Madda Walabu and Sinana (Appendix 4).
Significant differences were observed among the durations of weed competiti on on weed density
(Table 2). The lower number of weeds m-2 was obtained in treatment weedy up to 10 days after
crop emergence(DAE) than the other treatments of increasing duration of weedy period (IDWP)
at both experimental sites (Table 2;Table 3). As statistical analysis showed that the highest
number of weeds were counted in treatment 80DAE (28.7 broad leaved, 11.1 grass m -2)and
weedy check (29.5 broad leaved ,11.3 grass m-2) ,(25.6 broadleaved,10.1grass m-2)and weedy
check(25.8broad leaved ,10.3 grass ) at Madda Walabu and Sinana respectively.

Table 2: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on weed density of faba
bean in 2018 main cropping season at Madda Walabu and Sinana

Number of weeds (m-2)

Broad leaved Grass

26
DAE Madda Walabu Sinana Madda Walabu Sinana

IDWP
10 11.5gh(133.3) 6.9i(48.0) 5.7d(32.0) 2.9ef(10.7)
20 13.2fg(176.0) 10.5gh(112.0) 8.3c(69.3) 4.6de(21.3)
30 14.2f(202.7) 12.4fg(154.7) 9.8b(96.0) 6.4cd(42.6)
40 17.1e(293.3) 13.1ef(170.7) 9.5bc(90.7) 7.6bc(58.7)
50 23.7d(565.3) 15.1de(234.6) 9.8b(96.0) 8.9ab(80.0)
60 25.8cd(666.7) 19.4c(378.7) 10.6ab(112.0) 8.5ab(74.7)
70 27.2bc(741.3) 23.1b(533.3) 10.3ab(106.7) 9.5ab(90.7)
80 28.7ab(821.3) 25.6a(656.0) 11.1a(122.7) 10.1a(101.3)
WC 29.5a(869.3) 25.8a(666.7) 11.3a(128.0) 10.3a(106.7)
IDWFP
10 16.9e(288.0) 15.7d(245.3) 2.9e(10.7) 1.8fg(5.3)
20 14.2f(202.7) 13.4def(181.3) 1.8ef(5.3) 1.8fg(5.3)
30 9.5hi(90.7) 12.0fg(144.0) 1.8ef(5.3) 1.8fg(5.3)
40 8.9ij(80.0) 8.6hi(74.7) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
50 6.9jk(48.0) 6.4ij(42.6) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
60 6.1kl(37.3) 4.1j(16.0) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
70 4.6l(21.3) 0.7k(0.0) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
80 0.7m(0.0) 0.7k(0.0) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
WFC 0.7m(0.0) 0.7k(0.0) 0.7f(0.0) 0.7g(0.0)
LSD(0.05) 2.1 2.3 1.8 2.1
CV (%) 8.8 11.9 19.8 28.7

Whereas the lowest number of weeds m-2 was found in treatment 10DAE (11.5 broadleaved, 5.7
grass m-2) and (6.9 broad leaved, 2.9 grass m -2) at Madda Walabu and Sinana site respectively.
However as statistical analysis indicated no significant difference was found between the
treatments which were kept weedy up to 80DAE and weedy check (WC) at both locations. As
compared to all treatments of increasing duration of weedy period (IDWP), the higher number of
weeds was existed in treatment weedy check (WC) at both experimental sites, but 80DAE in
broadleaved and 60DAE to 80DAE in grass were at par with WC at Madda Walabu, while
80DAE in broadleaved and 50DAE to 80DAE in grass were in statistical parity with the weedy
check plot (Table 2; Table 3).

The lowest number of weeds found in treatment 10DAE of the IDWP might be due to early
period of weed remove from the plots before all weed species are already emerged , moisture
content of the soil might not be suitable to encourage germination of all the active weed seeds
in the top soil surface , naturally all weed species might not be germinate at the same time due to
their size and dormancy period. This result was agreed with the work of Ahanchede and

27
Gasquez (1997) reported lower mean number of species per plot in the samples, which were
taken during the early crop emergence than those samples taken at latter stages probably during
the early crop emergence some weed species had not yet emerged in crop fields. Mengesha et al.
(2013) reported that the lower number of weed species in the plots the sample was taken at a
very early period when some weeds could be just emerging.

In case of IDWFP (increasing duration of weed free period) the highest number of weed species
was existed in treatment 10DAE at both experimental sites (Table 2; Table 3). These weed
density which was found in the treatment (16.9 broad leaved and 2.9 grass m -2 at Madda Walabu
and 15.7 broad leaved, 1.8 grass m -2 at Sinana. Statistical analysis indicated that as increased
duration of weed free period by removal of weeds with in a time, weed density was
decreased .This might be due to frequent removal of weed at early stage crop canopy could be
suppress weed species by shading effect. It also might be due to depletion of seed bank in the
upper soil layer. And as well as due to their canopy it’s protect sun light which is important for
growing of weed species. The result was in line with the work of Norsworthy (2004) who
reported that the presence of dense soybean canopy resulted in reduced weed emergence
indicating that, changes in microclimate, beneath the soybean canopy negatively affected weed
seed emergence.

Significantly differences of weed density between experimental sites could be the result of
previous cropping history, soil fertility, environmental conditions and management practices.
Moreover, Madda Walabu received 208.4mm rainfall in July and August which was 69% higher
than that received at Sinana, which might have stimulated more weed seeds to germinate and
emerge. As result showed that there was higher number of broadleaved as compared to grass
weeds at both locations. This differ might be due to the presence of weed seeds or seed bank of
broad leaved species in experimental sites. A broad leaved weed causes more competition with
crop rather than grass weeds due to fast growing and large area occupations.

In general, as results showed that there were more weed density in increasing duration of weedy
period and less weed density under increasing duration of weed free period .this might be all
seeds of weed could not be emerged as the same time due to their size and dormancy period at

28
early stage. Getachew et al. (2015) reported that maximum weed density was existed in weedy
check plot. Similarly, Nano and sharma (2018) identified the highest weed density in weedy
check plots.

4 .1.3. Weed dry weight

Weed dry weight was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by durations of weed competition at
both experimental sites (Appendix 4). Significant differences were observed among the durations
of weed competition on weed dry weight (Table 3). Weed dry weight increased with the
increasing duration of the weedy period (IDWP) and decreased with the increasing duration of
the weed free period (IDWFP). In IDWP, the weeds might have exerted a severe competition and
utilized the environmental resources for a longer period of time thus accumulating more dry
matter. Whereas in IDWFP, the weeds emerged and grew after the respective weed free periods
under stress, thus, accumulating lower dry weight. The lowest weed dry weight was measured in
treatment 10DAE in case of IDWP (increasing duration of weedy period) with the result of 7.3 g
m-2 at Madda Walabu and 5.7 g m -2 at Sinana. However, it was in statistical parity with the value
obtained from 20DAE (8.2 g m-2) to 40DAE (10.0 g m-2). Also there were no significant
differences observed between 30DAE and 40DAE (Table 3).

The highest weed dry weight (28.8g m-2at Madda Walabu and 21.9g m-2 at Sinana) was obtained
from weedy check. However, the result was in statistical parity with the value obtained from
80DAE in both locations (Table 3). This result might be due to long period of time that
accumulating high amount of dry matter in case of prolonging the weedy period in crop and
more competition some nutrient ,moisture and sun light which is essential for growth and
development of weeds, as well as soil fertility, temperature and rain fall might also be determine
weed dry weight. The result was agreed with the work of Grundy et al. (2000) who reported that
high amounts of rainfall and temperature influenced the periodicity of weed emergence, which
often resulted in increased weed dry weight. Ahmadi et al. (2007) reported prolonging the weedy
period in common bean increased the weed dry weight per unit area and caused an uninterrupted
weed infestation throughout the crop growth period, resulting in the highest weed dry weight.
Getachew et al. (2017) also reported that at early crop growth stage, weeds may be better

29
competitor than the crop, which is likely due to competitive advantages for the weeds in terms of
preemption of resources.

Table 3: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on total weed density and
dry weight of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season at Madda Walabu and Sinana

Total number of weeds (m-2) Weed dry weight (g m-2)

DAE Madda Walabu Sinana Madda Walabu Sinana
IDWP
10 12.9h(165.3) 7.6ij(58.7) 7.3hi(52.8) 5.7h(32.5)
20 15.7fg(245.3) 11.5h(133.3) 8.2gh(66.7) 6.9fg(48.5)
30 17.3f(298.7) 14.1efg(197.3) 9.4fg(87.5) 7.9ef(62.4)
40 19.6e(384.0) 15.2ef(229.3) 10.0f(100.3) 8.4de(70.4)
50 25.7d(661.3) 17.6d(314.7) 16.3d(266.7) 9.2d(84.8)
60 27.9c(778.7) 21.3c(453.3) 21.6c(467.7) 12.2c(149.9)
70 29.1bc(848.0) 24.9b(624.0) 23.9b(578.1) 18.5b(344.0)
80 30.7ab(944.0) 27.5a(757.3) 28.4a(805.3) 21.3a(452.8)
WC 31.6a(997.3) 27.8a(773.3) 28.8a(827.2) 21.9a(483.2)
IDWFP
10 17.3f(298.7) 15.8de(250.7) 12.4e(154.7) 8.9de(78.4)
20 14.4gh(208.0) 13.6fg(186.7) 11.8e(140.3) 7.9ef(62.9)
30 9.7i(96.0) 12.2gh(149.3) 9.9f(99.7) 6.4gh(40.0)
40 8.9ij(80.0) 8.6i(74.6) 7.7ghi(58.7) 5.6hi(30.4)
50 6.9jk(48.0) 6.4j(42.67) 6.2ij(37.9) 4.4ij(19.2)
60 6.1kl(37.3) 4.1k(16.0) 5.4j(28.8) 3.8j(14.3)
70 4.6l(21.3) 0.7l(0.0) 3.3k(10.7) 0.7k(0.0)
80 0.7m(0.0) 0.7l(0.0) 0.7l(0.0) 0.7k(0.0)
WFC 0.7m(0.0) 0.7l(0.0) 0.7l(0.0) 0.7k(0.0)
LSD(0.05) 2.1 2 1.7 1.2
CV (%) 7.98 9.9 8.7 8.6
DAE = Days after crop emergence; IDWP = Increasing duration of weedy period; WC = Weedy check; IDWFP =
Increasing duration of weed free period; WFC = Weed free check; Means followed by the same letters within each
column are not significantly different; LSD =least significant difference; CV= coefficient of variance

30
With regards to increasing duration of weed free period (IDWFP), the highest weed dry weight
(12.4 g m-2 at Madda Walabu and 8.9 g m-2 at Sinana) was found from 10DAE. Generally weed
dry weight was reduced when it was increased duration of weed free period throughout growing
season (Table 3) .weed dry weight was significantly decreased with the increases of weed
removal period up to 70DAE at Madda Walabu and 60DAE at Sinana. However, after those
which it mentioned above, there was no weed emergence at both locations. These results are in
agreement with the findings Kumar (2009) who reported maximum weed dry weight in weedy
check. Anwar et al. (2014) also reported weed density and weed dry weight decreased with
increasing duration of weed free period in an experiment conducted to determine the critical
period of weed control in rice. Similarly, Getachew et al. (2015) reported weeds accumulated
higher dry weight in weedy check plots and it was significantly higher than other treatments
.
4.2. Crop Phenological and Growth Parameters

4.2.1. Days to 50% flowering

Number of days to flowering was significantly (P<0.05) influenced by duration of weed

competition at Madda Walabu site but not at Sinana (Appendix 5). At Madda Walabu, 80DAE
and weedy check under IDWP as well as 10DAE, 20DAE and 30 DAE under IDWFP, were
prolonged days to flowering (53) rather than the remain of treatments. However, this result was
in statistical parity with the values of weedy period from 20 to 70DAE and weed free period
from 40 to 60DAE. On the other hand there were no significant differences existed in days to
50% flowering when the crop was remained with weedy from 10 to 70DAE and weed free period
from 40DAE to WFC (Table 4).
In general, at Madda Walabu, days to 50% flowering decreased as weed free period increased
and vice versa. This might have been due to weeds reduced sunlight interception by shading crop
plants thus prolonged the vegetative growth resulting in delayed days to flowering . This result
was agreed with the work of Sunday and Udensi (2013) who identified that the plants in not
weeded plots took the highest time to reach 50% flowering in cowpea. Similarly, Getachew et al.

31
(2015), Nano and Sharma (2018) also observed that days to 50% flowering were reduced under
weed free check as compared to weedy check plots on faba bean.

4.2.2.Days to 90% physiological maturity

Days to physiological maturity was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by duration of weed
competition at both locations ((Appendix 5). At Madda Walabu 80DAE and weedy check (WC)
under increasing duration of weedy period took maximum days (135.3) to attain physiological
maturity. However, this result was in statistical parity with the weed free period from 10 to
20DAE. No significant differences found in days to physiological maturity when the crop was
allowed to grow weedy period between 10 to 40DAE and weed free period from 70DAE to
80DAE treatments. Also no significant differences existed in case of days to physiological
maturity in weedy plots from 50DAE to 70DAE and weed free plots from 40DAE to 60DAE.
Crop in weed free check (WFC) took minimum days (130) to attain physiological maturity,
which was in statistical parity with the increasing duration of weedy period from 10DAE to
40DAE and under increasing duration of weed free period 70 and 80DAE (Table 4).

While at Sinana site weedy check under IDWP, took maximum days (143) to attain maximum
physiological maturity. However it was in statistical parity with the weedy period 70DAE and
80DAE and weed free period from 10DAE to 60DAE. No significant differences also be
observed under increasing duration of weedy period from 50DAE to 80DAE and under
increasing duration of weed free period between 30DAE to 70DAE. Statistical analysis showed
that at Sinana 10DAE took minimum days (36.6) to attain physiological maturity and lower than
in all treatments except 20DAE and 30DAE under IDWP and 80DAE and WFC under increasing
duration of weed free period (Table 4).

As compared to Madda Walabu and Sinana with regarding to required days to physiological
maturity Sinana site was prolonged days to physiological maturity than Madda Walabu. This
might be due to the existence of fertility of the soil, types weed species and low rain fall was
received at Sinana with relative to Madda Walabu which might have prolonged the growth and
development of faba bean that delaying the days to reach physiological maturity.

32
In general, with increasing IDWP and decreasing IDWFP, the days required to reach
physiological maturity increased. Means that the days required to attain physiological maturity
increased as the duration of weed interference was extended (Table 4). It might be due to shading
of crop plants by the weed canopy that intercepted sun light radiation thus prolonging the
vegetative growth resulting in delayed days to physiological maturity. This in turn might have
reduced vegetative growth and delayed the transition to the reproductive period and
physiological maturity of faba bean. This result was similar to Mekonnen et al. (2016) who
reported that with increase in the dry weight of weeds, the days required by the cowpea plants to
reach physiological maturity were delayed. Nano and Sharma (2018) also identified that the
plants in not weeded plots took long time to reach 90% of physiological maturity in faba bean.
Similarly, Mitiku et al. (2012) reported that with increase in the dry weight of Parthenium
hysterophorus, the days required by the common bean plants to reach physiological maturity
were delayed

4.2.3. Plant height (cm)

Duration of weed competition in faba bean had a significant (P<0.01) effect on plant height at
both locations (Appendix 5). At Madda Walabu experimental site the highest plant height
(84.9cm) was recorded from in weedy period 10DAE. The result was in statistically to par under
IDWP with the plots up to 20DAE to 30DAE and under IDWFP with the plots up to 40DAE to
80DAE. On the other hand, no significant differences recorded in plant height when the crop was
grew in weedy period up to 30DAE to 40DAE and weed free period up to 20DAE to 30DAE.
The shortest plant height (46.3cm) was measured from weedy check. However, it was in
statistical parity with the weedy period up to 80DAE (Table 4). While under increasing duration
of weed free period (IDWFP) maximum plant height (96.9cm) was recorded from weed free
check and the shortest plant height (54.3cm) was obtained from 10DAE at Madda Walabu (Table
4). Similarly, at Sinana the highest plant height (132.4cm) was recorded from 10DAE under
increasing duration of weedy period. It was in statistical parity with the plots kept with weedy up
to 20DAE to 30DAE and weed free plots up to 60DAE to 80DAE. As the result showed no
significant differences among the treatment that found between 20DAE and 30DAE as well as
50DAE to 60DAE in weedy period and also no significant differences between 20DAE to

33
30DAE and 40DAE to 70DAE in weed free period. The shortest plant height (100cm) was
recorded from weedy check under increasing duration of weedy period at Sinana (Table 4).
In IDWFP, the tallest plant height (137.2cm) was recorded from the treatment weed free check.
While, the shortest plant height (98.5cm) was measured from 10DAE. As statistical analysis
showed that at Madda Walabu faba bean plant height were shorter than at Sinana. This might be
due to Madda Walabu, had more weed flora than Sinana (Table 1), which caused more
competitions with crop and reduced growth of plants at Madda Walabu and also due to the
existence of more nutrient in the soil which was determined or facilitated the growth of faba
bean plant at Sinana.

Finally with increasing IDWP and decreasing IDWFP, the plant height decreased. This means
plant height decreased as duration of weedy period was prolonged and weed free period was
shortened (Table 4). Weeds grow faster than crops at initial stage and cover the plant canopy and
the lower space reduces the resource availability by the individual plant, this might be reducing
the height of crop plant. However, the height of weeds increased with respect to its dominance
over the crop. Thus, cumulative effect decreased the height of the crop plant. In line with
this result, Kavurmaci et al. (2010) who reported that the plant height of faba bean was decreased
due to weed competition. Hakim et al. (2013) also reported that the plant height of rice was
significantly influenced by weed competition period, increased the length of weed interference
and caused shortest plant. The taller plants were found in weed free check while the weedy check
treatment resulted in shorter plants. Similarly, Santosh et al. (2018) confirmed that the plant
height of groundnut was increased under increasing duration of weed free period.

34
Table 4: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on crop phenology and
plant height of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season at Madda Walabu and Sinana

Days to flowering Days to physiological Plant height (cm)

maturity
DAE Madda Sinan Madda Sinana Madda Sinana
Walabu a Walabu Walabu
IDWP
10 50.0b 55 130.3fg 136.6e 84.9b 132.4abc
20 51.0ab 55 130.7efg 137.0e 83.5bc 124.9bcdef
30 51.0ab 56 131.3defg 138.0de 79.4bcde 126.5bcde
40 51.0ab 56 131.3defg 140.0cd 73.97ef 123.2cdef
50 51.0ab 57 132.0cdef 140.3bcd 69.2fg 115.9fghi
60 52.0ab 57 132.3cde 140.3bcd 66.4gh 118.2efgh
70 52.0ab 57 133.0cd 141.0abc 62.13h 112.0hij
80 53.0a 58 135.3a 142.7ab 47.9j 107.2ijk
WC 53.0a 58 135.3a 143.0a 46.3j 100.0k
IDWFP
10 53.0a 59 135.0ab 143.3a 54.3i 98.5k
20 53.0a 59 135.3a 143.0a 74.7def 105.2jk
30 53.0a 58 133.3bc 141.3abc 78.0cde 113.1ghij
40 52.0ab 58 133.0cd 141.0abc 80.0bcd 124.0cdef
50 51.0ab 57 132.0cdef 141.0abc 81.6bc 121.6defg
60 51.0ab 57 132.0cdef 141.0abc 82.7bc 126.4bcde
70 50.0b 57 131.3defg 140.3bcd 83.3bc 128.2abcd
80 50.0b 56 131.0efg 139.0cde 84.03b 133.5ab
WFC 50.0b 56 130.0g 137.0e 96.9a 137.2a
LSD(0.05) 2.3 NS 1.9 2.5 5.7 9.4
CV (%) 2.72 3.7 0.85 1.1 4.7 4.7

DAE = Days after crop emergence; IDWP = Increasing duration of weedy period; WC = Weedy check; IDWFP =
Increasing duration of weed free period; WFC = Weed free check; NS = not significant; Means followed by the
same letters within each column are not significantly different; LSD =least significant difference; CV= coefficient of
variance

4.3. Yield Components and Yield

4.3.1.Number of pods per plant

Number of pods per plant was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by duration of weed
competition at both sites (Appendix 5). In IDWP treatments, the highest number of pods per pant
(13.9) was recorded from 10DAE which was in statistical parity with the number of pods per

35
plant at 20DAE at Madda Walabu. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between
20 and 30 DAE. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between 40 to 70 DAE. The
weedy check had the lowest number of pods per plant (3.5), which was in statistical parity with
the number of pods per plant at 80DAE(Table 5). On the other hand, at Sinana, there were no
significant differences between IDWP treatments 20 to 40DAE. Furthermore, no significant
differences were observed between 50 to 70DAE. The lowest number of pods per plant (8.03)
was recorded from weedy check which was in statistically par with the number of pods per plant
recorded from 80DAE (Table 5).

At Madda Walabu, in IDWFP treatments the lowest number of pods per plant (5.5) was recorded
in plots which were kept weed free period up to 10 DAE. There were no significant differences
between IDWFP treatments 20 and 30DAE. Furthermore, no significant differences were
observed between 40DAE and weed free check (WFC). Also as statistical analysis indicated that
at Sinana, in IDWFP the lowest number of pods per plant (8.4) was recorded from the plot which
kept weed free up to 10DAE. No significant differences were observed between 30 to 70DAE.
Further 80DAE and weed free check (WFC) were not significantly difference (Table 5). As the
results showed that at Sinana, faba bean plants had more number of pods per plant than at Madda
Walabu. This might be due to the existence of relative amount of temperature and fertile soil at
Sinana (Appendix Table 1 and 2).

In general, as weed interference was decreased the number of pods per plant increased and the
vice versa. This might be due to increased weed dry weight as duration of weedy period
increased (Table 3). This result was in line with, Hadi et al. (2006) who observed an increased
number of pods plant-1 where weed population was reduced by management techniques. Similar
result was found by Ahmadi et al. (2007) who reported that number of pods per plant significantly
decreased with increasing length of weed infested period and increased with increasing length of
weed free period in common bean. Kavurmaci et al. (2010) also identified that increased weed
interference were reduced number of pods per plant of faba bean. Similarly, Mengesha et al.
(2013) reported that the number of pods per plants was significantly increased with increasing
duration of weed-free period and decreased with increasing durations of weedy period in

36
common bean. Nano and Sharma (2018) confirmed that number of pods per plant was increased
as weed free period increased in faba bean.

4.3.2. Number of seeds per pod

Number of seed per pod was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by duration of weed
competition at both Madda Walabu and Sinana sites (Appendix 5). Significant differences were
observed in the number of seeds per pod due to increasing weedy period at Madda Walabu. In
IDWP treatments no significant difference were observed between 10 to 60DAE. Furthermore,
no significant differences were found between 70DAE and 80DAE. The lowest number of seeds
per pod (1.8) was recorded from weedy check at Madda Walabu (Table 5). While at Sinana, in
case of IDWP, no significant differences were found between 10 to 40DAE. Also there were no
significant differences observed between 50 and 60DAE. The lowest number of seeds per pod
(2.9) was recorded from weedy check which was ranked in the same statistical group with the
80DAE treatment (Table 5).

At Madda Walabu, in IDWFP treatments, there were no significant differences between 10 to

40DAE. Furthermore, no significant differences were indicated between 50 to 80DAE (Table
5).The highest number of seeds per pod (2.8) was recorded from weed free check in increasing
duration of weed free period treatments. On the other hand, at Sinana, under IDWFP treatments
10DAE and 20DAE were not significantly differences. Also no significant differences were
found between 30 to 50DAE. Further, no significant differences were observed between 60DAE
and 70DAE. The highest number of seeds per pod (3.1) was obtained from weed free check
(WFC) treatment which was in statistical parity with the 80DAE treatment (Table 5). As
statistical analysis indicated that number of seeds per pod of faba bean plants at Sinana was
exceeded the one at Madda Walabu. This might have been due to the occurance of fertile soil and
positive influence of relatively high amount of temperature at Sinana (Figure 2).

In general, number of seeds per pod was increased as weed interference decreased and decreased
as weed infestation increased. Amaregouda et al. (2013) who reported that the highest number
of seeds per pod under weed free treatment, while the lowest was obtained under weed infested

37
treatment. Similarly, Kavurmaci et al. (2010) observed that number of seeds per pod of faba bean
was reduced in weedy check treatments. Nano and Sharma (2018) also reported that the lowest
number of seeds per pod in weedy check plots and the highest number of seed per pod in weed
free check plots.

4.3.3. Stand count per hectare at harvest

Crop stand count ha-1 was highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced by duration of weed
competition at both locations (Appendix 6). At Madda Walabu, under IDWP treatments, between
20 to 40DAE were not significantly differences. Similarly, no significant differences were found
between 50 to 80DAE. The lowest stand count plants (182870) were recorded from weedy check
(WC). While at Sinana in IDWP, no significant difference was observed between 10 to 50DAE.
Furthermore, there were no significant differences between 60 to 80DAE. The lowest stand
count plants (193287) were counted from plot which was kept weeds in weedy check (Table 5).
On the other hand, in IDWFP treatments, no significant differences were existed between 10 to
60DAE at Madda Walabu. The highest stand count plants (240740) were recorded from weed
free check (WFC), which was in statistical parity with the 80DAE. However, at Sinana, the
lowest stand count plants (199073) were obtained from 10DAE treatment, which was in
statistically at par with the treatment up to 50DAE. Further the treatments found between 60 to
80DAE were not significantly differences. The maximum number of stand count plants (243055)
was recorded from weed free check (Table 5). At Sinana, stand count plants of faba bean was
higher than Madda Walabu. The dissimilarity of stand count of faba bean plants might be weed
species flora (table 1) which was less competition, more soil fertility and favourable
environmental condition at Sinana (Appendix Table 1 and 2).

Stand count per ha at harvest of faba bean plants were increased as weed free period increased
and decreased as weedy period increased. this might be due to under weed free plots faba bean
plants were consisted effective branch which enhanced yield and yield components of faba

bean. Also Weeds might have suppressed the crop plants due to severe competition for growth
resources particularly for space and light that suppressed crop plants to the extent that the crop
plants could not survive. this result was agreed with the work of Getachew et al. (2015)

38
identified that the crop stands of cowpea plants were high under weed free plots and low in
weedy check plots. Similarly, Nano and Sharma (2018) who reported that the crop stands of faba
bean plants were increased in weed free check and decreased in weedy check.

Table 5: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on number of pods per
plant, number of seeds per pod and stand count of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season

Number of Number of
pods plant-1 seeds plant-1 Stand count ha-1
DAE Madda Sinana Madda Sinana Madda Sinana
Walabu Walabu Walabu
IDWP
10 13.9a 17.0abc 2.66abc 2.6bc 230324ab 232639abcd
20 12.4ab 14.4def 2.7ab 2.46cdef 212963cdef 241898ab
30 11.2bc 15.9bcde 2.71ab 2.55bcd 226851abc 237268abc
40 7.2ef 14.6cdef 2.6abc 2.49cde 216435bcd 233796abc
50 7.8ef 12.1fg 2.5bcd 2.29fgh 208333defg 222222bcde
60 7.3ef 13.6efg 2.6abc 2.34efgh 207175defg 217592cdef
70 6.4fg 11.4gh 2.3de 2.2hi 211805cdef 218750cdef
80 4.3hi 9.3hi 2.2e 2.02ij 200231efg 203703efg
WC 3.5i 8.03i 1.8f 1.9j 182870h 193287g
IDWFP
10 5.5gh 8.4i 2.31de 2.1ij 195602gh 199073g
20 8.8de 11.1gh 2.29de 2.2ghi 201388defg 206018efg
30 10.2cd 14.4cdef 2.4cde 2.39defg 199074fg 212962defg
40 11.5bc 15.6bcde 2.5bcd 2.52bcde 203703defg 207176efg
50 12.3ab 14.5cdef 2.64abc 2.46cdef 209491defg 209490efg
60 12.33ab 16.4abcd 2.59abc 2.6bc 204861defg 219567cde
70 12.2b 16.7abcd 2.59abc 2.7b 215277bcde 222028bcde
80 12.1b 17.3ab 2.69ab 2.9a 229166ab 236111abc
WFC 12.4ab 18.9a 2.8a 3.1a 240740a 243055a
LSD(0.05) 1.7 2.6 0.25 0.2 16188 20143
CV (%) 10.5 11.3 5.9 4.83 4.63 5.5
DAE = Days after crop emergence; IDWP = Increasing duration of weedy period; WC = Weedy check; IDWFP =
Increasing duration of weed free period; WFC = Weed free check; Means followed by the same letters within each
column are not significantly different; LSD =least significant difference; CV= coefficient of variance

39
4.3.4. Above ground dry biomass(kg ha-1)

Above ground dry biomass was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by duration of weed
competition at Madda Walabu and Sinana sites (Appendix 6). In IDWP treatments, no significant
differences were observed in between 20DAE and 30DAE at Madda Walabu. Furthermore, there
were no significant differences found between 40DAE to 70DAE. The lowest aboveground dry
biomass (5671.3 kg ha-1) was obtained from weedy check (WC) treatment which was in
statistically at par with the 80DAE treatment that plot kept with weedy period (Table 6). On the
other hand, at Sinana, in case of IDWP treatments, no significant differences were found
between 20 to 40DAE. Also no significant differences were found between 50 to 70DAE
treatments under increasing duration of weedy period. The lowest aboveground dry biomass
(7291.6 kg ha-1) was recorded from weedy check (WC) which was ranked in the same statistical
group with the 80DAE (Table 6).

In IDWFP treatments, the lowest above ground dry biomass (7754.6kg ha-1) was measured from
10DAE at Madda Walabu. There were no significant differences recorded between 20 to
40DAE. the highest above ground dry biomass (12268.5 kg ha-1) was recorded from weed free
check (WFC), which was in statistical parity with plots which were weed free period from 50 to
80DAE(Table 6). Also at Sinana, in IDWFP treatments, no significant difference was existed
between 20 to 40DAE. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between 50 to 80DAE.
The highest above ground dry biomass (12814.8 kg ha-1) was recorded from the treatment of
weed free check (WFC) in which was assign under IDWFP treatments (Table 6). As analysis of
variance (ANOVA) of the present study indicated that, the above ground dry biomass of faba
bean plants was higher in weight at Sinana than Madda Walabu. This could be due to the
existence of fertile soil at Sinana when it was compared with Madda Walabu (Appendix 1),
which might have been enhanced above ground dry biomass of faba bean plants. In line with this
result, Nano and Sharma (2018) were indicated that fertile soil might be influenced the above
ground dry biomass of faba bean crop.

In general, above ground dry biomass was decreased as weeds interference increased and
increased as weed free period increased. This result was might be prolonged weed competition

40
like nutrient, moisture and sun light resulted in reduced biomass accumulation and increased
biomass accumulation by weeds with the increasing span of weed interference period might also
be a plausible cause of yield reduction in faba bean. Similarly, Juraimi et al. (2009) stated weed
dry matter has been found to be highly correlated with crop yield loss. Karkanis et al. (2012)
reported that the dry weight of parsley reduced with increasing duration of weed pressure,
confirming the high sensitivity of the parsley crop to weed interference. The result was also
agreed with, Santosh et al. (2018) who reported that Weed free check treatment accumulated
higher dry matter Due to accumulation of large quantity of dry matter by plants with better leaf
canopy development, which made the plants to utilize the available resources more efficiently for
photosynthesis and translocation to different parts, which intern resulted in higher dry matter
production. Nano and Sharma (2018) also stated that above ground dry biomass of faba bean
was decreased in weedy check and increased in weed free check plots.

4.3.5. Hundred seed weight (g)

Statistical analysis showed that hundred seed weight had significantly (P<0.01) affected by
duration of weed competition at both experimental sites (Appendix 6). At Madda Walabu, no
significant differences were found between 10 to 60DAE, except 50DAE treatment under IDWP.
The lowest hundred seed weight (50.3 g) was obtained from weedy check (WC) which was
ranked in the same statistical group with 70 to 80DAE. On the other hand, at Sinana there were
no significant differences between 10 to 30DAE. Furthermore, no significant difference was
observed between 40 to 80DAE. The lowest hundred seed weight (51 g) was recorded from
weedy check (WC) in IDWP treatments (Table 6).

In IDWFP, 10DAE had the lowest hundred seed weight (51 g) which was in statistically at par
with 20DAE treatment at Madda Walabu. Also significant differences were not existed between
30 to 70DAE under increasing duration of weed free period. Weed free check had the heaviest
hundred seed weight (63 g), which it did not significantly differ with 80DAE. However, at
Sinana, no significant differences were found between 10DAE and 20DAE in increasing
duration of weed free period. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between 30 to
70DAE. The highest hundred seed weight (63.7g) was recorded from weed free check treatment,

41
which had equal result in statistical parity with 80DAE in IDWFP treatments (Table 6). Hundred
seed weight of faba bean plant was heavier at Sinana, when it was compared with Madda
Walabu. This might be due to high relative soil fertility and temperature at Sinana (Figure 2).

Finally hundred seed weight was increased as duration of weed free period increased and
decreased as duration of weedy period increased. this could be when weeds compete with faba
bean crop for long time weeds dry matter were accumulated and increased weed dry weight.
However, due to less accumulated dry matter hundred seed weight of faba bean was reduced.
The result was agreed with, Santosh et al. (2018) who reported that the highest number of
hundred seed weight was obtained from weed free period up to harvest of groundnut. Similarly,
Singh et al. (2015) stated that yield attributes including 100 seed weight, number of branches per
plant, number of pods per plant and number of grains per pod were increased with increase in
weed-free duration and decreased in weedy period. Kavurmaci et al. (2010), Nano and Sharma
(2018) also reported that hundred seed weight of faba bean was significantly influenced by weed
competition.

4.3.6. Grain yield (kg ha-1)

Statistical analysis indicated that grain yield of faba bean was highly significantly (P<0.01)
affected by duration of weed competition at Madda Walabu and Sinana (Appendix 6). There
were no significant differences between 10 to 30DAE under IDWP and 50 to 80DAE under
IDWFP treatments at Madda Walabu. Weedy check (WC) had the lowest grain yield (1250 kg
ha-1) under IDWP treatments, which was in statistical parity with the 40 to 80DAE under
increasing duration of weedy period and 10DAE under increasing duration of weed free period.
In increasing duration of weed free period treatments, the highest grain yield (4419.9 kg ha-1)
was obtained from weed free check (Table 6). On the other hand, at Sinana, weed free check
treatment had the highest grain yield (4985.7kg ha -1) under increasing duration of weed free
period, which was ranked in the same statistical group with 10DAE under increasing duration of
weedy period. Further, 20 to 60DAE under IDWP and 40 to 60DAE under IDWFP treatments
were not significantly differences. The lowest grain yield (1534.7kg ha -1) was recorded from
weedy check or unweeded plot in increasing duration of weedy period treatment and it did not

42
differ significantly with 80DAE under IDWP and 10 to 20DAE under IDWFP treatments (Table
6). At both experimental sites, the grain yield decreased with the increase in the duration of
weedy periods and increased with the increase in weed free periods. Comparing the two sites,
higher faba bean yield was recorded at Sinana than at Madda Walabu. This might be attributed to
the better soil fertility status, relatively higher warmer temperature that was more conducive for
growth and development of the crop at Sinana than at Madda Walabu site (Figure 2). This
favourable environmental condition might also be increased plant height, number of pods per
plant, number of seeds per pod, hundred seed weight and generally yield components of faba
bean which were contributed to higher yield at Sinana than at Madda Walabu (Table 4; Table 5;
Table 6).

In general, faba bean grain yield was increased with the increase in weed free periods and
decreased as weedy period increased. This might be due to competition, increased weed dry
weight which might have been influenced yield components of faba bean. Similarly, Kavurmaci
et al. (2010) reported that In case of faba bean grain yield and yield contributing traits were
significantly affected by weed competition. Weed-crop competition may end from 45 days.
Grain yield losses due to uncontrolled weed growth throughout the crop cycle were 46%. At the
same time, plant height, numbers of pods per plant, numbers of seeds per pod and 1000 seed
weight were significantly decreased due to weeds. Bhalerao et al.(2011) were
reported that the maximum value of yield attributes, viz. total number of developed pods,
hundred pod and hundred kernel, test weight, shelling percentage and volume weight) were
observed in weed free treatment. Olayinka and Etejere (2015) reported that lowest yield
components and yield were recorded in weedy check. Singh et al. (2016) their results showed
that the yield attributes and grain yield declined with the increased duration of crop-weed
interference period and increased with long weed free durations in spring maize. Similarly,
Santosh et al. (2018) reported that the weeds interference duration increases with crop yield
component and yield will reduce drastically.

The faba bean yield losses in the weedy check as compared to the weed free check were 72% and
69.2% at Madda Walabu and Sinana, respectively (Table 7). At Madda Walabu, the higher yield
loss might be due to the existence of more weed species (Table 1), relatively lower soil fertility

43
(appendix table 1) and relatively seasonal lower temperature as compared to with Sinana (Figure
2). These values are very close to those reported in previous study, Kavurmaci et al. (2010)
finding 46% of faba bean yield losses due to weed competition.

Table 6: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on above ground dry
biomass, hundred seed weight and grain yield of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season

Above ground Hundred seed Grain yield (kg ha-1)

dry biomass(kg ha-1) weight (g)
DAE Madda Sinana Madda Sinana Madda Sinana
Walabu Walabu Walabu
IDWP
10 10995.3abc 12583.3ab 58.7bcd 62.7ab 4097.2ab 4802.8a
20 9953.7cd 10501.6cdef 60.0ab 61.3abc 3750.0abc 3733.3cd
30 9027.7de 9722.2defg 59.0bc 60.0abcde 3414.4bcd 3703.7cd
40 7291.6f 10648.1cdef 56.7bcdef 57.0cdefgh 2071.8ef 3437.5cde
50 6828.7fg 8449.1ghij 53.67efg 58.7abcdef 1990.7ef 3233.3de
60 7060.0fg 8912.0fghij 58.7bcd 57.7bcdef 1932.9ef 3113.4de
70 6597.2fg 9490.7efgh 53.7efg 55.0efghi 1770.8f 2939.8e
80 5787.0g 7638.9ij 53.3fg 54.3fghi 1701.4f 2136.6fg
WC 5671.3g 7291.6j 50.3g 51.0i 1250.0f 1534.7g
IDWFP
10 7754.6ef 7680.6hij 51.0g 52.3ghi 1794.0f 1736.2g
20 9375.0d 9226.9efghi 54.0efg 52.0hi 2812.5de 2155.9fg
30 9375.0d 10152.8defg 55.0def 57.3cdefg 3032.4cd 2844.1ef
40 10416.7bcd 10037.0defg 55.7cdef 55.7defghi 3194.4cd 3129.2de
50 11226.8abc 10962.9bcde 56.67bcdef 59.0abcdef 3298.6bcd 3719.2cd
60 11574.1ab 11310.1abcd 56.0cdef 59.3abcdef 3310.2bcd 3821.1bcd
70 11111.1abc 11425.9abcd 57.3bcde 60.3abcd 3611.1abcd 3962.5bc
80 12037.0a 12236.1abc 60.0ab 62.7ab 3645.8abcd 4457.8ab
WFC 12268.5a 12814.8a 63.0a 63.7a 4419.9a 4985.7a
LSD(0.05) 1393 1810.3 3.9 5.12 890.7 711.6
CV (%) 9.2 10.8 4.3 5.3 18.9 12.99
DAE = Days after crop emergence; IDWP = Increasing duration of weedy period; WC = Weedy check; IDWFP =
Increasing duration of weed free period; WFC = Weed free check; Means followed by the same letters within each
column are not significantly different; LSD =least significant difference; CV= coefficient of variance

Alfonso et al. (2013) reported that weed competition was reduced grain yield of faba bean by
60%. Nano and Sharma (2018) reported that where season long weed competition reduced yield
of faba bean by 78.3%. Patel et al. (2003) and Tesfay Amare (2014) also reported that the
presence of weeds reduced grain yield by 82% over complete weed free check. Similarly,

44
Mohamed et al. (1997) and Khogali et al. (2007) indicated that yield losses due to weeds in
similar crops such as faba bean, chickpea and lentil are more than 50%.

4.3.7. Harvest index(%)

Harvest index was significantly (P=0.03 and P<0.01) affected by the duration of weed
competition at Madda Walabu and Sinana respectively (Appendix 6). In IDWP treatments, no
significant difference was found between 10 to 30DAE at Madda Walabu. Also 40 to 80DAE
treatments were not significantly differences. Weedy check (WC) under increasing duration of
weedy period had lowest (21.7%) harvest index (Table 7). While, at Sinana, there were no
significant differences found between 10 to 60DAE. Similarly, no significant difference was
observed between 70DAE and 80DAE. In IDWP treatments, the lowest harvest index (20.9%)
was recorded from weedy check (Table 7).

At Madda Walabu, under IDWFP treatments, 10DAE had the lowest (22.8%) harvest index. As
analysis of variances indicated that no significant difference was found between 20DAE to weed
free check (Table 7). However, at Sinana the highest harvest index (38.9%) was recorded from
weed free check, which was in statistical parity with the 50 to 80DAE under IDWFP treatments.
Means with 10DAE and 20DAE treatments were not significantly different. Also no significant
difference was found between 30DAE and 40DAE in IDWFP treatments (Table 7). Faba bean
harvest index was higher at Sinana than Madda Walabu. The probable reason could be due to the
existence of fertile soil and favorable condition which were suitable for enhanced yield and yield
components of faba bean at Sinana.

In general, under increasing duration of weedy period and increasing duration of weed free
period, faba bean harvest index was decreased and increased respectively at both experimental
sites. This might have been the prolonged weed competition under increasing weedy period that
could be reduced faba bean harvest index. This result was agreed with, Getachew et al. (2015)
who reported that due to severe weed competition with the crop for the growth factors, which
restricted the growth and development of the crop in weedy check plots harvest index of cowpea
become low.

45
Table 7: Effect of increasing duration of weedy and weed free periods on harvest index of faba
bean in 2018 main cropping season at Madda Walabu and Sinana

Harvest index (%) Yield loss (%)

DAE Madda Walabu Sinana Madda Walabu Sinana

IDWP
10 37.15ab 38.2ab 7.3 3.7
20 37.6a 35.5abc 15.2 25.1
30 37.4ab 39.2a 22.7 25.7
40 28.3bcde 32.24abcd 53.1 31.1
50 28.7abcde 38.3a 55 35.1
60 27.2cde 34.9abcd 56.3 37.6
70 26.8de 30.9cd 59.9 41.04
80 29.3abcde 27.9de 61.5 57.2
WC 21.7e 20.9f 72 69.2
IDWFP
10 22.8e 22.7ef 59.4 65.2
20 30.04abcde 23.4ef 36.4 56.8
30 32.4abcd 27.9de 31.4 42.9
40 30.6abcde 31.14bcd 27.7 37.2
50 29.3abcde 33.9abcd 25.4 25.4
60 28.8abcde 34.4abcd 25 23.4
70 32.8abcd 34.7abcd 18.3 20.5
80 30.4abcde 36.4abc 17.5 10.6
WFC 36.04abc 38.9a 0 0
LSD(0.05) 9.14 7.1 - -
CV (%) 18.1 13.2 - -
DAE = Days after crop emergence; IDWP = Increasing duration of weedy period; WC = Weedy check; IDWFP =
Increasing duration of weed free period; WFC = Weed free check; Means followed by the same letters within each
column are not significantly different; LSD =least significant difference; CV= coefficient of variance

4.4. Critical Periods of Weed Control

Critical period of weed control (CPWC) was determined by using relative faba bean yield (% of
season long weed-free yield) and growing degree days (GDDs) as quantitative variables. Faba
bean emergence date was used as the reference point for accumulation of GDD for accounting
the possibility of weeds emerging before the faba bean. The CPWC was determined based on

46
arbitrarily chosen yield loss levels (AYL) of 10%, which is judged to be acceptable considering
the present economics of weed control.

As statistical results showed that, in Madda Walabu, the beginning of CPWC based on 10%
AYL occurred by 210 GDD corresponding to 20 DAE. In contrast, in Sinana at the same AYL,
weeds required to be removed at 166 GDD, corresponding to 14DAE (Figure 3 and 4). The end
of the CPWC at 10% AYL occurred by 822 GDD or 80DAE in the Madda Walabu and 916
GDD or 80DAE in the Sinana. At both sites, it lasted almost until the end of the crop growing
season (Figure 3 and 4).

The earlier start of the critical period of weed interference at Sinana could be attributed to the
higher minimum and maximum temperatures (Figure 2) that might have resulted in early
emergence, establishment and rapid growth of weeds thus utilizing the available resources more
efficiently and posing a stiffer competition of the weeds with the crop for growth resources
(Table 2 Table 3). The result was in conformity with the finding of Gupta (2011) who reported
that the weeds that germinated earlier, or at the same time as the crop emergence, posed a serious
competition to the crop plants since they had an opportunity to establish and accumulate dry
matter faster than the crop plants. Hall et al. (1992) also reported that weed density appears to be
important factor in the period tended to start later for experiments with lower weed density in
maize. At very low weed densities there might be even no critical period of weed interference.

47
 Figure 3: Effect of weed crop competition on relative faba bean yield at Madda Walabu during
2018 main cropping season

Figure 4: Effect of weed crop competition on relative faba bean yield at Sinana during 2018 main
cropping season

48
Long lasting CPWC at Sinana, might be due to the dominance of more competitive weeds
species such as Cynoglossum lanceolatum forsk, Amaranthus spinosus and Digitaria abyssinica
(Table .1). This is also in harmony with the findings of Mengesha et al. (2013) reported that
long lasting CPWC might be the result of more competitive weeds such as P. hysterophorus, C.
rotundus and G. parviflora during influence of weed dynamics on the productivity of Common
bean.

Critical period of weed crop competition observed in this study was narrower at Madda Walabu
while it was wider at Sinana. The current result was in conformity with the finding of Zuhal et
al. (2010) who reported that the critical period of weed control in faba bean starts at 30 and ends
from 45 days after crop emergence at 10% acceptable yield loss. The critical period of Dry bean
that ranged from 206 to 745 GDD or approximately 19 to 52 DAE at an acceptable yield loss of
10% (Ahmadi et al., 2007). This variation could be explained by differences in environmental
conditions, management practices, weed species diversity etc. as the CPWC has been found to
vary with location, year, weed species, relative time of weed emergence, weed density, cultivar,
agronomic practices etc. (Van Acker et al., 1993; Knezevic et al., 2002).

49
 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is consider as an old legume food grow on a large areas in the world
and the first among the legumes by area coverage in Ethiopia. However, inadequate information
on weed distribution, identification and timely weed management, especially during its critical
period of weed competition is among the major bottleneck lowering faba bean productivity.
Thus, identification of the critical period of weed control in faba bean crop is essential for
determining the appropriate time of weed management and the efficient use of herbicides.
Present study was therefore, conducted with the objective of determining the critical period of
weed-crop competition and yield loss in faba bean at Madda Walabu and Sinana Agricultural
Research Center during 2018/19 cropping season.

The experiment was consisted of eighteen treatments in two sets, i.e. Weed free set and one
weedy set each comprising weed competitions and weed free durations up to 10, 20, 30, 40, 50,
60, 70 and 80 days after crop emergence (DAE) and up to harvest were laid out in a randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The results revealed that the
experimental fields were infested both with broadleaved and grassy weeds. The dominant weed
species were Guizotia scabra (29.7%), Spergula arvensis L (15.9%) and Corrigiola capensis
willd (8.8%) among broadleaved while Digitaria abyssinica (19.7%) among grass weeds at
Madda Walabu and Amaranthus spinosus (37.0%) among broadleaved and Digitaria abyssinica
(18.2%) among grass weeds at Sinana. Regarding’s to weed related parameters, total weed
density and weed dry weight were highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by weed competition at
both experimental sites. While crop related parameters, days to 90% physiological maturity ,
plant height ,number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, crop stands counts, above
ground dry biomass, grain yield, hundred seed weight and harvest index were highly
significantly (P<0.01) affected by weed competition at Madda Walabu and Sinana. Days to 50%
flowering was significantly (P<0.05) influenced by duration of weed competition at Madda
Walabu site but not at Sinana.

50
The highest total number of weeds (31.6 m-2 at Madda Walabu and 27.8 m-2 at Sinana) was
recorded from weedy check. While the lowest number of weeds (4.6 m-2 at Madda Walabu and
4.1 m-2 at Sinana ) was counted from 70DAE and 60DAE under IDWFP respectively.

The highest weed dry weight (28.8g m-2at Madda Walabu and 21.9g m-2 at Sinana) was obtained
from weedy check. However, the lowest weed dry weight (3.3 g m -2at Madda Walabu and 3.8 g
m-2 at Sinana) was recorded from 70DAE and 60DAE under IDWFP respectively.

The highest grain yield (4419.7kg ha-1 at Madda Walabu and 4985.7 kg ha-1 at Sinana) was
obtained from weed free check. While, the lowest grin yield (1250.0kg ha -1 at Madda Walabu
and 1534.7kg ha-1 at Sinana) was measured from weedy check. Thus with increasing duration of
weed interference, weed density, weed dry weight and the number of days required to attain
physiological maturity of faba bean were increased whereas the plant height, number of pods per
plant, number of seeds per pod, crop stands counts, above ground dry biomass, hundred seed
weight, grain yield and harvest index were decreased. While the reverse was true in case of
increasing duration of weed free period.

Generally, according to the results of present study indicated that the maximum faba bean grain
yield losses due to the highest weed interference throughout the entire life span of the crop were
72% and 69.2% at Madda Walabu and Sinana, respectively, as compared to the weed free check.
Therefore, to prevent more than 10% yield loss or to achieve more than 90% grain yield of faba
bean variety Walki (EH96049-2), it should be weed free between 210 to 822 GDD(20 to 80
DAE) at Madda Walabu and 166 to 916 GDD (14 to 80 DAE) at Sinana. This could be
achieved through the application of different weed management system including, cultural,
mechanical, chemical and integrated weed management practices . Moreover, extensive and
consistent the experiment is recommended to determine critical period weed control (CPWC)
and yield loss caused by weed competition. Hence as this study was done for one season at one
location, the experiment has to be repeated over locations and seasons to give valid conclusion.

51
 6. REFERENCE

Abebe, T., Birhane, T., Nega, Y. and Workineh, A. 2014. The prevalence and importance of faba
bean diseases with special consideration to the newly emerging “faba bean gall” in Tigray,
Ethiopia. African journal of Agricultural research, 9(50), 3627-3631.
Ademe, A., Ebabuye, Y., Gelaye, M., Gezachew, S. and Telahun, G. 2018.Survey of faba bean
(Vicia faba L.) diseases in major faba bean growing districts of North Gondar. African
Journal of Plant Science, 12(2), 32-36.
Adeosun, J.O. 2008. Predicting Yield of Upland Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) Under Weed Infestation.
Journal of Weed Science Society of Nigeria, 21(6): 156-161.
Adigun, J.A., S.T.O. Lagoke, and S.K. Karikari.1991. Chemical Weed Control in Irrigated Sweet
Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Tropical Pest Management, 37(2):155-158.
Agegnehu, G. and Fessehaie, R. 2006. Response of faba bean to phosphate fertilizer and weed
control on nitisol of Ethiopian highlands. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 2, 201-209.
Ahanchede, A. and Gasquez, J. 1997. Weeds of rain fed crop fields in north eastern Benin.
Agriculture development, Special issue-May 1997. Dijon, France. Pp.12-24.
Ahmadi, A., R. Mirzae Talarposhti, S.K. Mousavi and H. Mohammadi. 2007. Determination of
the Critical Period of Weed Control in Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Using a Thermal
Basis. Iranian Journal of Weed Science, 3(1 and 2): 21-38.
Akobundu, I.O.1980. Economics of Weed Control in African Tropics and Sub Tropics. Page 315
Akobundu, I.O.1987. Weed science in the tropics principle and practices. John Wiley and Sons,
Chichester, 522 pp.
Ali, A. A., Abd El-Hai, K. M. and Atwa, M. A. 2014. Management of chocolate spot disease of
Vicia faba using nutritional elements. Asian Journal of Plant Pathology, 8, 45-54.
Alfonso, S. Frenda, P., Ruisi, S., Saia, B., Frangipane, and D. 2008. The Critical Period of
Weed Control in Faba Bean and Chickpea in Mediterranean Areas. Journal of
Weed Technology, 61: 452-459.
Alfonso S, Frenda, Paolo R, Sergio S, Benedetto F, Giuseppe D, Gaetano A, Dario G. 2013. The
Critical Period of Weed Control in Faba bean and Chickpea in Mediterranean areas.
Weed Science Society of America, 61 (3): 452-459.

52
Al Thababi, S.A.; Yassin, J.Z.; Abu-Irmailch, B.E.; Haddad, N.I. and Saxena, M.C. 1994.Effect
of weed removal on productivity of chickpea) Cicerarietinum) and lentil (Lens
culinaris.med) In a Mediterranean environment.Journal of Agronomy Crop Science, 172:
333-341.
Amaregouda, A, Jitendra Jadhav, M.B. Chetti andNawalagatti. 2013. Effect of Weedicides on
Physiological Parameters, Growth, Yield and Yield Components of Soybean (Glycine
max. L) and Weed Growth. Journal of Agriculture and Allied Sciences,
2(4).
Amin, A. 1988. Principles of Field Crops. Basra University Press, PP 452.
Ann Stroud and Chris Parker 1989. A Weed Identification Guide to Ethiopia. Food and
Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
Arnold, R.N.; Nurrary, M.W.; Georgy, E.J. and Smeal, D. 1993. Weed control in pinto bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris) with imazethapyr combination. Weed technology, 7: 2, 361-364.
Anwar, M. P. Juraimi, A. S. Samedani, B. Puteh, A. and Man A.. 2014. Critical Period of
WeedControl in Aerobic Rice. The Scientific World Journal: 10.1100/2012/603043.
Asfaw, T., Tesfaye G. and Beyena, D.1994. Genetics and Breeding of faba bean 97-121p. In
Asfaw Telaye (eds.). Cool season food Legume of Ethiopia. Proc. first national cool
seasons food legumes. Review conference 16-20 December 1993, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
ICARDA/IAR.ICARDA, Syria.
Ashton, F.M. and Grafts, A.S. 1973 .Mode of action of herbicides.John Wiley and Sons, Inc.New
York, N.Y. 504 pp.
Babiker, A.G.T. and Khalid, M.E. 1990. Chemical weed control in faba bean at Wad Hamid
.Annual Report, Hudieba Research Station Agric. Res. Corp) ARC), Sudan, 183-185.
Bahn, V.M. and Kukula, S. 1987. Problems and potential of chickpea production in the nineties.
Proceedings of the second International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement 1989,
ICRSAT Centre, India pp 13-25.
Bale J. S., Masters G. J., Hodkinson I. D. 2002. Herbivory in global climate change research:
direct effects of rising temperatures on insect herbivores, Global Change Biology, 8:1–
16.

53
Bhalerao SN, Shaikh AR, Romade BD and Landge SA. 2011. Impact source of treatments on
yield performance of Groundnut. Advance Research Journal of Crop Improvement 2: 15-
17.
Bhaskar, A. and K.G. Vyas. 1988. Studies on competition between wheat and Chenopodium
album and Avena fatua. Weed Research Journal, 28:53-58.
Blackshaw, R G.,Anderson W.and J.Dekker.1987.Interference of Sinupis arvensis L. and
Chenopodium album L. in spnng rapeseed (Brassica nupus L.). Weed Research Journal,
27:207-213.
Brain, P.and R.Cousens. 1990. The effect of weed distribution on predictions of yield loss.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 27:735-742.
Braun, M.; Burgstaller, H.; Hamdoun, A.M. and Walter, H. 1991. Common weeds of central
Sudan, Josef Margof, Weikershiem, Germany, 328 pp.
Bukun, B. 2004. Critical periods for weed control in cotton in Turkey. Weed Research Journal,
44:404–412.
Burnside, O.C., W.H. Ahrens, M.J. Wiens, B.J. Holder, M.M. Johnson, and E.A. Ristau. 1998.
Critical periods for weed control in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Weed Science,
46:301-306.
Burgos, N. R., R. J. Norman, D. R. Gealy, and H. Black. 2006. Competitive Nitrogen uptake
between rice and weedy rice. Field Crops Research. 99:96–105.
Carvalho, S. J. and Christoffoleti, P. J. 2008. Competition of Amaranthus species with dry bean
plants. Agricultural Sciences, 65(3): 239–245.
Casper, B.B.and R.B. Jackson. 1997. Plant competition underground.Annual Reviews of
Ecological System, 28:545-570.
Chikoye, D., L.A. Hunt and C.J. Swanton. 1996. Simulation of Cornpetition for
photosynthetically active radiation between common ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Weed Science, 44: 545- 554.
Chikoye, D. and F. Ekeleme. 2001. Weed Flora and Soil Seed banks in Fields Dominated
byImperata cylindrica in the Moist Savannah of West Africa. Weed Research, 41 475-
490.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2018. Agricultural sample survey for 2017/2018 report. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.

54
Cruse, D., N. Ampony, R. Labrada and A. Merago.1995. Weed management in legume crops:
bean, soybean and cowpea. In: "Weed management for development countries".FAO
Plant Production and Protection. pp:283-287.
Davis, A. and M. Liebman. 2001. Nitrogen source influences wild mustard growth and
competitive effect on sweet corn. Journal of Weed Science, 49: 558-566.
Dawson, J. H. 1986. The concept of period thresholds. European Weed Research. Society
Symposym., Economic Weed Control. p. 327-331.
Degife, A. Z. and Kiya, A. T. 2016. Evaluation of Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Varieties for yield
at Gircha Research Center, Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural
sciences 6(6):169-176.
Dereje, G. and Tesfaye, B.1994. Faba bean disease in Ethiopia.328-345. In Asfaw Telaye
(eds.). Cool season food Legume of Ethiopia. Proc. first national cool seasons food
legumes. Review conference 16-20 December 1993, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dew, D.A. 1972. An index of competition for estimating crop loss due to weeds .Canadian

Journal of Plant Science-921:52 ، .927.

Doll, J.D. 2003. Dynamics and Complexity of Weed Competition. In Weed Management for
Developing Countries. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, no. 120 (Add.1).
Ennis J.R.; Shaw, W.C.; Danielson, L.L; Klingman.D.L. And Timmons, F.L.1963.Chemical
weed control on farm management practices Adv. Agron., 15: 161-210.
Ennis, W.B. 1977. Integration of weed control technologies in: Integrated control of weeds
(Fryer, J.D. and Masunaka, F.S. eds_. Pp. 229-243, Universitu of Tokay.
Evans, S. P., S. Z. Knezevic, J. L. Lindquist, C. A. Shapiro, and E. E. Blankenship. 2003.
Nitrogen application influences the critical period for weed control in corn. Journal
of Weed Science, 51:408–417.
Fageiry, K.A.1987. Weed control in soybean (Glycine max) on vertisols of Sudan. Tropical pest
Management, 33(3): 220-223.
FAOSTAT (Food and Agricultural Statistical Data).2017.Database.Available
at:http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway.
Fedoruk K., Johnson N., Shirtliffe J. 2011. The critical period of weed control for lentil in
western Canada. Weed Science 59: 517-526.
Fletcher, W.W. and Krikwood, R.C. 1982.Herbicides and plant growth regulators, p 1.

55
Getachew Asnake. 2006. Cropping systems, soil fertility, and crop management research on
cool season food legumes in the central highlands of Ethiopia: A review.In K. Ali
(Ed.), Food and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects pp. 135-
145.
Getachew, M., J. J. Sharma, Lisanework N and Tamado, T. 2015. Effect of Integrated Weed
Management Practices on Weeds Infestation, Yield Components and Yield of
Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] in Eastern Wollo, Northern Ethiopia . American
Journal of Experimental Agriculture7 (5): 326-346.
Getachew, M., Mitiku, W. and Eskinder, Y. 2017. Determination of Critical Period of Weed
Crop Competition in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Bench Maji and Kaffa Zone, South
Western Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Sciences,5(3): 90-98.
Glasgow, I..L.; Dicks, J.W. and Hodgson, D.R. 1976. Competition and chemical control of
natural weed population in spring sown field beans (Vicia faba), 26 No. 5 p. 140.
Gupta, O.P. 1984. Critical Period of Weed Crop Competition Scientific Weed Management in
the Tropics and Sub-tropics, Today and Tomorrow’s Printers and Publishers, New Delhi.
Gupta, O.P. 2004. The nature of weed competition. In: modern weed management with special
reference to agriculture in the tropics and sub tropics. A text book and manual. Agrobios,
India. 310p.
Gupta, O.P. 2011. Modern Weed Management, 4th edition Agrobios Jodhpur, India.
Grace, J.B. and D. Tilman. 1990. Perspectives on plant competition. Academic Press Inc., San
Diego, California, USA.
Grundy, A. C. and Mead, A. 2000. Modeling weed emergence as a function of meteorological
records. Weed Science 48: 594-603.
Hadi H, Ghassemi-Golezani K, Khoei FR, Valizadeh, M, Shakiba MR. 2006. Response of
common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to different levels of shade. Journal of Agronomy,
5: 595-599.
Hager, A. and Renner, K.1994. Common Rag Weed) Ambrosia artemisiifolia) control in soybean
(Glycine max) with bentazon as i.nfluenced by imazethapyr or thifensulfuron tank-
mixes. In: Weed Technology, 8(4): 766-771.
Hall, M.R., C.J. Swanton and G.W. Anderson. 1992. The critical period of weed control in grain
corn (Zea mays L.). Weed science, 40: 441-447.

56
Haile, M., Adugna, G. and Lemessa, F. 2016. Reactions of improved faba bean varieties to
chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae Sard.) epidemics across contrasting altitudes in southwest
Ethiopia. African journal of Agricultural Research 11(10):837-848.
Hailu, E., Getaneh, G., Sefera, T., Tadesse, N., Bitew, B., Boydom, A., Kassa, D. and Temesgen,
T. 2014. Faba Bean Gall; a New Threat for Faba Bean (Vicia faba) Production in
Ethiopia. Advance in Crop Sciences and Technology 2:144.
Hakim MdA, Juraimi AS, Musa MH, Ismail MR, Moshiur RMd and Selamat A. 2013.
Impacts of weed competition on plant characters and the critical period of weed
control in rice under saline environment.Australian journal of crop science 7(8):
1141-1151.
Heshmati, G.A. 2007. Vegetation characteristics of four ecological zone of Iran. International
Journal of plant production, 2: 215-224.
Holden, A.N.G.; Fowler, S.V. and Schroeder, D. 1992. Invasive weeds in amenity land in UK -
Biological control. The neglected alternative aspects of applied biology. 29, 325-332.
Horticoop,Ethiopia. 2019. Soil analysis laboratory. page 1-2.
IAR (Institute of Agricultural Research). 1987. Development of Synthetic Varieties of Maize.
Departement of field Crops Maize Progress Report for the period 1984/1985. Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dryland Areas). 2008. Impact of
improved faba bean technologies in Africa No-2.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2010. Pulses value chain in Ethiopia
Constraints and opportunities for enhancing exports. Contributed by; Shahirdur Rashid,
ChilotYirga, BefekaduBehute and Solomon Lemma. Working paper I. Washington DC.
Idris K.I. 2001. Weeds competition and their chemical control in common bean) Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) in Northern Sudan. M.Sc. thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan, pp. 18.
Ishaya, D.B., P. Tunku, and N.C. Kuchinda. 2008b. Evaluation of some weed control treatments
for long season weed control in maize under zero and minimum tillage at Samaru in
Nigeria. Crop Protection, 27:1047-1051.
Jarso, M. &Keneni, G. 2006. Vicia faba L. In: Brink, M. & Belay, G. (Editors). PROTA 1:
Cereals and pulses/Céréaleset legumes secs. [CD-Rom].PROTA,Wageningen,
Netherlands.

57
Jensen, E. S., M. B. Peoples, and H. Hauggaard-Nielsen. 2010. Faba bean in cropping systems.
Field Crops Research Journal, 115: 203–216.
Jordan, N.1993. Prospects for weed control through crop interference. Ecological
Applications, 3:84–91.
Juraimi, A. S. Mohamad Najib, M. Y. Begum, M. Anuar, A. R. Azmi, M. and Puteh, A. 2009.
“Critical period of weed competition in direct seeded rice under saturated and flooded
conditions,” Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science, 32: 2, 305–316.
Kavurmaci Z, Karadavut.U, Kökten K and Bakoğlu A.2010. Determining Critical Period of
Weed-crop Competition in Faba Bean (Vicia faba). International journal of agriculture

& biology, 12: 318-320.

Kasasian, L. and J. Seeyave. 1969. Critical periods for weed competition. PANS, 15: 208-212.
Kebebu, A., Whiting, S.J., Dahl, W.J. and Henry, C.J. 2013. Formulation of a complementary
food fortified with broad beans (Vicia faba) in southern Ethiopia. African Journal of
Agriculture Food Nutrition and Development 13: 7791-7803.
Kebede Desta. 2000. Weed control methods used in Ethiopia. pp. 250-251. In: Starkey, P. and Simalenga,
T. (eds.). Animal power for weed control. A resource book of the Animal Traction Network for
Eastern and Southern Africa. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Keneni, G. and Jarso, M. 2002.Comparison of three secondary traits as determinants of grain
yield in faba bean on water logged vertisols. Journal of Genetics and Breeding, 56, 317-
326.
KhairEldin, A.; Galil, A. and Elhassan, G.A. 1980. Weed Control in Sorghum, Kenana Research Station
Annual Report, 52-56. Agricultural Research Corporation, Ministry of Agriculture, Sudan.
KhairEldin, A. 1981. Weed control at Abu Naama, Kenana Research Station. Annual Report.52-
56. Agricultural Research Corporation, Ministry of Agriculture, Sudan.
Khogali, I. I.; Elsadig, S. M. and Salah, E. E. 2007. Chemical weed control in irrigated common
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Northern Sudan. Sudan Journal of Agricultural
Research, 8: 17-21.
Klingman, G.C.; Ashton, F.M. and Noordhoff, L.J. 1982. Weed science: Principle and practice.
2nd Johns Wiley and Sons, New York, U.S.A. 449 pp.

58
Kumar NS. 2009. Effect of plant density and weed management practices on production
potential of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research,
43:57-60.
Knezevic, S.Z., S.P. Evans, E.E. Blankenship, V. Acker and J.L. Lindquist. 2002. Critical period
for weed control: the concept and data analysis. Weed science, 50: 773-786
Kora, D., Hussien, T. and Ahmed, S. 2016. Epidemiology of chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae
Sard.) on faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in the Highlands of Bale, Sinana district,
Southeastern Ethiopia. Global Journal of Pests, Disease and Crop Protection, 4 (1),
131-138.
Labrada, R., J.C. Casely and C. Parker (eds.). 1994. Weed Management for Developing
Countries. FAO, Rome. Italy.
Lavabra, E.M. 1991. The Tropical Agriculturist Weed Control. Macmillan Education Ltd.
Malik, Vikram, S.; Claemce, J.; Swanton and Tom, E .Michael. 1993. Interaction of white bean (
Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Cultivars, row spacing and seeding density with annual weeds,
Weed Science, 41: 62-68.
Martin, S.G., R.C. Van Acker and L.F. Friesen. 2001. Critical period of weed control in spring
canola (Brassica napus L.). Weed science, 49: 326-333
Mekonnen G, Sharma JJ, Negatu LW, Tana T. 2016. Growth and Yield Response of Cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) to Integrated Use of Planting Pattern and Herbicide
Mixtures in Wollo, Northern Ethiopia. Adv Crop Science Techecnology 4: 245. doi:
10.4172/2329-8863.1000245..
Mengesha, k., Sharma J.J., Tamado.T, and Lisanework N. 2013. Influence of Weed Dynamics on

the Productivity of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) In Eastern Ethiopia. East
African Journal of Sciences, 7 (2), 109-120.
Mengistu Mulat, 1998. Determination of Critical Period of Weed Control and Effect of Weeds
on Yield and Yield Components of Maize. An Msc Thesis Summited to School of
Graduate Studies of Haramaya Unversity Ethiopia.100p.
Melaku Wondafrash. 2008. A Preliminary Guide to Plant Collection, Identification and
Herbarium Techniques. The National Herbarium Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Melkamu, H., Gashaw.M and Wassie, H.2018. effects of different blended fertilizers on
yield and yield components of food barley (hordeum vulgare l.) on nitisols at hulla

59
 district, southern Ethiopia. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and
Research, 7(1), pp. 49-56.
Mitiku Woldesenbet, Sharma, J.J. and Lisanework Nigatu. 2012. Competitive Effect of
Parthenium Weed on Yield and Yield Components of Common Bean. Ethiopian Journal
of Weed Management, 5: 1-11.
Mohamed, E.S.; Babiker, A.G.T. and Mohamed, G.E. 1992. Weed control in chickpea. Page
195-200 in Production and Improvement of Cool-season Food Legumes in the Sudan.
Mohamed, E.S. and Nourai, A.H. 1994. Weed competition in lentil Pages 246-248 in Annual
National Coordination Meeting.
Mohamed, El.S.S.; Mohamed, M.I. and Ahmed, A.T. 1994. Vertification of chemical weed
control in faba bean in Dongla, Nile Valley Regional Program on cool season food
legumes and wheat, Sudan .Food legumes report. Annual National Coordination Meeting
Agricultural Re. Corp., Wad Medani, Sudan 229-233.
Mohamed, El.S.S. 1995. Weed control in legumes Production and Improvement of Cool-season
Food Legumes in the Sudan. Edited by Salih, H. Salih; Osman, A. Ageeb; Mohan, C.
Saxena and Mahmoud B. Solb. Published by the international Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). A joint publication with the Agricultural Re.
Corp. (ARC) Wad Medani, Sudan. 185-201.
Mohamed, E. S; Nourai, A. H; Mohamed, G. E; Mohamed, M. I. and Saxena, M. C. 1997.
Weeds and weed management in irrigated lentil in Northern Sudan. Weed Research, 27:
211-218.
Mohammad, G., A. Javanshir, F. R. Khooie, S. A. Mohammadi, and S. Zehtab Salmasi. 2005.
Critical period of weed interference in chickpea. Weed Research Journal, 45:57– 63.
Mousa, A. M. and El-Sayed, S. A. 2016. Effect of intercropping and phosphorus fertilizer
treatments on incidence of rhizoctonia root-rot disease of faba bean. International
Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 5(4), 850-863.
Mola, A. 1996. Effect of sowing date, weeding frequency and seed rate on yield of faba bean
grown on pellic Vertisols at Sheno.Proceedings of the Conference of the Agronomy and
crop physiology society of Ethiopia (ACPSE). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Ministry of Agriculture (MoA).2014. Plant variety release, protection and seed quality control
directorate. Crop variety register. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Issue No. 17. P 81.

60
Nano, A. and Sharma, J, J. 2018. Assessment of Integrated Weed Management Practices on
Weed Dynamics, Yield Components and Yield of Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) in
Eastern Ethiopia. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 6(5):
570-580.
Negash, T., Azanaw, A., Tilahun, G., Mulat, K. and Sahile, S. 2015. Evaluation of Faba
bean(Vicia faba L.) varieties against chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) in North Gondar,
Ethiopia. African journal of Agricultural research 10(30): 2984-2988.
Neito, J.N., M.A. Brondo and J.T. Gonzalez. 1968. Critical periods of the crop growth cycle for

competition from weeds. PANS, 14: 190-194.

Ngouajio, M., J. Foko and D. Fouejio. 1997. The critical period of weed control in common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Cameroon. Crop Protection, 16(2):127-133.
Norsworthy, J.K. and Oliveira, M. J. 2004. Comparison of the critical period for weed control in
wide and narrow row corn. Weed Science, 52:802-807.
Obuo, J.E., E. Adipala, and D.S. O. Osiru. 1997. Weed Suppression in a Cowpea/Sorghum
Intercrop. Proceedings 16th East African Biennial Weed Science Conference, 113-118.
Ofuya ZM, Akhidue V. 2005. The role of pulses in human nutrition: a review. J. Appl. Sci.
Environ. Manage. 9:99-104.
Ohlander, L.J.R. 1980. Research on Haricot bean production in Ethiopia, 1972-1976. Report 82.
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Plant Husbandry, Uppsala,
Sweden.
Olayinka BU and Etejere EO. 2015. Growth analysis and yield of two varieties of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by different weed control
methods. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 20(2): 130-136.
Otto, S., R. Masin, G. Casari, and G. Zanin. 2009. Weed–corn competition on parameters in late-
winter sowing in northern Italy. Weed Science Journal, 57:194–201.
Parker, C. and Fryer, J.D. 1975. Weed control problems causing major reduction in world pod
supplies. FAO Plant Prot. Bull. 23: 83-95.
Patterson, D.T. 1985. Comparative ecophysiology of weeds and crops. In S.O. Duke (ed.). Weed
physiology. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Florida. Weed Science Journal, 60:81– 85.
Patel MM, Patel AI, Patel IC, Tikka SBS, Henry A, Kumar D, Singh NB. 2003. Weed control in
cowpea under rain fed conditions. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on

61
 Arid Legumes, for Food Nutrition. Security and promotion of Trade. Advances in Arid
Legumes Research. Hisar, India, 203-206.
Pe´rez-de-Luque, A., Eizenberg, H., Grenz, J.H., Sillero, J.C., Avila, C. and Sauerborn, J. 2010.
Broom rape management in faba bean. Field Crops Research 115:319-328.
Petzoldt C., Seaman A. 2006. Climate Change Effects on Insects and Pathogens // Climate
Change and Agriculture: Promoting Practical and Profitable Responses, p. III 1– 16.
Quantick, H.R. 1985. Aviation in crop protection pollution and insect control (8th edition).In the
Regent University of California, 27-30.
Radosevich, S.; Holt, J. and Ghersa, C. 1997. Weed Ecology implications for management. John
Wiley and Sons, Chickester, 589 pp.
Rajcan, I. and C. J. Swanton. 2001. Understanding maize–weed competition: M resource
competition, light quality and the whole plant. Field Crops Research Journal, 71:139–
150.
Rajcan, I., K. J. Chandler, and C. J. Swanton. 2004. Red–far-red ratio of reflected light: a
hypothesis of why early-season weed control is important in corn. Weed Science
Journal, 52:774–778.
Rao, V.S. 1983. Principle of weed science. Mohan Primlani for Oxford and IBH publishing
Co.New Delhi, 54 pp.
Rao.V.S. 2000. Principles of weed science. Science Publisher, Inc. United kingdom, pp384.
Rasmussen, J., Griepentrog, H.W., Nielsen, J., Henriksen, C.B. 2012. Automated intelligent rotor
tine cultivation and punch planting to improve the selectivity of mechanical intra-row
weed control. Weed Research Journal 52, 327–337.
Remigijus Šmatas, Roma Semaškiene, Sigitaslazauskas. 2008. Effect of Climate Changes on
Plant Pests and Weeds. Zemdirbyste. Journal of Agricultural Science, 95 (3): 235–241.
Ruisi, P., D. Giambalvo, G. Di Miceli, A. S. Frenda, S. Saia, and G. Amato. 2012. Tillage effects
on yield and nitrogen fixation of legumes in Mediterranean conditions. Agronomy
Journal, 104:1459–1466.
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute. 2003. SAS Version 9.1 © 2002-2003. SAS Institute,
Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA
Salmoeron, J. I. C., Avila, C. and Torres, A. M. 2010. Faba bean and its importance in food
security in developing countries. International conference on food security.

62
Santosh ,K., Vishram. R., Lala I.P. R., Krishnapp ,N.J. ,Singh and Premaradhya. N.2018. Weed
Pressure on Growth and Yield of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Meghalaya, India.
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 23197706
Volume 7 Number 03 (2018).
Singh, A.K., R.C. Bharati, N.C. Manibhushan, and A. Pedpati. 2013. An assessment of faba bean
(Vicia faba L.) current status and future prospect. African Journal of Agricultural
Research 8:6634-6641.
Singh AK, Bhat BP, Sundaram PK, Gupta AK, Singh D. 2011. Planting geometry to optimize
growth and productivity faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and soil fertility. Journal of
Environment and Biology, 34 (1):117-122.
Singh, M., Kumar, R., Kumar, S., & Kumar, V. 2015. Critical period for weed control in field
pea. Legume Research, 39(1): 86–90.
Singh K, Kaur T, Bhullar MS and Brar AS. 2016. The Critical period for weed control in
spring maize in North-West India. Maydica electronic publication 1-61.
Sibuga, K.P. 1997. Weed management in Eastern and Southern Africa: Challenges for the 21 st
century. Proceedings 16th East African Biennial Weed Science Conference, 5-11.
Shifa, H., Hussien, T. and Sakhuja , P. K. 2011. Association of faba bean rust (Uromyces viciae-
fabae) with environmental factors and cultural practices in the Hararghe Highlands,
Eastern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Science, 5, 58-65.
Smith, L., and Hamel. 1999. Crop yield: Physiology and processes. Spring-Verlage, Berlin
Heidelberg, Germany.182p.
Stat Soft. 2004. STATISTICA Release 7. Produced by US and International Copy Right Law.
Stoddard, F. L., Nicholas, A. H., Rubiales, D., Thomas, J. and Ferna´ndez, A. M. V. 2009.
Integrated pest management in faba bean. Field Crops Research (In press).
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2009.07.002.
Stroud, A. and Parker, C. 1989. A weed identification guide for Ethiopia. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Sukarwo, P. 1991. Vegetation analysis of aquatic weeds in Sentani Lake, Irian Jaya. In: Lee,
S.A. and K.F. Kon (eds.). pp. 539-545. In: Proceedings of 3rd Tropical Weed Science
Conference, MAPPS, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

63
Sunday O, Udensi E. 2013. Evaluation of Pre-Emergence Herbicides for Weed Control in
Cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] in a Forest-Savanna Transition Zone. American
Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3: 767-779.
Swanton, C. J. and S. F. Weise. 1991. Integrated weed management: the rational approach.Weed
Technology Journal, 5: 657-663.
Tafere Mulualem, Tadesse Dessalegn and Yigzaw Dessalegn. 2012. Participatory varietal
selection of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) for yield and yield components in Dabat
district, Ethiopia, Wudpecker. Journal of Agricultural Research, 1: 270–274.
Talal, T. 2006. Effect of planting Date on Faba Bean (Vicia faba L.) Nodulation and
Performance under Semiarid conditions. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2(4):
477-482.
Tesfay, A. 2014. Effect of weed management methods on weeds and wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) yield. African Journal ofAgricultural Research, 9 (24):1914-1920.
Torres, A. M., Roman, B., Avila, C. M., Satovic, Z., Rubiales, D., Sillero, J. C., Cubero, J.I.,
Moreno, M. T. 2006. Faba bean breeding for resistance against biotic stresses: towards
application of marker technology. Euphytica, 147: 67-80.
Vanrijn, P.J. 1979. Weed control in the tropics problems and research priorities. In: Weed
Research in the Sudan.Proceedings of a symposium (M.E. Beshir and W. Koch. Eds),
1, 68-78.
Van Acker, R.C., C.J. Swanton and S.F. Weise. 1993. The critical period of weed control in
soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). Weed science, 41: 194-200.
Vissoh, P.V., G. Gbehounou, A. Ahanchede, T.W. Kuyper, and N.G. Roling. 2004. Weeds as
Agricultural Constraint to Farmers in Benin: Results of a Diagnostic Study. NJAS,
52(3&4):305-329.
Weaver, S. E., M. J. Kropff, and R. M. W. Groeneveld. 1992. Use of ecophysiological models
for crop-weed interference: The critical period of weed interference. Weed Science
Journal, 40:302-307.
Weaver, S. E., and C .S. Tan. 1987. Critical period of weed interference in field-seeded tomatoes
and its relation to water stress and shading. Cannadan Journal of Plant
Science, 67: 575-583.

Weaver, S.E., J.A. Ivany. 1998. Economic thresholds for wild radish, wild oat, hemp-nettle and
corn spurry in spring barley. Can. Journal of Plant Science, 78: 357–361.

64
Williams, M. M., II. 2006. Planting date influences critical period of weed control in sweet corn.
Weed Science, 54:928–933.
Wu, D., Q. Yu, E. Wang, H. Hengsdijk. 2008. Impact of spatial-temporal variations of climatic
variables on summer maize yield in North China Plain. International Journal of Plant
Production, 2: 71-88.
Yassin, R.M. 1979. Weeds alternative host of plant pathogens in Sudan. In: Weed research in the
Sudan. Proceedings of a symposium (M.E. Beshir and W. Koch. Eds),140-
146.Herausgaben Von W. Koch and A. Kemer Stuttgort.
Yohannes, D.2000. Faba bean Ethiopia. Institute of biodiversity conservation and research
(IBCR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Zimdahl, R.L. 1988. The concept and application of the critical weed Free period. Weed
management in Agro-ecosystems: Ecological approaches. 145-155.
Zimdahl, R.L., 2007. Fundamentals of Weed Science. 3rd edition. Academic Press.
NewYork.405pp.
Zuhal ki, Ufuk, kağan N. and Adil B. 2010. Determining Critical Period of Weed-crop
Competition in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). International journal of Agriculture and
Biology, 156: 181-187.

65
 7.APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Physical and chemical properties of soil at experimental fields

Parameter Location
Madda Walabu Sinana
Soil Depth (0-30 cm) Soil Depth (0-30 cm)
Soil textural class Clay Clay
Soil pH (H2O) 6.28 6.12
Total nitrogen (%) 0.15 0.17
Available P (ppm) 14.34 12.96
Organic matter (%) 1.75 2.35
CEC (meq/ 100 g soil) 26.11 49.46

Appendix 2: The meteorological data of Madda Walabu (Sinana) and Sinana Agricultural
research center Experimental Fields from July to December

Locations Month Temperature (0C) Rainfall (mm)

Maximum Minimum

July 21.5 9.4 40.3

Madda Walabu(Sinana) August 22.1 9.7 168.1

September 21.7 9.3 64.1

October 21.9 8.9 71.7

November 21.3 7.6 30.7

December 22.1 6.1 3.5

July 23.9 9.2 0

Sinana research center August 24.1 9.6 70.3

September 24 9.7 123.3
October 24.2 8.8 65.5
November 23.5 8.4 23.5
December 23.5 6.8 0

Source: Robe Meteorology Station

66
Appendix 3: Weed flora in both experimental fields

Weed species Family Life cycle

Amaranthus hypidus Amaranthaceae Annual broadleaved

Corrigiola capensis willd Caryophyllaceae Annual broadleaved
Cynoglossum lanceolatum forsk Boraginaceae Annual broadleaved
Amaranthus spinosus Amaranthaceae Annual broadleaved
Chenopodium fasciculosum Aellen Chenopodiaceae Annual broadleaved
Spergula arvensis L. Caryophyllaceae Annual broadleaved
Gnaphalium unionis sch .Bip. Composite Annual broadleaved
Polygonum nepalense meisn Polygonaceae Annual broadleaved
Galium spurium L.var. Rubiaceae Annual broadleaved
Madicago polymorpha L. Leguminosae Annual broadleaved
Guizotia scabra (vis) chiov. Composite Annual broadleaved
Commelina subulatia Rott. Commelinaceae Annual broadleaved
Digitaria abyssinica (A Rich)stapf Gramineae Perennial grass
Cynodon nlemfuensis vanderyst Gramineae Perennial grass
Pennisetum clandestinum hochst Gramineae Perennial grass

Appendix 4: Analysis of variance for weed density broadleaved, grass, total number of Weeds
and weed dry weight of increasing duration of weedy and weed free period of faba bean in 2018
main cropping season

Mean squares
Source of Degree Grass Total Weed dry
Location Variation of Broadleave number of weight
s freedom d weeds
Replication 2 5.9 0.178 4.79 3.6
Treatment 17 261.6** 61.12** 309.9** 225.9**
Madda
Error 34 1.6 1.14 1.54 1.05
Walabu CV (%) 8.8 19.8 7.98 8.7
Replication 2 2.33 4.71 2.99 1.71
Treatment 17 193.3** 43.8** 229.9** 124.2**
Sinana
Error 34 1.9 1.58 1.59 0.5
CV (%) 11.9 28.7 9.9 8.6

Appendix 5: Analysis of variance for 50 % flowering, Physiological maturity , plant height

number of pods plant -1 and number of seeds pod -1 of increasing duration weedy and weed free
period of faba bean in 2018 main cropping season

Locatio Source of Degree of Mean squares

n variation freedom
DF DPM PH NPPP NSPP

67
 Replication 2 5.7 2.79 61.8 1.52 0.046
Madda Treatment 17 3.97* 9.34** 563.9** 31.13* 0.16**
Walabu *
Error 34 1.96 1.3 11.99 0.99 0.022
CV (%) 2.72 0.85 4.7 10.5 5.9
Replication 2 11.8 2.06 16.43 0.72 0.0012
Sinana Treatment 17 4.54ns 13.14** 388.05* 30.43* 0.27**
* *
Error 34 4.44 2.31 31.9 2.47 0.014
CV (%) 3.7 1.1 4.7 11.3 4.83
DF= days to 50 % Flowering, DPM=days to 90% physiological maturity, PH=Plant height, NPPP= number of pods
plant-1, NSPP=number of seeds pod-1, ** = significant p ≤ 0.01, *= significant p ≤ 0.05, ns = non-significant

Appendix 6: Analysis of variance for stands count ha-1, above ground dry biomass, seed weight,
grain yield and harvesting index of increasing duration of weedy and weed free period of faba
bean in 2018 main cropping season

Locatio Source of Degree Mean squares

n variation of CPS AGDBM SW GY HI
freedo
m
Replicatio 2 57826932 1241285.1 4.52 490119.9 45.75
Madda n
Treatment 17 597402262* 14637290.0* 32.81* 2694649.9* 63.00*
Walabu
* * * *
Error 34 95176189 704727.8 5.75 288159.2 30.35
CV (%) 4.63 9.2 4.3 18.9 18.1
Replicatio 2 97709114 782811.3 4.17 97138.5 4.89
Sinana n
Treatment 17 683268539* 8420786.6** 43.25* 2881147.2* 97.31*
* * * *
Error 34 147367017 1190194.9 9.5 183922.2
CV (%) 5.5 10.8 5.3 12.99 13.2

CPS= crop plant stands, AGDBM= above ground dry biomass, SW= seed weight, GY= Grain yield, HI= harvesting
Index

68