Proceeding Pulished

Results of
Crop Improvement and

Management Research for
2019/2020
Part I
Edited by
Taye Tadesse (Dr)
Asnakech Tekalign (Dr)
Tesfaye Desta (Dr)
Feyera Merga (Dr)
የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
Results of
Crop Improvement and
Management Research for
2019/2020
Part I
©EIAR, 2022
Website: http://www.eiar.gov.et
E-Mail:
Tel: +251-11-6462633
+251-11-6-454416
P.O.Box: 2003
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
ISBN: 978-99944-66-78-8
Correct citation:
Taye Tadesse, Asnakech Tekalign, Tesfaye Desta, and Feyera Merga (eds.). Results of
Crop Improvement and Management Research for 2019/20, Part I, PP. 1-660.
[i]
Contents
Foreword vi
Preface viii
Field Crops
Evaluation of Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) Genotypes for
Grain Yield in High Potential Areas of Ethiopia
Worku Kebede, Tsion Fikre, Yazachew Genet, Kidist Tolosa, Solomon Chanyalew,
Mengistu Demissie, Kebebew Assefa, Habte Jifar, Nigus Belay, Getahun Bekana,
Chekol Nigus, Girma Chemeda, Molalign Assefa and Sewagegn Tariku 1
Identification of Genotypes for Improving Tef Productivity Using Farmers’

Participation in Potential Environments of Ethiopia
Tsion Fikre, Yazachew Genet, Worku Kebede, Kidist Tolossa, Mengistu Demissie,
Solomon Chanyalew, Kebebew Assefa, Atinkut Fentahun, Nigussie Belay
and Chekole Nigus 13
Performance of Drought Tolerant Tef Genotypes in Drought-Prone

Areas of Ethiopia
Worku Kebede, Tsion Fikre, Kidist Tolosa, Yazachew Genet, Solomon Chanyalew,
Mengistu Demissie, Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Mitiku, Sewagegn Tariku and Zerihun Tadele 21
Performance of Selected Tef Genotype for High Potential Areas of Ethiopia

Yazachew Genet, Tsion Fikre, Worku Kebede, Solomon Chanyalew,
Kidist Tolosa, and Kebebew Assefa 35
Pre-extension Demonstration of Tef Varieties in East and

North Showa Zones of Ethiopia
Truayinet Mekuriaw, Kidist Tolosa, Worku Kebede, and Kebebew Assefa 49
Registration of the Newly Released Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Variety “Dursa” for Moisture Stress Areas of Ethiopia
Habtemariam Z, Tafesse S., Gadisa A., Alemu D., Dawit A., Abebe D., Rut D.,
Bayisa A., Demeke Z., Abebe G., and Negash G, Zerihun T., Bekele G., Ayele B.,
Agegnew M., and Mizan T. 55
Registration of the Newly Released Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Variety ‘Boru’ for Optimum Moisture Areas of Ethiopia
Habtemariam Z, Tafesse S., Gadisa A., Alemu D., Dawit A., Abebe D., Rut D, Bayisa A,
Demeke Z, Abebe G, and Negash G, Zerihun T, Bekele G, Ayele B, Mathiwos A, Mekuria T,
Endeshaw G, Cherinet A, and Geleta G 65
Stability Analysis for Quality Traits in Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf)
Varieties under East Shewa, Ethiopia
Mekuria Temtme, Tewodros Lulseged, Werknesh Batu, Wasihun Legesse and Yewubdar Shewaye 75
Genotype x Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis for Grain

Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum) Genotypes under Low
Moisture Stress Areas of Ethiopia
Alemu Dabi, Gadisa Alemu, Negash Geleta, Abebe Delessa, Tafesse Solomon, Habtemariam Zegaye,
Dawit Asnake, Bayisa Asefa, Rut Duga, and Abebe Getamesay, Demeke Zewudu, Bedada Girma,
Ayele Badebo and Bekele Abeyo 83
[i]
Development of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties for High Moisture
Areas of Ethiopia: A G x E Interaction and Stability Analysis for Grain Yield
Gadisa Alemu, Alemu Dabi, Negash Geleta, Tafesse Solomon, Abebe Delessa, Rut Duga,
Habtemariam Zegeye, Dawit Asnake, Abebe Getamesay, Bayisa Asefa, Demeke Zewdu,
Bekele Geleta Abeyo, Ayele Badebo, and Bedada Girma 97
Performance Evaluation and Yield Stability of Advanced Bread

Wheat Genotypes in Ethiopia
Gadisa Alemu, Alemu Dabi, Tafesse Solomon, Negash Geleta, Abebe Delessa, Ruth Duga,
Demeke Zewudu, Habtemariam Zegeye, Dawit Asnake, Bayisa Aseffa, and Abebe Getamesay 113
Evaluation of Diallel Crosses of Highland Adapted Quality

Protein Maize (QPM) Hybrids under Optimum Conditions
Tefera Kumsa, Demissew Abakemal, Dufera Tulu, Zeleke Keimiso,
Habtamu Zeleke and Mekuanent Belay 125
Combining Ability Analysis of Highland Maize Inbred Lines for Grain

Yield and Yield Related Traits for Highland Agroecology of Ethiopia
Dufera Tulu, Demissew Abakemal, Tefera Kumsa, Zeleke Keimeso, Worknesh Terefe,
Legesse Wolde and Abenezer Abebe 135
Performance Evaluation of Introduced Advanced-Stage Hybrids Trials

Adapted to Moisture Stress Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia
Alemeshet Lemma, Lealem Tilahun, Dereje Ayalneh, Talef Wendosen, Berhanu Tadesse,
Bulo Dhabesa, Estefanos Habtemariam, Tefera Mitiku and Tesfaye Disasa 149
Performance of Diallel Crosses and Combining Ability of Elite Highland

Adapted Maize (zea mays. L) Inbred Lines for Desirable Agronomic Traits
Zeleke Keimeso, Demissew Abakemal, Dufera Tulu, Tefera Kumsa, Abiy Balcha and Shimelis Tesfaye 159
Adaptation and Performance Evaluation of Upland Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

Varieties in Ethiopia
Zelalem Zewdu, Tefera Abebe, Altaye Tiruneh, Tesfaye Mitiku, Fisseha Worede,
Abebaw Dessie, Assaye Berie, Geleta Girma, Mequanent Aklilu, Mulugeta Atnaf 177
Registration of “Selam” Green Super Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Variety in Ethiopia
Abebaw Dessie, Mulugeta Atnaf, Fisseha Worede, Zelalem Zewdu, Assaye Berie, Taddess Lakew,
Hailegebriel Kinfe, Solomon Admasu, Zeynu Tahir, and Betleham Asrat 187
Registration of ‘Pawe-2’ Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Variety Targeted for

Typical Upland Rice Ecosystems in Ethiopia
Desta Abebe, Mulugeta Atnaf, Gedifew Gebrie, Abebaw Dessie, Desalegn Wondifraw,
Mulugeta Bitew, Atsedemariyam Tewachew, Yeshiwas Sendekie, Desalegn Teshale,
Tesfaye Gudisa and Zeynu Tahir 195
Multi-Environment Evaluation of High-Elevation Rice Genotypes

under Rain-fed Condition of Ethiopia
Fisseha Worede, Mulugeta Atnaf, Abebaw Dessie, Zelalem Zewdu,
Assaye Berie, Zeynu Tahir, Hailegebrial Kinfe and Solomon Admasu 205
Genetic Diversity in Upland Rice Genotypes at Pawe, Northwestern Ethiopia

Gedifew Gebrie, Desta Abebe, Mulugeta Atnaf, Abebaw Dessie, and Desalegn Wondiferaw 219
[ii]
Pulses
Analysis of Genotype-by-Environment Interactions in a Multi-Environment
Trials of Kabuli - Type Chickpea Genotypes in Ethiopia
Lijalem Korbu, Assefa Funga, Nigusie Girma, Million Eshete, Fasil Hailu,
Amin Fedulu, Genet Mengistu and Redwan Mohammad, Dagnachew Bekele, Genet Mengistu,
Abebe H, Awol Muhamed, and Niguse Kefelegn, Tadele Tadesse, Yasin Goa, and Asnake Fikre 237
Genotype by Environment Interaction on Selected Early Maturing Soybean

(Glycine max L.) Merrill) Genotypes in Ethiopia
Masresha Yirga, Yechalew Sileshi, and Behailu Atero 257
Genotype x Environment Interaction on Medium Maturing Soybean

(Glycine max (L.) Merrill.) Genotypes for Grain Yield in Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi, Masresha Yirga and Behailu Atero 269
Stability Analysis of Selected Medium Maturing Soybean

(Glycine max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for Grain Yield in Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi, Mesfin Hailemariam, Masresha Yirga, Abush Tesfaye,and Behailu Atero 281
Performance of Newly Released Medium Maturing Soybean Variety, Melko

Bonsa-01in Major Soybean Growing Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi, Mesfin Hailemariam, Masresha Yirga, Abush Tesfaye,
Behailu Atero and Ermias Tefera 295
Screening of Soybean Genotypes in the Highland Agroecology

of Southwestern Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi, Mesfin Hailemariam, Masresha Yirga, Abush Tesfaye and Behailu Atero 301
Performance Evaluation of Medium Maturing Soybean

(Glycine max (L) Merrill) Varieties under Irrigation in Northwester Ethiopia
Derese Hunde, Molla Malede, and Asmamaw Amogne 307
Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

Verities in Ethiopia
Birhanu Mengistu, Mohammed Abu and Fikadu Amsalu 317
Evaluation of Genotype by Environment Interaction of Linseed Genotypes

Birhanu Mengistu, Mohammed Abu and Fikadu Amsalu 329
Evaluation of Advanced Rape Seed (Brassica napus)

Genotypes in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Fekadu Amsalu, Birhanu Mengistu and Mohammed Abu 343
Phenotyping of Black Seeded Soybean Genotypes for

Yield and Yield Related Raits at Jima, South Western Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi, Masresha Yirga, and Behailu Atero 353
Agronomy
Effect of time of N Fertilizer Application on Performance of Tef
(Eragrostic tef ) in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Almaz Meseret, Sisay Eshetu, Bizuwork Tafes, and Gebrekidan Feleke 361
Soil Tillage Interval and Varieties Effect on Lentil (Lens culinaris Mediuks)
Productivity and Weed Suppression in Ethiopia
Bizuwork Tafes, Sisay Eshetu, Almaz Meseret, and Gebrekidan Feleke 379
[iii]
Optimum Phosphorus Rate and Inter Row Spacing for Lentil ( Lens culinaris Medikus)
on Vertisol in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Bizuwork Tafes, Sisay Eshetu, Almaz Meseret, and Gebrekidan Feleke 397
Determination of Appropriate Time of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application

for Maize in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Midekesa Chala, Chala Chalchissa, and Gudeta Biratu 413
Planting Date and Surface Drainage Methods for Bread Wheat Production
on a Vertisol in the Highland of Arsi, Southeastern Ethiopia
Wogayehu Worku, Dereje Dobocha, Almaz Admasu, Fasil Shimeles,
Zenebe Mulatu and Debela Bekele 425
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer Effect on Yield and Quality of Bread Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties in the Highlands of Arsi
Zenebe Mulatu, and Debela Bekele 433
Evaluation of Alternative Break Crops in Rotation with Bread Wheat

(Triticum aestivum L.) in South-Eastern Ethiopia
Zenebe Mulatu, and Debela Bekele 445
Determination of Appropriate Rate and Timing of N Application to Improve the

Productivity of Malt Barley in South Eastern Ethiopia
Wogayehu Worku, Dereje Dobocha, Zenebe Mulatu, Fasil Shimeles,
Debela Bekele and Almaz Admasu 451
Influence of in-situ Moisture Conservation Techniques and N Rates on

Agronomic Traits of Sorghum in Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia
Kasaye Abera and Berhane Sibhatu 459
Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates and Plant Population Density on Late Maturing

Maize Variety at Jimma and Buno Bedele Zone, South Western Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu, Muhidin Biya and Eshetu Yadete 473
Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates on Medium Maturing Maize Varieties

at Jimma, South Western Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu, Muhidin Biya and EshetuYadete 487
Validation of Soybean (Glycine max. L.) to NP Fertilizer Rates and Plant

Population Densities at Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia
Response of Maize Variety to Nitrogen and Plant Population Density

at Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia
Muhidin Biya, Sisay Gurmu, and Eshetu Yadete 507
Response of Newly Released Late Maturing Maize Variety to Nitrogen

and Plant Population Density at Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia
Muhidin Biya, Sisay Gurmu, and EshetuYadete 519
Validation of Maize-Common Bean Intercropping on Crop Productivity and Land Use

Efficiency under Two Tillage Practices at Jimma Zone, South Western Ethiopia
[iv]
Evaluation of Common Bean Varieties Compatibility to Intercropping with
Maize at Melkassa and Miesso areas
Fitsum Merkeb and Berhanu Amsalu 541
Validation of Plant Population Densities for Maize Varieties in East Showa

Bahiru Tilahun, Yaya Tesfa, and Getachew Jimayu 559
Evaluation of Sorghum-Based Sequential Double-Cropping Systems in

Semi-Arid Eastern Ethiopia
Tewodros Mesfin and Mohammed Salah 565
Response of a Sorghum Hybrid to Different Plant Densities and N

and P Fertilizer Rates at Meiso in Semi-Arid Eastern Ethiopia
Tewodros Mesfin and Mohammed Salah 571
Effect of Trust-Difol on Upland Cotton Varieties (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

under Irrigated Condition
Yonas Bekele, Fikeremariam Tegegn, Tamiru Dejen, Takele Zike,
Merdasa Balcha, and Getinet Belay 579
Effect of Seedling Age at Transplanting on Yield and Yield Components of

Low Land Rice in Fogera Plain, North Western Ethiopia
Zelalem Tadesse, Tilahun Tadesse, Habtamu Assega 591
Effects of Sources, Rate and Application Times of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield

and Yield Components of Upland Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Northwest Ethiopia
Habtamu Assega, Zelalem Tadesse, and Tilahun Tadesse 603
Evaluating the Compatibility of High Land Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]
Varieties for Relay-Intercropping with Chickpea [Cicer arietinum (L.)]
at High Land Areas of West Hararghe, Ethiopia
Husen Yesuf 617
Evaluation of Crop Performance and Determination of NP Fertilizer Rate

for High Land Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Intercropping with
Haricot Bean [Phaseolus vulgaris (L.)] for Increased Productivity at High
Land Areas of West Hararge, Ethiopia
Husen Yesuf 631
[v]
Foreword
Agriculture plays significant role in Ethiopia economy. The sector is a major

source of food for the increasing human population, feed for the livestock resource
and export earnings, among others. The country is endowed with huge crop
genetic recourses that would be useful for tapping genes for genetic improvement
and has long tradition of practicing crop production. Several biotic and abiotic
factors constrain crop production and productivity. In addition, introduction of
new pest is threatening production of a number of crops.
The agricultural development policies of Ethiopia aims at increasing the

production and productivity of crops and secure the food demand of the country,
produce export commodities to foreign currency earning, and the sector is also
expected to produce raw materials for the growing industries. In the past decade
agricultural productivity has shown an increasing trend. The productivity
increment is related to the increasing use of improved technologies such as
improved crop varieties and crop management practices. However, the growth has
not been commensurate with the growing population and there is still considerable
gap between food demand and supply. A number of factors are contributing for
the discrepancy, of which access to improved technologies and lack integration of
the different actors along the value chain are the major challenges to
transformation in the sector.
The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EIAR) has been undertaking

research on selected nationally important crops contributing for food security and
high value crops for export. The institute is mandated to develop improved
agricultural technologies, create demand through demonstration of the same and
provide early generation seed and planting materials for seed growers. The
institute is collaborating with regional research institutes and higher education
institutions within the country and with international research and academic
institutions.
The crop directorate is one of the sectors in the institute undertaking research
projects aimed at generating appropriate technologies for the diverse agro-
ecologies on field crops, horticultural crops, coffee and tea, root and tubers,
medicinal and aromatic crops. The research also targeted at generating
information that could be packed with the improved varieties and management
practices to be delivered to end users and also used for future research and
development endeavors. The institute envisions to enhance the capacity of its
research programs to implement targeted research works aligned with the national
agricultural development polices. The use of advanced technologies such as
molecular markers and techniques that would help to fast truck the generation of
[vi]
improved technologies are deemed to have importance to attain better genetic gain
for the economically important crops. In partnership with our collaborators efforts
will also be made to address the growing demand for agricultural technologies
through enhancing the capacity of the research system.
These proceedings are the result of the past three years of crop research
undertaken by the various crop research programs. The compilation of the results
of the completed crop research activities is aimed at documenting the technologies
and information generated so that they will be accessible to users. I would like to
congratulate the authors and editors for their dedication and contribution to
compile the papers included in the document.
Diriba Geleti (PhD)

DDG, EIAR
[vii]
Preface
Agriculture is the backbone of Ethiopian economy contributing for food self-
sufficiency, foreign currency earning, supplying raw materials for the emerging
agro-processing industries while conserving the ecosystem for sustainable use. In
alignment the government policy to transform the agriculture sector the research
system has been playing the leading role in generating improved technologies,
creating demand for the technologies and supplying start up technologies for
targeted beneficiaries. The Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural research has mad the
major contribution and has generated 60% of the improved crop varieties and are
among the widely used technologies across regions. In the past two decades
agricultural productivity has shown an increasing trend by 5.8% while the global
average increment was 1.4%. The increasing use of improved technologies
specifically the use of improved varieties has played a pivotal role in the
increasing productivity and production. In comparison to the research potential
and in some case under well managed on farm condition the national average
productivity is, however, lower by half. This needs additional efforts for the
extension and seed system to reach out wider users and optimize the use improved
packages.
The gap between demand and supply on agricultural products remains to be a

challenge for the sector to feed the increasing human population and contribution
for the economic growth. The crop research directorate is being undertaking
research to generate technologies resilient to the changing environments while
supporting the development endeavors to create access for the improved
technologies. In this regard, a ten years strategy has designed to increase the
genetic gain through breeding by 1.5% per annum, and double productivity of the
major food security and other economically important crops. In order to achieve
these targets modernization of the breeding program in a way of addressing the
customer demand while implementing advanced techniques have been given more
emphasis. It is thus vital to expand these efforts to have efficient system to address
the eminent challenges in the agriculture sector.
This proceeding is the result of the past three years research undertakings of the
national programs. In the execution of the research activities the federal and
regional research canters and some of the universities have been participated. In
this proceeding the major results of the completed research activities of the
2019/20 crop season were published with aim of sharing the major outputs of the
research undertakings for our beneficiaries and document the research experiences
for future reference in the research system. The institute has registered 36 varsities
on 22 different crops for use.
[viii]
The published papers have passed a two stage review by assigned senior
researchers in the respective disciplines and editors who have compiled the
proceeding. The papers included in this proceeding were selected based on the
contributions to generate appropriate technologies for users, scientific merits and
contribution for advancement of scientific research in the country. The proceeding
published in two volumes and contained a total of 74 papers on field crops and
horticultural crops plant, agronomy, on farm demonstration of improved
technologies and post-harvest related issues. The papers organized into different
sections as field crops, horticulture, root and tubers, spices and coffee and tea
crops. The respective program coordinators and the team members have exerted
maximum efforts in execution of the research activities and were participated in
writing and reviewing the papers at program level. The authors are recognized for
the implementation of the research activities and their commitment in writing the
papers as per the standard set initially and incorporation of the comments given by
the reviewers for the betterment of the quality of the papers. The contribution of
the senior researchers across canters in reviewing the papers was immense and I
would like to thank those who have been involved in the review and edition
process. The final edition was done by W/o Elizabeth Baslyos and would like
extend my thanks for the support and efforts to make the proceeding to the
standard. I believe that the papers contained in this document would provide
useful information for the scientific community and for other end users.
The Editors
[ix]
Evaluation of Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)
Genotypes for Grain Yield in High
Potential Areas of Ethiopia
Worku Kebede1, Tsion Fikre1, Yazachew Genet1, Kidist Tolosa1, Solomon Chanyalew1,
Mengistu Demissie1, Kebebew Assefa1, Habte Jifar1, Nigus Belay2, Getahun Bekana2,
Chekol Nigus3, Girma Chemeda4, Molalign Assefa5 and Sewagegn Tariku6
1
EIAR, DebreZeit Research Center, P.O.Box 32, Ethiopia; 2EIAR, Holetta Research center, P.O.Box 2003,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 3TARI, Axum Research Center, P.O.Box30, Axum, Ethiopia, 4OARI, Bako Research
Center, P.O.Box03, Bako Ethiopia, 5SARI, Worabe Research Center, P.O.Box021, Worabe, Ethiopia, 6AARI,
Adet Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 8, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Abstract
Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter], is a staple food crop of Ethiopians that
originated and diversified in Ethiopia. It has existed in Ethiopia throughout
recorded history. Annually, it is grown on more than 3.02 million hectares thereby
ranking first among all cereals cultivated in the country. However, the national
average yield of tef is low (1.8 t ha-1). The use of unimproved local cultivars and
biotic and abiotic stresses are partially attributed to the low yield of the crop.
Thus, the experiment was designed to develop high yielding and desirable quality
improved varieties of tef suitable for diverse agro-ecologies and farming systems.
Twenty tef genotypes including two checks were laid out in randomized complete
block design using four replications for two years (2018 and 2019) at seven
locations (viz.Debre Zeit (black soil), Minjar, Adadi Mariam, Adet, Axum, Ginchi
and Holeta).The combined data analysis across locations and over the years
indicated that the genotypes DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 109 and DZ-01-974 X GA-
10-3 RIL 104 performed better than the two checks and other test genotypes.
During participatory variety selection farmers overwhelmingly selected the very
white seed varieties DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104, DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL
109 and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 93) respectively. Farmers were selected
the genotypes which meet their selection criterions and market purposes,
indicating that tef is a cash crop. The genotype DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO.
109) and DZ-01- 974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104 were very stable genotype with best
performance in all tested environments, respectively.
Introduction
Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] has become globally known and various
products are available in Europe and North America as health foods especially for
persons with gluten intolerance (Saturni et al., 2010). In South Africa, India,
Pakistan, Uganda, Kenya and Mozambique tef is mainly grown as a forage or
pasture crop (Kebebew et al., 2011). In Ethiopia, tef grows under a wide range of
ecological conditions from sea level up to 3000 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l). It
is annually cultivated on over three million hectares of land, and such it
accounting for about 30% of the total area and 20% of the gross grain production
[1]
of cereals grown in the country (CSA, 2019). Tef is a staple food supporting over
70 million people in Ethiopia (CSA, 2019).
Farmers prefer cultivating tef to other cereals since tef is more resilient to
environmental stresses such as poor soil drainage during rainy season and
moisture scarcity. In addition, as a cash crop, both the grain and straw of tef fetch
higher and increasing prices than the respective products from other cereals. Tef
plays a vital role in food security, nutrition and income generation to resource
poor farmers in Ethiopia (Berhanu, 2004). It serves both as a staple and cash crop
and recently it is gaining more attention in the world market mainly because the
grains are free from gluten to which many people are allergic (Spaenij-Dekking et
al., 2005). Due to this life-style nature of the crop, it has been heralded as a super-
food or super grain (Jeffrey, 2015; Provost and Jobson, 2014). In general, tef plays
a vital role in food security, nutrition and income generation to smallholder
farmers in Ethiopia.
Though higher yield with disease resistant varieties are the target for the tef
variety development, inclusion of farmers’ selection criteria for easy adoption is
paramount important. Hence, to understand the real causes of low adoption of new
varieties, it is important to work directly with end-users that are primarily farmers.
Identifying farmers’ needs, searching for suitable material to test with farmers and
experimentation on farmers’ fields is important through participatory varietal
selection (PVS) to identify preferred varieties. The test materials used in PVS are
released or near-finished varieties (Witcombe et al., 1996). This could be done
either by growing the materials on farmers’ fields or inviting the farmers for
evaluation to the research station. So far many improved and released crop
varieties used for PVS include rice (Witcombe et al., 1996; Joshi and Witcombe,
1996), maize (Eshetu and Habtamu, 2002), wheat (Tariessa, 2004) and tef
(Getachew et al. 2006). Therefore, this activity was initiated with the objective to
select the best performing lines with respect to stability, yield and farmers’
preferred candidate varieties in the multi-location trial and to recommend in the
variety verification trial for the high potential tef producing environments.
Materials and Methods

Experimental Sites
The field experiments were carried out over two years (2018 and 2019) at seven
tef growing sites of high potential areas of Ethiopia viz; Debre Zeit (black soil),
Minjar, Adadi Mariam, Adet, Axum, Ginchi and Holetta.
[2]
Plant Materials and Experimental Design
Hybridization/cross between DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 and DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-
387 X (GA-10-3)) was made in 2011. DZ-01-974 (Dukam) was selected for its
high yielding ability and wide adaptability. DZ-Cr-387 (Quncho) was selected for
its high yielding ability, very white seed color and wide adaptability and, GA-10-3
cultivar was selected as a parent for its extra white seed color, thick culm and
vigorous growth habit. The purpose was to develop stable, high yielding; and
farmers and consumers preferred tef varieties for high rainfall and optimum
moisture (high potential) areas of the country. In other words, it was targeted at
developing varieties with high yielding potential and better quality than the
improved variety Nigus.
Table 1. Plant materials used for the study

Code Genotypes Seed Color Sources
1 Standard check (Negus) Very white Released variety
2 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104 Very white Candidate line
4 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118A White Candidate line
5 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118B Pale white Candidate line
7 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 122B White Candidate line
8 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 82B Pale white Candidate line
9 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 93 White Candidate line
10 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 94 Pale white Candidate line
11 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 96)) White Candidate line
12 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 13)) Very white Candidate line
14 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 17)) White Candidate line
15 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 26B)) Very white Candidate line
17 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 37B)) Very white Candidate line
18 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 38A)) White Candidate line
20 local Check White Farmers variety
NB; Crossing material used where; - DZ-Cr-387=Quncho (released tef variety), GA-10-3=Mutagen
tef, DZ-01-974= Dukam (released tef variety)
A total of 20 tef genotypes which includes 10 inbred lines from the two
independent crosses (DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3) and 8 inbred lines from three-way
crosses [DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X (GA-10-3))] as well as two controls
(farmers’ check and improved Negus variety were carried out over two years
(2018 & 2019). The experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block
Design with four replications. The trial was conducted on the plot size of 2m X
2m with 10 rows per plot throughout all trial sites and spaces were left 1.5m
between replications, 1m between plots and 20cm between rows. All pre- and
post-stand establishment cultural practices were performed as per the research
recommendations of the respective test sites uniformly across all plots.
[3]
Participatory Variety Selection
Participatory variety selectionwere carried out for the experiment on the farmers’
fields ‘during 2019 at Gimbichu, Adea, Adadimariam, Ambo, Axum, Shambu,
Jimma and Worabe. Crop stand ability, tillering capacity, panicle length, seed
color, and panicle weight were the primary selection criteria for farmers. A total of
200 farmers were participated and selections were carried out based on farmers’
selection criterion. Crop stand ability, tillering capacity, panicle length, and
panicle weight were the most commonly mentioned criteria by farmers during the
interview. More than 80% of farmers cited seed color and panicle length (dalga)
as the most important selection criteria. During the focus group discussion,
farmers confirmed that all other selection criteria are considered only after their
choice of seed color is fulfilled. White to very white seed-color is chosen for
market purposes, while brown seed color is for home consumption.
Data Collection
Data on grain yield and yield-related traits were collected on plot and plant basis
from each plot, respectively. Date of heading and maturity were taken when each
plot attained 50% heading (panicle emergency), 90% physiological maturity and
lodging index taken during 90% physiological maturity, respectively, and days
were calculated beginning from the date of sowing. Data for plant height (cm),
panicle length (cm) were collected on the basis of five sample plants which were
randomly taken from each plot and the average of five sample plants was used for
analysis. Grain yields (g) of each plot were measured on clean, dried seed and the
measured grain yield value (g) has converted to kilogram per hectare for analysis.
Data Analysis
Data from individual environments and combined over seven testing sites were
made by using SAS Institute (2002) software 9.0 version. The analysis of variance
for grain yield and yield-related traits for each seven testing sites was analyzed by
using randomized complete block design. The combined analysis of variance
across the locations was done in order to determine the differences between
genotypes across environments, among environments and their interaction. Before
combining the data, Bartlett’s test was used to determine the homogeneity of
variances between environments to determine the validity of the combined
ANOVA on the data and the data collected was homogenous. Mean comparison
using Least Significance Difference (LSD) was performed to explain the
significant differences among means of genotypes and environments. For
participatory variety selection, direct matrix ranking evaluation were used by
group of farmers' averages at different locations.
The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model for individual location, Yij =µ + Gi

+Bj + eij was used, where; Yij = observed value of genotype i in block j, µ =
[4]
Grand mean of the experiment, Gi = the effect of genotype i, Bj = the effect of
block j, eij =the error of genotype i in block j. Combined analysis of variance over
locations over a year were carried out using genotype x site x year (GSY) model.
Yijkl=M+Yi+Sj+YSij+R(YS)k(ij)+Gl+GYli+GSlj+GSYlij+eijkl where; Yijkl = observed
value of genotype l for year iover a site j in replication k, M= Grand mean of the
experiment, Y= the effect of year i, S= the effect of site j, R(YS)= the effect of
replication k in the year i and site j, G= the effect of genotype l, GY = the
interaction effect of genotype (l) with year i, GS=the interaction effect of genotype
lwith a sitej, GSY= the effect of genotype(l) by year(i) site(j), eijkl = the error
effect of genotype l over year I of site j.
Results and Discussion

The Combined Analysis of Variance for Grain Yield Across Years
and Locations
The combined analysis of variance for grain yield of the 20 genotypes evaluated
across seven locations and two main cropping seasons (2018 and 2019) showed
highly significant differences (p 0.001) for genotype, year, location and
location*year. However, there were no significant differences observed for
year*genotype, location*genotype and location*year*genotype (Table 2). This
indicated that genotypes performed consistently to the variations in tested
environmental conditions for grain yield.
Table 2. Analysis of variance for grain yield of 20 tef genotypes tested across seven locations over two main cropping
seasons
Degrees of Explained variance
Source
freedom Sum of squares Mean squares (%)
YEAR 1 24605077.43 24605077.43** 8.94375
LOC 6 44265584.76 7377597.46** 16.09019
LOC*YEAR 6 26794377.95 4465729.5** 9.739543
REP (LOC*YEAR) 42 66827869.93 1591139.7** 24.2914
ENTRY 19 9218893.34 485204.91** 3.350994
YEAR*ENTRY 19 3125026.58 164475.08NS 1.135922
LOC*ENTRY 114 17150039.11 150438.94NS 6.233903
LOC*YEAR*ENTRY 114 4349129.93 38150.26NS 1.580874
Error 798 78773184.4 98713.26
Total 1119 275109183.4
*, ** denote significance at P≤0.05 and P≤0.01, respectively; NS = Not significant
Mean Agronomic Performance

The mean grain yield across years for individual locations is indicated in Table 3.
As grain yield has been the primary goal of the tef improvement program, the test
genotypes DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 109 and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104
outperformed the standard check variety (Nigus). The average grain yield of DZ-
[5]
01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 109) and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459
RIL 104) were 2.7 t ha-1 at research centres (Table 4).
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 109) and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-

Cr-459 RIL 104) showed higher grain yield advantage of 1.03 and 0.25 percent,
respectively, over the standard check (Nigus). Both genotypes have also greater
yield advantage of 11.65 and 10.78 percent, respectively, over local cultivar and
also comparable shoot biomass yield, and have very white seed color. In this
regard, it should be noted that, while the two genotypes do not outperform
standard check varieties Negus in terms of grain yield advantage by 10%, the
genotypes have superior seed quality in terms of the whiteness of the seed color.
During participatory variety selection amazingly, farmers were less or not

concerned with quantity and quality of the straw for fodder. Farmers were also
less interested in agronomic traits that could be manipulated through cultural
practices, e.g. adjusting seed and fertilizer rates for tillering capacity and lodging
respectively. One interesting criterion, what farmers called dalga in the vernacular
perfectly fits with panicle length/weight, a trait highly correlated with grain yield
of tef (Hailu et al., 2003). Based on farmers selection the genotype DZ-01-974 X
GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 104), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 109),
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 93), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 82B) and
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 96) have emmer's farmers
selection and ranked from one to five, respectively (Table 5). The first two
genotypes have got an immense farmer’s attention due to their yielding potential
(very long panicle length (dalga)), crop stand ability, tillering capacity, lodging
tolerance, good straw yield (straw yield is no less important than grain yield) and
freeness of shoot-fly pest at participatory variety selection trials during 2019.
[6]
Table 3. Mean yield performance of tef genotypes evaluated in national variety trial (for high potential areas) across years for each location
Grain yield (kg ha-1) across environment

Code Genotypes Adadi Adet Axum DZ Ginchi Holeta Minjar Mean
1 Standard check (Negus) 3318 2212 2877 2473 2368 3134 2615 2711
2 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104 3022 2441 2652 2576 2466 2792 2986 2718
3 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 109 3051 2563 3007 2516 2308 2935 2884 2739
4 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118A 2588 2506 2674 2429 2388 2803 2716 2601
5 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118B 2620 2535 2601 2434 2171 2796 2727 2558
6 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 121 3002 2304 2381 2768 2221 2600 2553 2521
7 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 122B 2525 2239 2452 2340 2411 3105 2753 2609
8 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 82B 2783 2113 2591 2473 2159 2821 2884 2569
9 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 93 2297 2457 2534 2308 2309 2820 2879 2561
10 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 94 2266 2151 2657 2451 2077 2875 2728 2488
11 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 96)) 3009 2148 2909 2705 2496 2738 2910 2706
15 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 26B)) 3171 2302 2601 2535 2112 2504 2821 2548
17 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 37B)) 2759 1969 2437 2134 1926 2488 2808 2374
18 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 38A)) 2441 2086 2489 2468 2076 2440 2770 2405
20 local Check 2907 1993 2575 2464 1967 2448 2883 2453
Mean 2797 2281 2601 2468 2222 2732 2807 2567
LSD (0.05) 784.5 461.7 365.7 516.7 494.9 644.3 676.5 219.23
CV (%) 19.81 14.29 9.92 14.78 22.53 23.82 17.16 19.44
N.B: DZ = Debre Zeit
[7]
Table 4. Mean Agronomic performance of tef genotypes evaluated for high potential areas across locations and over years
Grain Plant Panicle Lodging Shoot
Days to Days to filling height length index (%) biomass yield Grain yield
No. Genotypes heading maturity period (cm) (cm) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
1 Standard check (Negus) 53.60 114.43 60.83 99.39 35.57 75.58 10265.63 2711.30
2 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104 53.78 114.65 60.88 102.26 37.86 77.58 10481.25 2718.03
3 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 109 53.03 114.58 61.55 100.75 36.45 75.75 9943.75 2739.21
4 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118A 60.30 116.38 56.08 110.10 40.20 73.72 11353.13 2600.95
5 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 118B 58.70 118.23 59.53 108.91 41.33 75.49 13615.63 2557.82
6 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 121 53.05 113.60 60.55 98.48 37.59 80.50 9978.13 2520.50
7 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 122B 53.03 114.23 61.20 97.70 34.36 76.86 9381.25 2609.43
8 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 82B 54.70 114.95 60.25 98.97 35.07 77.07 10140.63 2568.67
9 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 93 55.83 115.55 59.73 108.10 38.07 78.06 10618.75 2561.24
10 DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 94 57.00 114.78 57.78 105.19 36.98 78.63 9956.25 2488.35
11 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 96)) 56.05 116.65 60.60 104.93 39.82 78.19 10806.25 2706.64
15 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 26B)) 58.50 115.33 56.83 104.54 40.64 77.93 10631.25 2548.26
17 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 37B)) 58.50 115.25 56.75 105.07 41.19 79.65 10428.13 2374.37
18 DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL 38A)) 60.35 115.90 55.55 105.90 39.70 76.94 10640.63 2405.41
20 local Check 54.40 115.30 60.90 100.60 36.44 83.19 10265.63 2453.38
Mean 56.62 115.67 59.05 104.58 38.77 77.50 10667.66 2566.99
LSD (5 %) 0.92 2.27 2.33 2.83 1.89 3.47 852.15 209.77
CV (%) 3.71 4.48 9.00 6.17 11.37 10.52 18.43 18.60
R2 0.96 0.95 0.90 0.67 0.63 0.81 0.70 0.71
[8]
Table 5. Direct matrix ranking evaluation of tef genotypes for high potential areas by group of farmers' (on field) average at different locations (n=198)
(score 1-20, where 1= excellent and 20= bad).
Crop stand Tillering Panicle Lodging Culm Pest

Genotypes Average Rank
ability capacity weight tolerance strength free
Standard check (Negus) 18 19 10 20 16 14 16.2 17
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 104) 1 1 2 1 10 3 3.0 1
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 109) 2 6 3 4 8 1 4.0 2
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 118A) 10 16 17 18 17 20 16.3 18
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 118B) 19 4 14 8 4 5 9.0 8
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 121) 9 17 18 13 1 12 11.7 11
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 122B) 11 10 9 5 5 9 8.2 7
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 93) 3 3 4 3 13 2 4.7 3
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 94) 20 11 16 17 2 13 13.2 14
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 96) 5 5 6 7 3 7 5.5 5
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 17) 8 2 1 6 14 6 6.2 6
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 38A) 12 13 11 14 15 19 14.0 15
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 82B) 4 7 5 2 6 4 4.7 4
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 26B) 17 8 8 11 12 8 10.7 10
DZ-Cr-387 X (DZ-Cr-387 X GA-10-3(RIL NO. 37B) 15 20 19 12 20 17 17.2 20
local Check 14 18 20 19 11 18 16.7 19
[9]
Conclusion and Recommendation
All tested genotypes performed similarly to the variations in tested environmental
conditions on grain yield performance. Among the tested genotypes, the genotypes
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 109) and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-
Cr-459 RIL 104) scored higher grain yield 2739 kg/ha and 2718 kg/ha,
respectively, but not significantly different from standard check, Negus. The two
genotypes DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZCr-459 RIL 109) and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-
3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 104) yielded 1.03 and 0.25 percent more grain than the
standard check (Nigus), respectively. Even if there was low yield advantage, there
was no genotype that performed better than the two candidate genotypes. Based
on farmers selection criteria of participatory variety selection the genotypes DZ-
01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 104, DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 RIL 109 and DZ-01-974 X
GA-10-3 (RIL NO. 93) meet up farmers selection criteria.
References
Berhanu, A. 2004. The Food Security Role of Agriculture in Ethiopia. Journal of
agricultural Development and Economics. Vol.1, No. 1, 2004. Pp.138-153.
CSA. 2019. Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey for 2018/19 (2011
EC), Report on area and production of major crops (Private peasant holdings,
Meher season), Statistical bulletin, 589, April 2019, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Eshetu Mulatu and Habtamu Zelleke, 2002. Farmers’ highland maize (Zea mays L.)
selection criteria: Implication for maize breeding for the Hararghe highlands of
eastern Ethiopia. Euphytica127:11–30.
Getachew Belay, Hailu Tefera, Bewekt Tadesse, Gizew Metaferia, Daniel Jarra,
TsegayeTadesse, 2006. Participatory variety selection in the Ethiopian cereal tef
(Eragrostis tef) Exp Agr 42:91-101
Hailu Tefera, Kebebew Assefa, FufaHundera, Kefyalew, T., and Tefera, T. 2003.
Heritability and genetic advance in recombinant inbred lines of tef (Eragrostistef).
Euphytica131:91–96.
Jeffrey, J. 2015. Will Ethiopia's teffbe the next 'super grain? BBC, London.
Joshi, A. and Witcombe, J. R. 1996. Farmer participatory crop improvement. 2.
Participatory varietal selection, a case study in India. Experimental Agriculture
32:461–477.
Kebebew Assefa, J.K. Yu, M. Zeid, Getachew Belay, HailuTefera and Sorrells M.E.
2011. Breeding tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) trotter]: conventional and molecular
approaches. Plant Breeding, 130: 1-9.
Provost, C. and Jobson E. 2014. Move over quinoa, Ethiopian's teff poised to be next big
super grain.http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jan/23/quinoa-
ethiopia-teff-super-grain.
SAS Institute. 2002. SAS/STAT Guide for Personal Computers, Version 9.00 editions.
Cary, N.C., SAS Institute Inc.
[10]
Saturni, L., Ferretti G. and Bacchetti T. 2010. The gluten-free diet: safety and nutritional
quality. Nutrition, 2: 16-34.
Spaenij-Dekking, L., Kooy-Winkelaar Y. and Koning F. 2005. The Ethiopian cereal tef in
celiac disease. The New England Journal of Medicine, 353: 1748-1749.
Tariessa Jalleta, 2004. Participatory evaluation of the performance of some improved
bread wheat (Triticuma estivum) varieties in the Jijiga plains of Eastern Ethiopia.
Experimental Agriculture 40:89–97.
Witcombe, J. R., Joshi, A., Joshi, K. D. and Stahpit, B. R. 1996. Farmer participatory crop
improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on
biodiversity. Experimental Agriculture 32:445–460.
[11]
[12]
Identification of Genotypes for Improving Tef
Productivity Using Farmers’ Participation in
Potential Environments of Ethiopia
Tsion Fikre1, Yazachew Genet1, Worku Kebede1, Kidist Tolossa1,
Mengistu Demissie1, Solomon Chanyalew1, Kebebew Assefa1,
Atinkut Fentahun2, Nigussie Belay3 and Chekole Nigus4
1
Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; 2Adet Agricultural Research
Center, P.O. Box 8, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia; 3Holetta Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 31 Holetta,
Ethiopia; 4Axum Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Axum, Ethiopia.
Abstract
Tef, Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter is the dominant crop grown in Ethiopia. However,
the productivity is low compared to its potential yield. A multi-location trial was
carried out with the objectives of evaluating selected best performing lines from
previous trials with respect to stability and yield coupled with farmers’ opinions
and preferences and identify superior lines. Twenty tef genotypes including a
standard and a local check were field evaluated using RCB design with four
replications. The lines were grown in 4 m2 plots and tested at eight locations in
Ethiopia during the 2018/19 and 2019/20. Furthermore, on-farm participatory
variety evaluation comprised of 198 participants including farmers and agricultural
experts were also carried out in the 2019 cropping season. Pheno-agro-
morphological traits were collected and subjected to statistical analysis in order to
identify the best genotypes. The results of the pooled analysis of variance showed
significant variation at 0.01 % among genotypes, locations and years for all traits
except grain yield and days to maturity. Although some of the genotypes gave
comparable grain yields, none of them out-yielded the standard check variety
Negus and no single variety obtained that meet all farmers need. The genotypes
were evaluated at the crop maturity stage and farmers identified six important
traits. Direct matrix ranking evaluation were used by group of farmers' averages at
different locations. Hence, targeted pre-breeding involving intra- and inter-specific
hybridization, induced mutation, and evaluation of germplasm using selected traits
in future breeding program would be required to develop superior and acceptable
variety by farmers and end users.
Introduction
Tef (Eragrostis tef) is the dominant crop grown in Ethiopia and the country grows
more than 90% of the tef in the world (Anadolu, 2017). It is estimated that over
6.5 million household farmers deployed (CSA, 2018). The area under tef
cultivation is increasing from time to time until now. The sustained use of
cultivation is emphasized by the merits it has regarding both in farming and
utilization (Kebebew et al., 2017). The tef crop production area is vast covering
very varied agro-ecological zones including situations marginal to the production
[13]
of most other crops. It can grow from sea level up to 3000 meters above sea level
and performs well between 1700 and 2400m. It tolerates reasonable levels of both
drought and waterlogging better than most other cereals. Tef grows on various soil
types ranging from very light sandy to very heavy clay soils, and under mildly
acidic to slightly alkaline pH conditions. The nutritional status of tef grains is
comparable to that of the other major world cereals. Indeed, tef provides about
two-thirds of the daily dietary protein intake of most Ethiopians.
The average national yield of tef was estimated to be 1.75 t ha-1 (CSA, 2018).
However, farmers who used improved varieties and management practices can
easily get 2.2 – 2.8 t ha-1 and yields higher than 2.8 t ha-1 has also been reported
from several regions in the recent extension package activities. At the
experimental plot level, tef yields of up to 3.4 t ha-1 have been registered despite
lodging that reduces yield by 17 - 25 percent. Studies conducted under non-
lodging conditions have demonstrated that yield can further be increased up to 4.6
t ha-1. The genetic potential yield goes up to 6 t ha-1 (Seyfu, 1993). Overall,
improved varieties that are developed by various federal and regional agricultural
research centers of the country play a prominent role in increasing the national
yield plateau of the crop from 0.9 t ha-1to 1.8 t ha-1. Among several research
centers, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC), which is the
coordinator of the National Tef Research Program has been taking the leading
position since 1957, and contributes significantly to the progress of tef research. In
Ethiopia, 49 improved tef varieties have been released until 2020 to the farming
community, and DZARC provided 26 varieties of which 16 were obtained through
hybridization work that brings about 9 percent yield advantage over the varieties
released through direct selection from germplasms (Yifru and Hailu, 2005).
However, the potential yield has not yet been achieved and the yields realized are
still low indicating the need for more strengthened efforts in tef breeding.
Nevertheless, variety development is not an easy task as it needs more time and
energy that takes about seven years or more. Apparently, the most painstaking task
in tef is hybridization that is done through standard hand surgical and
emasculation technique with the aid of a stereo microscope. While this hampers,
intensification of the cross-breeding venture by increasing the number of crosses
made. The national tef breeding program primarily uses this technique to develop
tef varieties having different important traits like yield and others. The genotypes
developed using this technique need to pass through several breeding steps until
homozygosity, and then these will be entered into series of performance tests and
finally evaluated to multi-location variety/yield trials prior to getting into the
variety verification trial for release.
To understand the real causes of low adoption of new varieties, which would in
turn inform future variety development efforts in Ethiopia, it is important to work
[14]
directly with end-users that are primarily farmers. Mostly, at the multi-location
stage farmers evaluate the lines in their own environment using their own
selection criteria. This is to deploy and use the active participation of farmers in
breeding programs (Joshi and Witcombe, 1996) and thereby enhance farmer’s
access to diverse varieties, increase production and ensure food security and help
faster dissemination and adoption of pre- and released varieties (OJulong et al.,
2017).
Therefore, this experiment was initiated with the objective evaluating the best
performing lines selected from previous trials with respect to stability, yield and
farmers’ preferences and opinions in the multi-location trial together so as to
eventually recommend the superior genotypes for further evaluation in the variety
verification trials for release in the high potential tef producing environments.

The test plant materials were twenty including eighteen recombinant inbreed lines
obtained from the cross between DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3, a standard check variety
DZ-Cr-429 (Negus) and a local check. The field experiment was carried out at
eight (Debre Zeit, Holetta, Ginchi, Adadi-mariam, Adet, Bichena, Axum and
Minjar) locations during 2018/19 and 2019/20 seasons.
The trail was carried out using randomized complete block design with four
replications. The plot size was 2 m x 2 m (4m2) with distances of 1 and 1.5 m
between plots and blocks, respectively. The seeds were planted by hand drilling
within rows spaced 20 cm in each plot and managed as per the research
recommendation agronomic practices of the respective test locations. Data on days
to heading, days to maturity, lodging index, shoot biomass yield and grain yield
were taken on plot basis. In addition, data on plant height and panicle length were
taken on individual plant basis by making measurements on five random samples
of plants from the central row of each plot, and the mean of the five plants were
used. The Participatory Variety Selection (PVS) studies were done at eight
locations (Gimbichu, Adea, Adadimariam, Ambo, Axum, Shambu, Jimma and
Worabe) during the main cropping season of 2019 on farmers’ fields. The total
number of participants were 198 including farmers and agricultural experts. The
selection criteria used at were crop stand, tillering capacity, panicle weight,
lodging tolerance, and culm strength, and pest infestation or infection.
Data Analyses
Hartley’s (1950) F-max of homogeneity of variance test were deployed for
individual location and year for each character. A combined analysis of variance
[15]
was done upon getting positive results from tests of homogeneity of variances. For
the analysis of variance, appropriate models suitable for the experimental design
were employed (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) using SAS software version 9.00 (SAS
Institute, 2002). For participatory variety selection, direct matrix ranking
evaluation were used by group of farmers' averages at different locations (n=198)
(Table 2). Mean separation was done using ANOVA protected LSD (least
significant difference) at 5% probability level.

The mean square from the pooled analysis of variance over eight locations and
years showed statistically significant (P< 0.01) effects of genotypes for all traits
assessed except days to maturity and grain yield (Table 1). The lack of significant
genotype effects on grain yield, however, does not mean that none of the test
genotypes out-yielded the standard check variety Negus. Indeed, as grain yield has
been the primary goal of the tef improvement program, the test genotypes DZ-01-
974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 16), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 26), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-
3 (RIL 34B), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 47), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 51),
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 66), DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 68) and DZ-01-974
X GA-10-3 (RIL 69) in that diminishing order yielded numerically but not
significantly higher than the standard check variety Negus. However, none of the
tested genotypes showed a 10 percent yield advantage over the checks. In the
study, DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 16) revealed the maximum yield advantages
4.2% and 12.3% over the standard and local checks, respectively. In this regard, it
is to be noted that if any late maturing genotype is to be promoted to the variety
verification trial for potential environments, it is expected to out-perform the
standard check variety Negus and the recently released variety "Ebba" at least
with 10% grain yield advantage while having comparable or better seed quality to
these checks in terms of the whiteness of the color. Therefore, there is no
promising genotype that will be further tested in the variety verification trial.
[16]
Table 1. Means of phenologic and yield and yield related traits of tef genotypes tested in the NVT-LS GI combined over
eight environments over two years.
Genotypes DTH DTM GFP PH PL LI BY GY

DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL16) 58 113 58 100 39 73 9345 2362
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL17) 58 112 59 97 35 73 8254 2190
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL19) 57 112 59 96 34 75 8584 2254
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL26) 55 114 62 94 35 76 8825 2397
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL31) 61 115 58 109 41 74 9935 2197
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL33) 61 115 57 108 39 74 10308 2241
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL34A) 62 115 57 109 40 74 9825 2238
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL34B) 60 114 58 100 38 76 9156 2305
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL47) 61 115 58 108 40 72 10156 2350
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL5) 62 111 54 107 39 77 9253 2098
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL51) 62 115 57 105 36 75 10348 2353
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL55) 57 113 61 98 36 74 8391 2207
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 66) 55 113 62 100 38 73 8984 2301
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 67) 59 112 57 101 38 76 9131 2263
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL68) 62 114 56 110 41 73 10577 2327
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL69) 62 116 58 109 40 74 9969 2330
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL8) 56 112 59 99 36 74 8991 2268
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL29A ) 59 112 57 101 36 78 8516 2149
Local check 56 112 59 96 35 83 8491 2134
Negus 55 112 61 96 35 75 8978 2300
Grand Mean 59 113 58 102 38 75 9301 2263
LSD(0.05) 1.3 3.7 1.8 2.9 1.2 4.2 929.8 226.4
CV(%) 4.9 7.4 7 6.5 7.6 12.8 22.8 22.8
R2 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.3
MSG ** NS ** ** ** ** ** NS
DTH - days to heading (days), DTM - days to maturity (days), GFP- grain filling period (days), PH - plant height (cm), PL-
panicle length (cm), LI-lodging index, BY- biomass yield (kg ha-1), GY- grain yield (kg ha-1), CV-Coefficient of variation, R2-
coefficient of determination, LSD- Least significance difference, and MSG-Mean square of Genotype*, **Significant at p ≤
0.05, and p ≤ 0.01 probability level respectively and ns non-significant.
Information on farmers’ selection criteria is one of the important outputs of PVS

(Adugna et al., 2008). Several factors that limit production were identified by
farmers in the eight locations, representing high potential tef growing areas.
Generally, farmers cited up to six traits as important for variety selection, and the
genotypes were evaluated at the crop maturity stage (Table 2). The selected six
traits are ones with high priority in the National Program. The test genotype DZ-
01-974 X GA-10-3 (RIL 68) had high crop stand-ability, tillering capacity and
panicle weight. Likewise, DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL 51) scored high for lodging
resistance and culm strength, and while DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL 69) showed
good resistance to pests. Overall, no single variety, would meet all farmer’s needs.
However, DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3(RIL 51) ranking first among the tested
genotypes since it was better yielder than the checks and in congruent with the
results in the research field.
[17]
Table 2: Direct matrix ranking evaluation of tef genotypes for high potential areas (NVT LS GI) by group of farmers' (on
field) average at nine locations (n=198)
Genotypes Crop stand- Tillering Panicle Lodging Culm Pest Aver Rank
ability capacity weight tolerance strength infestation age
Negus 20 9 19 3 18 20 15 17
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL16 8 11 10 14 8 14 11 11
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL17 16 7 20 4 17 16 13 13
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL19 6 8 5 8 9 6 7 5
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL26 14 6 14 20 13 15 14 16
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL31 15 20 17 15 7 17 15 17
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL33 10 14 2 13 11 3 9 7
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL5 5 5 9 12 3 13 8 6
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL8 17 19 15 2 14 12 13 13
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL29A 13 3 16 5 20 19 13 13
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL34A 4 7 6 7 4 4 5 2
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL34B 11 13 8 11 12 11 11 13
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL47 2 4 4 10 16 2 6 3
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL51 3 6 3 1 1 7 4 1
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL55 7 12 7 19 2 9 9 7
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL66 9 2 12 16 15 10 11 11
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL67 18 10 11 6 10 5 10 9
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL68 1 1 1 17 5 8 6 3
DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3/RIL69 12 18 13 9 6 1 10 9
Local check 19 15 18 18 19 18 18 20
Conclusions and Recommendations

It can be concluded that under national variety trial late set Group I all of the
genotypes tested were not significantly superior in grain yield and other yield-
related characters to the standard and local checks. Thus, none of the genotypes
will be promoted for the further testing in the variety verification trial for release.
The farmer’s variety selection criteria have been diverse, reflecting their multiple
needs. But no single variety obtained that meets all farmers’ requests.
Overall, further strengthening the germplasm enhancement efforts of the National

Tef Research Program through targeted inter- and intra-specific hybridization,
induced mutagenesis, characterization and evaluation of germplasm followed by
subsequent selection and field testing of desirable genotypes is essential in order
to develop suitable and farmer-preferred tef varieties for high potential
environments. Moreover, further PVS research is needed to capture farmer’s tef
variety selection criteria.
[18]
References
Adugna Wakjira, Gemechu Keneni, Musa Jarso, and Bulcha Woyessa. 2008.
Opportunities for participatory crop improvement and supporting informal seed
supply in Oromia region, Ethiopia. In farmers, seed and varieties: Supporting
informal seed supply in Ethiopia, ed. M.H.Thijssen, Zewdie, Bishaw, A., Bashir,
and W.S.de Boef. Wageningen: Wageningen International
Central Statistics Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey (CSA). 2018. Area Planed and
Production of Major Crops. Meher Season. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gomez, K.A., and A.A. Gomez. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Hailu Tefera and Seyfu Ketema. 2001. Production and Importance of Tef in Ethiopia
Agriculture. In: Hailu Tefera, Getachew Belay and Mark Sorrells (eds). Narrowing
the Rift: Tef Research and Development. Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Tef Genetics and Improvement, 16-19 October 2000, Debre-Zeit,
Ethiopia.pp.3-9.
Hartley, H.O. 1950. The maximum F-ratio as a short cut test for heterogeneity of
variances. Biometrika 37: 308-312.
Joshi A., Witcombe J.R.. 1996. Farmer Participatory Approaches for Varietal
Improvement. Cambridge Univ.Press31:461-477.
Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew, and Zerihun Tadele. 2017. Tef, Eragrostis
tef(Zucc.) Trotter, In: Millets and Sorghum, Biology and Genetic Improvement (J.V.
Patil, ed.), John Wiley & Sons Ltd. UK, pp 226-266.
OJulong H., Letayo E., Sakwera L.,Mgonja F., Sheunda P. and Kibuka J. 2017.
Participatory Variety Selection for enhanced promotion and adoption of improved
finger millet varieties: A case for Singida and Iramba Districts in Central Tanzania.
International Africa J. Rural Dev.2:77-93.
Seyfu Ketema. 1993. Tef (Eragrostis tef): Breeding, Genetic Resources, Agronomy,
Utilization and Role in Ethiopian Agriculture. Institute of Agricultural Research,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yifru Teklu and Hailu Tefera. 2005. Genetic improvement in grain yield potential and
associated agronomic traits of tef (Eragrostis tef).Euphytica.141:247-254.
[19]
[20]
Performance of Drought Tolerant Tef Genotypes
in Drought-Prone Areas of Ethiopia
Worku Kebede1, Tsion Fikre1, KidistTolosa1, Yazachew Genet1,
Solomon Chanyalew1, Mengistu Demissie1, Kebebew Assefa1, Solomon Mitiku2,
Sewagegn Tariku3 and Zerihun Tadele4
1
EIAR, Debre Zeit Research Center, P.O.Box 32, Debre Zeit;2SARC, Sirinka Agricultural Research Center, Axum Research
Center, P.O.Box30, Axum, Ethiopia; 3AARI, Adet Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 8, Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia;4University of Bern, Institute of Plant Sciences, Altenbergrain 21, CH-3013 Bern, Switzerland
Abstract
The productivity of tef is very low compared to other cereals mainly due to lack of
drought tolerant varieties. A multi-environment field experiment was carried out
with the objectives of identifying high yielding, stable; and farmer and consumer-
preferred tef varieties for moisture deficit areas of the country. The drought
tolerant tef genotypes tested were derived from two independent crosses of Dtt2 X
Dtt13 and DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2. The parental lines Dtt2 (drought tolerant tef2) and
Dtt13 (drought tolerant tef 13) were obtained from ethyl methane sulfonate
mutagenized populations of the tef variety Tsedey using targeted induced local
lesions IN genomes (TILLING) method. Twelve selected drought-tolerant tef
genotypes from preliminary variety trials plus a local and standard check varieties
(Boset) were tested over two years (2018 and 2019) at five moisture deficit tef
growing areas in Ethiopia using randomized complete block design with four
replications. The terminal drought stress at Debre-Zeit (sandy clay soils) and
Minjar testing sites were simulated by late sowing coupled with light textured
soils. The genotype by environment interaction did not show a statistically
significant difference in the combined analyses of variance. Among the tested
lines, however, the candidate line RIL 37 from a Dtt2 x Dtt13 cross outperformed
the standard check Boset variety (by 13.2 %) and the local cultivar (by 27.6 %).
The candidate line was further evaluated in the variety verification trial during the
2020 main cropping season and was approved for release in 2021 by the National
Variety Release Committee under the name DZ-Cr-498 (RIL 37) or Boni.
Introduction
Tef plays an essential role in the Ethiopian food crop production system. Nearly
seven million farmers grow the crop that occupies 22% of the total cultivated area
(CSA, 2019), and it is second only to maize in terms of production. Being
produced by over 43% of all Ethiopian farmers (CSA, 2019) and in lieu of the fact
that tef is a very labor-intensive crop and its production is a source of employment
and livelihood for an estimated 25-30 million people (Setotaw, 2013).
Furthermore, tef is the most commercialized crop in Ethiopia with approximately
36% of the total produced tef being marketed (Minten et al., 2013).
[21]
Currently, the crop is increasingly receiving global attention for its nutritional
advantages because it is rich in nutrients and is gluten free. Consumers prefer tef
not only because it makes good quality “injera”, pancake-like soft bread, but it
also is nutritious due to its high protein and mineral contents (Geremew et al.,
2002). Furthermore, the absence of gluten in the grain (Spaenij-Dekking et al.,
2005) renders it an alternative food for people suffering from gluten allergy or
intolerance and celiac disease. Tef is also known to be tolerant to extreme climatic
and soil conditions; hence, it is a favorite crop in the semi-arid areas with moisture
limitations (Zerihun and Kebebew, 2012).
Despite its low yields as per the national average grain yield of 1.85 t/ha (CSA,
2019), tef remains to be very popular among Ethiopian farmers. This, among
others, has been due to the fact that i) tef fetches higher prices than the other major
cereals and therefore serves as a cash crop for many farmers (Bekabil et al., 2013);
ii) its straw also fetches high prices as it is the most preferred feed source for
livestock and is used as construction material (Alemu, 2013). iii) tef is endemic
and therefore little affected by epidemics of diseases and pests and can be stored
for a long period of time without being attacked by storage pests, and iv) tef can
be grown under drought stressed and water-logged conditions, and performs well
on different soil types.
Among the major yield limiting factors in tef are lack of cultivars tolerant to
lodging and drought (Kebebew et al., 2011), as well as small seed size. Yield
losses are estimated to reach up to 40% during severe moisture stress as stated by
Mizan et al., 2017. Further, yield reduction of 69% to 77% has been reported to
have occurred as a result of drought at the anthesis stage of tef (Abuhay et al.,
2001).
In Ethiopia, in order to increase tef productivity, more than 50 improved varieties

have been developed and released by national and regional agricultural research
institutes (MoA, 2020). Among these, recently released varieties including
Quncho (Kebebew et al., 2013), Kora (Kebebew et al., 2017), Dagim (Solomon et
al., 2017), Tesfa (Worku et al., 2018) and Bora (Worku et al., 2020) showed
significant yield benefits. The majority of these varieties were designed for
favorable and/or broad environments; not for challenging environment in terms of
moisture scarcity.
The tef variety named DZ-Cr-387 (Quncho), has been promoted nationally for its
farmers’ preferred traits such as high grain yield, white seed color, high biomass
yield and good ‘injera’ making quality. However, this variety has poor
performance and was poorly adopted by tef growers in low moisture stressed
environments in Ethiopia. The level of yield reduction due to moisture stress
warrants targeted breeding of tef for low moisture stress environments in Ethiopia
[22]
(Mizan et al., 2017). Accordingly, one of the primary goals of the national tef
breeding program in Ethiopia is to develop high yielding, drought tolerant tef
varieties (Kebebew et al., 2011).
Therefore, this mult-environment national variety trial was initiated with the main
objective of identifying high yielding, stable as well as farmer-and consumer-
preferred tef varieties for moisture deficit areas of the country. In addition, the
paper gives highlights on the performance of the genotypes as well as the
beneficial features and morphological description of the best performing line Dtt2
X Dtt13 RIL 37 selected as a candidate variety for subsequent variety verification
trial.

Plant Materials
Two independent crossings were made between Dtt2 and Dtt13, and DZ-Cr-387
and Dtt2 at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center in 2013. Dtt2 (drought
tolerant tef 2) and Dtt13 (drought tolerant tef 13) were mutant lines obtained from
screening 5,000 ethylmethane sulfonate (EMS) mutagenized populations of the tef
variety Tsedey (DZ-Cr-37) (Blösch et al. 2019). These mutant lines had depicted
excellent performance under moisture scarcity. The unique morphological
difference between the Dtt and the original parental tef variety Tsedey (DZ-Cr-37)
is the size and number of stomata. The stomata on the adaxial or upper side of the
two Dtt lines are smaller both in size and number compared to the original
parental tef line (Cannarozzi et al., 2018). These small-sized stomata in the Dtt
lines might contribute towards making the plants more tolerant to drought as less
water is lost through transpiration. Dtt lines were tolerant to drought for three
weeks, whereas the original Tsedey variety was badly injured. The Dtt lines were
not only drought tolerant, but they also had shorter stomata than the Tsedey lines
(Blösch et al., 2019).
After a successful crossing, 400 F2 populations were generated and substantially

advanced toF7 generations using the single seed descent method. Eventually, the
populations were reduced to few lines with best performance after seven
generations of successive selection targeting seed color, standing ability, grain
yield, and leaf area index. Hybridization and early generation testing, i.e.,
Observation Nursery and Preliminary Variety Trial were done at Debre Zeit
Agricultural Research Center from where the national tef breeding program is
coordinated.
Subsequently, at the National Variety Trial where a total of 12 genotypes

including 10 selected drought-tolerant inbred lines from the two crosses, a local
[23]
check or farmers' variety from each test site, and a standard check variety Boset
were evaluated at five drought-prone areas in Ethiopia.
Experimental Sites and Seasons

The field experiment was carried out in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons) at five sites in the
low moisture stress areas of the country including Debre Zeit (sandy clay), Minjar,
Alemtena, Melkassa, and Sirinka. At some of the locations such as Debre Zeit and
Minjar low moisture stress was simulated by late sowing in addition to the light
textured soils of low water holding capacity. Apart from the soil types, Minjar
Shenkora wereda includes Kolla, Winadega as well as Dega areas. The drought
prone areas of the district are vast including areas bordering with Boset, Berehet
and Metahara (Melka Jilo). Similarly, Ada district is also characterized by Woina
Dega and Kolla areas. Furthermore, climate change and variability has been
clearly evidenced with the adaptation of tef.
Experimental Design and Management

The field trial was carried out using randomized complete block design with four
replications. The plot size was 2 m x 2 m (4m2) with distances of 1 and 1.5 m
between plots and blocks, respectively. The materials were planted by hand
drilling of seeds within rows spaced 20 cm in each plot. The field trials were
managed as per the research recommendation agronomic practices of the
respective test locations.
Data Collection
Data on agronomic, yield and yield-related traits were collected both on plot and
individual plant bases. Days to heading or panicle emergence using the sowing
date as a reference, lodging index as well as, grain and biomass yield were taken
on plot basis. Data on individual plant traits such as plant height and panicle
length were collected on the basis of five random samples of plants from the
central rows of each plot, and the averages of five sample plants were used for
analysis. Since drought tolerance physiological traits in tef have not yet been
established for selection as indicators of drought tolerance, traits used in other
crops such as stay green were visually observed during the yield performance trial.
Data Analysis
Analyses of variance of data from individual environments and combined over
five locations and two years were made using SAS Institute (2002) software 9.0
version. The combined analysis of variance across the environment was done in
order to determine the differences between genotypes across environments, among
environments and their interaction. Bartlett’s test of homogeneity of error
variances was performed prior to making the combined analysis of variance over
[24]
environments (years and locations). Mean comparison for significant differences
in the analyses of variance were made using Least Significant Difference (LSD).
Performance Variations
According to the results of the combined analysis of variance over environments
(Table 1), grain yield was significantly affected by genotypes and environments,
which accounted for approximately 7.88 % and 41.13 % of total variance,
respectively. However, the genotype by environment (GXE) interaction effects on
grain yield were not significant, indicating that the genotypes tested performed
similarly across the test environments. This, in other words, implies that the
genotypes tested did not exhibit differential adaptation to specific environments.
The genotype x location interactions were not significant, indicating that the
genotypes performed consistently across locations in terms of grain yield. This is
expected on the basis of the similar agro-climatic classification of the test
locations (Kebebew et al., 2003). If varieties perform similarly across locations,
breeders may be able to reduce the cost of thorough varietal evaluation by
eliminating unnecessary testing sites and altering breeding programs.
Table1. Sum of squares, mean squares and percent of variance explained by different sources of variation from the
analyses of variance of grain yield of 12 tef genotypes tested at six environments
Source Degrees of Sum of squares Mean squares Explained

freedom variance (%)
Genotypes 11 8219139.76 747194.52** 7.88
Environments 6 42885619.84 7147603.31** 41.13
Reps/Environments 21 16627723.17 791796.34** 15.94
Environment *Genotypes 66 7774627.29 117797.38NS 7.45
Error 231 28749561.30 124457.00 27.57
Corrected Total 335 104256671.40
*. ** denote significance at P≤0.05 and P≤0.01, respectively; NS = Not significant
Highly significant variations among the genotypes were observed in days to

heading, days to maturity, grain filling period, plant height, panicle length, lodging
index, shoot biomass yield and grain yield in all the study years and locations.
Similarly, all of these traits also showed significant differences among the tef
genotypes when averaged across all environments (Table 2). Similar significant
results were reported for most traits in earlier studies (Hailu et al., 2003a;
Kebebew et al. 2003; Solomon et al., 2009; Habte et al., 2015, Tsion, 2016 and
Habte et al. 2017). The presence of variations among genotypes for the traits
indicates the higher chance of improving the crop through selection.
[25]
Table 2. Mean agronomic performance of tef genotypes evaluated in the national variety trial (Drought Tolerant) across
locations and over years
Grain
filling Plant Panicle Lodging Shoot
Days to Days to period height length index biomass Grain yield
Genotypes heading maturity (days) (cm) (cm) (%) yield (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Standard Check (Boset) 41.00 83.79 42.79 89.94 36.54 81.08 11156.25 2131.38
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 40.96 80.32 39.36 91.84 39.80 83.50 11810.27 2455.33
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL56 40.43 82.50 42.07 87.34 36.24 85.13 10417.41 2175.18
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL79 39.07 81.36 42.29 84.12 34.29 82.58 9714.29 2030.69
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 80 39.21 78.46 39.25 85.28 34.30 83.83 10116.07 1975.18
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 87 38.89 80.75 41.86 83.45 33.51 83.63 9171.88 1986.79
DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 98 41.68 83.36 41.68 90.44 38.20 80.92 10569.20 2157.57
DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL15 42.46 83.96 41.50 92.89 39.39 76.67 12265.63 2217.03
DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 177 41.32 83.57 42.25 95.84 41.47 78.58 11312.50 2080.18
DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 199 41.14 82.96 41.82 93.22 39.86 80.00 10305.80 2121.76
DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 97 40.00 83.61 43.61 91.12 40.01 83.79 10705.36 2184.35
Local Check 43.32 85.86 42.54 96.93 40.99 80.17 10866.07 1778.77
Mean 40.79 82.54 41.75 90.20 37.88 81.66 10660.71 2107.85
LSD (0.05) 0.81 1.46 1.55 2.85 1.48 4.82 1666.80 211.33
CV (%) 3.79 3.34 7.04 6.01 7.42 10.37 29.70 19.04
R2 0.95 0.89 0.83 0.89 0.66 0.70 0.58 0.61
Averaged over environments, Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 took about 40 and 80 days after
sowing for panicle emergence and physiological maturity in respective order. In
average the length of pancle was about 37 to 40 % of 90 cm from the total plant
height on Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37). The current study's findings revealed that the
range values for some traits are low when compared to the range values reported
in prior tef researchers (Kebebew et al., 2001; Habtamu, 2015 and Tsion, 2016).
This could be due to the current study's use of drought-tolerant tef genotypes as
experimental materials, as well as the fact that the experiment was conducted in a
drought-prone area of the country, which are both different from the experimental
plant materials and locations used in previous studies.
The genotype Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 found high yielder in four of the seven
environments (Table 3). The average grain yield of Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37across the
seven environments ranged from 1.7-3.1 t ha-1 with an overall mean of 2.5 t ha-1
(Table 3). It performs very well in areas having an altitude 1200-1800m above sea
level, thus being suitable for low rainfall and terminal low moisture stress areas of
the country. Therefore, based on the two-year multi-location data, Dtt2 X Dtt13
RIL 37 has been selected for its high grain yield and moisture stress tolerance as
well as other desirable traits. Similarly, three other best-performing genotypes DZ-
Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 97, DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 15 and Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 87 ranked
first in grain yield at Melkassa in 2018, Alemtena in 2019 and Debre-Zeit in 2019,
respectively (Table 3). Consequently, the candidate line (Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37) was
[26]
then tested in a variety verification trial during the main cropping season of 2020,
and the National Variety Release Committee approved for release in 2021.
Table 3. Mean yield performance of tef genotypes evaluated for drought prone areas across seven environments
Mean grain yield (kg/ha)

2018 2019
Code Debre Minjar Alem- Debre
No. Genotypes Melkassa Zeit tena Zeit Minjar Sirinka Mean
1 Boset (Standard Check) 1691 2488 2361 1617 2056 2690 2016 2131
2 Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 2153 3051 2960 1698 2089 3003 2235 2455
3 Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL56 1971 2697 2113 1727 1969 2545 2203 2175
4 Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL79 1821 2704 2273 1453 1940 2131 1893 2031
5 Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 80 1502 2693 2311 1589 1717 2179 1836 1975
6 Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 87 1776 2364 1991 1538 2200 2015 2024 1987
7 DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 98 1871 2998 2280 1495 1907 2523 2029 2158
8 DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 15 2112 2789 2214 1764 2073 2553 2015 2217
9 DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 177 1754 2300 2437 1645 1862 2594 1970 2080
10 DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL199 1731 2818 2191 1460 2055 2621 1976 2122
11 DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 97 2207 2513 2269 1471 2013 2609 2210 2184
12 Local Check 1426 2423 2188 1114 1256 2185 1861 1779
Mean 1835 2653 2299 1548 1928 2471 2022 2108
LSD (0.05) 429.3 664.5 642.9 402.9 389.8 673.2 345.2 211.3
CV (%) 16.26 14.78 19.44 18.10 14.05 18.94 11.86 19.04
Genotypes’ Grain Yield Performance with Respect to

Environment (Which Won Where)
The GGE polygon view of the 10 drought tef genotypes and two controls (local
check and standard check Boset tested in the seven environments is presented on
Figure 1polygon view helps to identify winning genotypes in different
environments by visualizing GEI (Yan and Kang, 2002) in MET and in estimating
possible existence of different mega environments (Gauch and Zobel, 1996; Yan
and Rajcan, 2002; Yayis et al., 2014). The vertex genotypes codes were 2, 6, 8
and 12 having the largest distance from the origin. The biplot is divided into four
sections by the four rays with genotypes falling in all sections while the
environments fall in two areas. The genotype code "2" is the only one in vertices
of the polygon in which all environments are contained except E5. Thus, genotype
code "2" is the most productive in those six environments in terms of grain yield.
The other genotypes on the vertices of the polygon not containing any of the seven
environments are unfavorable in the seven test environments. Test environments
fell in to two sectors while two of the sectors in the polygon had no test
environment. The best performing genotype in grain yield was genotype code
"2"being the furthest to the right.
[27]
Figure 1. Adaptability and performance of tef test genotypes with respect to test environments
Ranking of Genotypes
Figure 2 shows the ranks of the ten-drought tolerant tef genotypes and two
controls on the basis of mean yield and stability across the seven test
environments. The line passing through biplot origin from lower right to upper left
is the average environment axis (AEA) as defined by the first two PCs of the
environments scores. The furthest from the arrow is the genotype with the highest
yield ranking in a particular environment; the environment axis through the origin
and that specific environment, genotypes closer to the environment along the axis
are high yielding and vice versa. Thus, genotype code "2"is ranked best in the
entire tested environment. Genotype axis through the biplot origin and that
genotype, along that axis are the rankings of the environments. Genotypes located
closer to the ideal genotype are more desirable than others.
[28]
Figure 2. Ranking of tef test genotypes with respect to test environments
Distinguishing and Beneficial Features of the

Genotype Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37
The genotype Dtt2 X Dtt13 (DZ-Cr-498 RIL 37) selected as candidate variety for
variety verification trial for release exhibited the following major meritorious
distinguishing features.
1) It showed grain yield advantages of 13.19% and 27.55% over the standard
check (Boset) and local cultivar, respectively.
2) Moreover, the selected genotype will be highly valuable in view of the
prevailing climate change and thereby suitability for drought-prone areas
since it is tolerant to drought both at early stage during seedling emergence
lines (Cannarozzi et al., 2018) and also escapes terminal drought through
its early maturing characteristics.
3) This genotype preferred by farmers due to its tolerance to drought and
white caryopsis color.
Apart from their unique distinguishing agro-morphological features, the candidate

tef varieties combine drought or low moisture stress both at early stage during
seedling emergence and also escape drought through early maturing
characteristics. It is to be emphasized that none of our formerly released tef
varieties have these combined merits except the drought escape mechanism via
early maturity.
Description of the Genotype Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37

The distinctive pheno-morphologic and agronomic description of the genotype
Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 is summarized in Table 4. The candidate line has very loose
panicle form which often correlated with high yield compared to the compact
[29]
panicle types (Seyfu, 1997). The lemmas are yellowish green when immature and
yellowish white during maturity.
Table 4 Phenologic, morphological and agronomic characteristics the genotype Dtt2 X Dtt13 RIL37
No. Characteristics Description

I Qualitative traits Yellowish green
1 Basal stalk color Yellowish green
2 Panicle form Very loose
3 Lemma color Yellowish green when immature and yellowish white when mature
4 Anther color Yellowish white
5 Seed color Very white
II Quantitative traits Minimum Maximum Mean ± SE

1 Days to panicle emergence 27 49 41 ±1.21
2 Days to maturity 62 88 80 ±1.51
3 Grain filling period (days) 27 46 39 ±0.92
4 Plant height (cm) 57 109 92 ±2.72
5 Culm length (cm) 18 67 52 ±2.6
6 Panicle length (cm) 33 44 40 ±0.53
7 Biomass yield (t/ha) 6.5 20 11.33 ±0.60
8 Grain yield (t/ha) 1.70 3.5 2.46 ± 0.110
9 Lodging index 62 100 83 ±2.63
10 Harvest index (%) 13 40 26 ±1.4

The genotypeDtt2 X Dtt13 RIL 37 produced the highest mean grain yield. It
showed a 13.19 % yield advantage over the standard check. This was followed
by DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 15 and DZ-Cr-387 X Dtt2 RIL 97. The genotype code
"2"ranked best and most productive in all the test environments in terms of grain
yield. The candidate variety Dtt2 x Dtt13 (DZ-Cr-498 RIL 37) has double
advantage on moisture stress area or drought prone areas because tolerate drought
conditions both at early stage during seedling emergence and also escape drought
through early maturing. Therefore, this genotype recommended for all moisture
stress areas of Ethiopia. Considering the seven environments’ data and field
performance evaluation during the variety verification trial, the national variety
releasing committee has approved the official release of candidate genotype, Dtt2 x
Dtt13 (DZ-Cr-498 RIL 37), with the vernacular name of “Boni” for moisture stress
areas of the country.
References
Abuhay Takele. 2001. Canopy temperatures and excised leaf water loss of tef [Eragrostis
tef (Zucc.) Trotter] cultivars under water deficit conditions at anthesis. Acta
Agronomica Hungarica, 49(2): 109-117.
[30]
AlemuYami. 2013. Tef Straw: A valuable feed resource to improve animal production
and productivity. In: Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew and Zerihun Tadele
(eds.), Achievements and Prospects of Tef Improvement; Proceedings of the Second
International Workshop, November 7-9, 2011, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia. Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Institute of Plant
Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland. pp. 233-251.
Bekabil Fufa, Befekadu Behute, Kathryne Benesh, Rupert Simons and Tareke Berhe.
2013. Analysis of the tef value chain in Ethiopia. In: Kebebew Assefa, Solomon
Chanyalew and Zerihun Tadele (eds.). Achievements and Prospects of Tef
Improvement; Proceedings of the Second International Workshop, November 7-9,
2011, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR),
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern, Switzerland.
pp. 305-322.
Cannarozzi, G., Solomon Chanyalew, Kebebew Assefa, Abate Bekele, Annett Weichert
R.B., Klauser D., Plaza-Wu thrich S., Esfeld K., Jost M., Rindisbacher A., Habte
Jifar, Johnson-Chadwick V., Ermias Abate, Wang W., Kamies R., NegussuHusein,
WorkuKebede, KidistTolosa, Yazachew Genet, Kidu Gebremeskel, Brikti Ferede,
Firew Mekbib, Federico Martinelli F., Hans Christian Pedersen H.C., Rafudeen S.,
Shimelis Hussein, MulunehTamiru, Nakayama N., Mike Robinson M., Ian Barker I.,
Samuel Zeeman S. and Zerihun Tadele. 2018. Technology generation to
dissemination: lessons learned from the tef improvement project. Euphytica 214: 31
CSA. 2019. Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey for 2018/19 (2011
EC), Report on area and production of major crops (Private peasant holdings, Meher
season), Statistical bulletin, 589, April 2019, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Gauch, H. G., and Zobel, R. W. 1996.AMMI analysis in yield trials. Kang, M.S., Gauch,
H.G. (eds), Genotype by Environment Interaction.
Geremew Bultosa, Hall A.N. and Taylor J.R.N. 2002. Physico-chemical characterization
of grain tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] starch, Starch-Starke 54: 461-468.
Habtamu Hailekiros. 2015. Genetic Variability and Associations Among Grain Yield and
Yield Related Traits in Recombinant Inbred Lines of Tef [Eragrostis Tef (Zucc.)
Trotter] at Laelay Maichew District, Northern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya
University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Habte Jifar, Kasahun Tesfaye, Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew and Zerihun
Tadele. 2017. Semi-dwarf tef lines for high seed yield and lodging tolerance in
central Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal, 25: 419 - 43.
Habte Jifar, Kebebew Assefa and Zerihun Tadele. 2015.Grain yield variation and
association of major traits in brown-seeded genotypes of tef [Eragrostis tef
(Zucc.)Trotter]. Agriculture and Food Security, 4:7.
Hailu Tefera, Kebebew Assefa and Getachew Belay. 2003a. Evaluation of interspecific
recombinant inbred lines of Eragrostis tef x E . pilosa. Journal of Genetics and
Breeding, 57: 21-30.
Kebebew Assefa, Arnulf Merker and Hailu Tefera. 2003. Multivariate analysis of
diversity of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] germplasms from western and
southern Ethiopia. Hereditas, 138: 248–236.
Kebebew Assefa, Hailu Tefera, Arnulf Merker, Tiruneh Kefyalew and Fufa Hundera.
2001. Quantitative trait diversity in tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] germplasm
from central and northern Ethiopia. Genetic Resource and Crop Evolution, 48:53-61.
[31]
Kebebew Assefa, J.K. Yu, M. Zeid, Getachew Belay, Hailu Tefera and Sorrells M.E.
2011. Breeding tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) trotter]: conventional and molecular
approaches. Plant Breeding, 130: 1-9.
Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew and Gizaw Metaferia. 2013. Conventional and
Molecular tef Breeding. Pp 33-37. In: Zerihun Tadele (eds.). Achievements and
Prospects of tef Improvement; Proceedings of the Second International Workshop,
November 7-9, 2011, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Institute of Plant Sciences, University of Bern,
Switzerland. Printed at Stampfli AG, 3001 Bern, Switzerland.
Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew, Yazachew Genet, Mitiku Asfaw, TsionFikre,
Habte Jifar, Nigussu Hussen, Mihireteab H/Sellassie, and Molalign Assefa. 2017.
Tef (Eragrostistef) variety “Kora”. Ethiop .J. Agri. Sci. 27(2):137-140.
Minten, B., Seneshaw Tamru, Ermias Engidaand Tadesse Kuma. 2013. Ethiopia’s Value
Chains on the Move: The Case of Teff. ESSP Working Paper 52. International Food
Policy Research Institute, Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Mizan Tesfaye, Shimelis Hussein, Laing M. and Kebebew Assefa. 2017. Genetic
variation and trait association of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] evaluated under
optimal and moisture stressed environments. Australian Journal of Crop Science
11(03): 241-247
MoA. 2020. Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Variety Release, Protection and Seed Quality
Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register, Issue No. 22, June 2019, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Regula Blösch, Abiel Rindisbacher, Sonia Plaza-Wüthrich, Nora Röckel, Annett
Weichert, Gina Cannarozzi and Zerihun Tadele 2019. Identification of Drought
Tolerant Mutant Lines of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter]. Afrika focus 32(2): 25-
37.
Setotaw Ferede. 2013. Technological change and economic viability in tef production, In:
Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew and Zerihun Tadele (eds.), Achievements and
Prospects of Tef Improvement; Proceedings of the Second International Workshop,
November 7-9, 2011, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural
Research (EIAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; Institute of Plant Sciences, University of
Bern, Switzerland. pp. 255-273
Seyfu Ketema. 1997. Tef: [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter]: Promoting the Conservation
and Use of Underutilized and Neglected Crops12 Institute of Plant Genetics and
Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute,
Rome, Italy.
Solomon Chanyalew, Hailu Tefera and Singh H. 2009. Genetic variability, heritability
and trait relationships in recombinant inbred lines of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)
Trotter]. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 5: 474-479.
Solomon Chanyalew, Kebebew Assefa, Mitiku Asfaw, Yazachew Genet, Kidist Tolossa,
Worku Kebede, Tsion Fikre, Nigussu Hussen, Habite Jifar, Atinikut Fentahun, Kidu
Gebremeskel, Girma Chemeda and Tegegn Belete. 2017. Tef (Eragrostistef) variety
“Dagim”. Ethiop. J. Agri. Sci. 27(2): 131-135.
[32]
Spaenij-Dekking, L., Kooy-Winkelaar Y. and Koning F. 2005.The Ethiopian cereal tef in
celiac disease.The New England Journal of Medicine 353: 1748-1749.
Tsion Fikire. 2016. Variability Genetic Diversity of Ethiopian Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)
Trotter) Varieties as Revealed by Morphological and Microsatellite Markers. MSc.
Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Worku Kebede, Kidist Tolossa, Nigussu Hussein, Tsion Fikre, Yazachew Genet, Abate
Bekele, Kidu Gebremeskel, Atinkut Fentahun, Habte Jifar, Sonia Plaza-Wüthrich,
Regula Blösch, Solomon Chanyalew, Kebebew Assefa, and Zerihun Tadele.2018.
Tef (Eragrostis tef) Variety ‘Tesfa,(DZ-Cr-387 X 3774-13(RIL120B))’.Ethiop.
J.Agri. Sci. 28(2): 107-112.
Worku Kebede, Yazachew Genet, Tsion Fikre, Kidist Tolosa, Solomon Chanyalew,
Mengistu Demissie, Kebebew Assefa, Kidu G/Meskel, Atinkut Fantahun and
Zerihun Tadele 2020. Tef (Eragrostis tef) variety development for moisture stress
areas of Ethiopia: Journal of Innovative Agriculture: 7(4): 1-6.
Yan, W. and Rajcan, I. 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in
Ontario. Crop Science42 (1): 11-20.
Yan, W.and Kang, M. S. 2002. GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for Breeders,
Geneticists, and Agronomists. CRC Press
Yayis Rezene, Agdew Bekele, Yasin Goa. 2014. GGE and Ammi Biplot Analysis for
Field Pea Yield Stability in SNNPR State, Ethiopia. International Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture1: 28-38.
Zerihun Tadele and Kebebew Assefa. 2012. Increasing food production in Africa by
boosting the productivity of understudied crops. Agronomy 2: 240–28.
[33]
[34]
Performance of Selected Tef Genotype for
High Potential Areas of Ethiopia
Yazachew Genet*, Tsion Fikre, Worku Kebede, Solomon Chanyalew,
Kidist Tolosa, and Kebebew Assefa
Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research; Debrezeit Agricultural Research Centre,
P. O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; yazachewgenet@gmail.com
Abstract
Tef is the major staple food crop for approximately 73 million people in
Ethiopia. As an indigenous cereal, it is well adapted to diverse climatic and soil
conditions; however, its productivity is extremely low mainly due to lack of high
yielder genotypes and susceptibility to lodging, biotic and abiotic stresses. To
circumvent this problem, an experiment comprising 20 tef genotypes including
the standard and local checks were evaluated in a randomized complete block
design with four replications at nine environments to develop high yielding,
stable and farmers preferred variety(ies) for high potential areas. Combined
analysis of variance revealed highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) variations due to
genotype, environment for most of traits and significant (p ≤0.05) genotype by
environment interaction effects (GEI) for grain yield. AMMI analysis revealed
7.62%, 67.27%, 25.11% variation in grain yield due to genotypes, environments
and GEI effects, respectively. The mean grain yield value of genotypes averaged
over environments indicated that G12 (DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133) had the
highest grain yield (2761 kgha-1) compared to the standard check variety Negus
(2526kg ha-1). In addition, this candidate variety proved stable across
environments for grain yield during the variety evaluation experiment.
Therefore, this genotype was evaluated by the National Variety Release
Committee for release as a new variety for the years 2019/20 and the technical
committee approved it for fully released as new variety in 2020. Thus, this
variety should be used as a commercial variety for potential tef growing areas to
increase tef productivity and production in the country.
Introduction
Tef (Eragrostis tef) is being labeled as one of the latest super foods of the 21st
century, like the ancient Andean grain quinoa, tef’s international popularity is
rapidly growing (Collyns, 2013) mainly because the grains are free from gluten to
which many people are allergic (Spaenij-Dekking et al., 2005) a causal agent for
celiac disease; hence, tef is becoming globally popular as a life-style crop (Provost
et al., 2014). Tef is a resilient crop that performs better than other cereals under
local conditions including drought, waterlogging, and poor soil. Since it produces
a reasonable yield when grown in areas that experience moisture scarcity, it is
considered as a low-risk crop (Seyfu, 1993 and 1997). Tef is nutritious due to its
high protein and mineral content (Abebe et al., 2007; Geremew et al., 2002). Tef
[35]
is one of the most significant crops for farm income, food and nutrition security in
Ethiopia. It serves both as a staple and cash crop in the country.
Tef is versatility crop in adapting to adverse environmental conditions and staple

food for ~73 million people in Ethiopia where it is annually cultivated by 7
million small-scale farmers on more than 30% of the total area allocated to cereal
crops (CSA, 2018) In a country of more than 100 million people, tef accounts for
about 15% of all calories consumed and, contribute well over 66% of the protein
intake of the population consuming it as their staple food. The crop is preferred
both by farmers and consumers because of its excellent nutritional quality (well-
balanced protein and minerals) and it makes good quality “injera”, pancake-like
soft bread. The straw serves as an indispensable feed for cattle and has almost
equal value as the grain. Grain yield is a complex character which is dependent on
a number of other characters and is highly influenced by many genetic factors as
well as environmental fluctuations. On the other hand, the genotype x
environment interaction (GEI) is an important aspect of both plant breeding
program and the introduction of new crop cultivars (Freeman, 1985; Habte et al.,
2019; McLaren and Chaudhary, 1994). Despite its importance, the productivity of
tef is much lower than other cereals. The national average yield of tef is about 1.75
tha-1, compared to maize (3.2tha-1) and wheat (2.4tha-1), respectively (CSA,2018).
The major constraints limiting productivity and production of tef are; 1) limited
availability of varieties suitable for different agro-ecologies; 2) limited use of
improved varieties; 3) presence of biotic and abiotic stresses; and 4) inadequate
seed and extension systems.
Tef research and development efforts in Ethiopia began in the late 1950s. Over the
past 24 years, tef productivity increased by about 100%, from just 0.7 tha-1 in 1994 to
1.75 tha-1 in 2018. In tef improvement effort grain yield constituted the highest
priority (Kibebew et al., 2011) Therefore, tackling some of the high priority problems
mentioned above is vital to increase tef productivity in the Country. Consequently,
the objective of the study was to evaluate the performances of selected tef
genotypes across multi-locations and identify candidate variety(ies) having broad
and /or specific adaptation to different environments and the cross of Quncho with
cultivar Alba aimed at introgressing higher panicle length for yield as well
as .thick and strong culm for increased lodging tolerance into the popular variety
Quncho.The standard check variety was the variety Nigus released in 2017
(Tadesse, 1975) for agro-ecologies similar to the particular set of test locations and
classified as high potential tef growing areas. On the other hand, the local check is
a farmers’ variety commonly grown around each of the respective test locations.
[36]
Plant materials
Eighteen promising recombinant inbreed lines selected from preliminary yield
trial plus two checks (local and standard check) were used. The 18 promising
recombinant inbred lines were obtained through single seed descent (SSD) method
from two different crosses. In both crosses Quncho (DZ-Cr 387RIL355 was used
as the ovule parent. The cultivars Rosea and Alba described by (Tadesse, 1975)
were used as pollen parent. The former cultivar is characterized by high number of
florets per spikelet and hence used to pyramid yield traits into the popular variety
Quncho released in 2006 (Kibebew, 2011). Likewise, the cultivar Alba was the
paternal parent for six of the 18 RILs.
Table 1. Description code of the study tef genotypes.
Code Genotypes
G1 DZ- Cr- 429 (RIL 125)/Negus (standard check)
G2 DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-9)
G3 DZ-Cr-387X Roseau (RIL-22)
G4 DZ-Cr-387X Rosea (RIL-38)
G10 DZ-Cr-387Xrosea (RIL-117)
G13 DZ-Cr-387 XAlba (RIL-347 )
G14 DZ-Cr-387 XAlba (RIL-226)
G16 DZ-Cr-387 XAlba (RIL- 260)
G18 DZ-Cr-387 XAlba (RIL-249 )
G20 Local
Experimental Locations and Seasons

Although the experiment was done for two seasons at each of the six locations and
also additional other locations, the data for some of the years and locations were
excluded because of the heterogeneity of variance in the combined analyses of
grain yield data over all environments (locations and seasons). The test locations
represent high potential tef growing areas with optimum rainfall and other climatic
and edaphic conditions suitable for tef production (Table 2).
[37]
Table 2. The nine test environments used for the national variety trial for high potential areas
Locations
Altitude Annual mean
Code Name Latitude Longitude Soil type
(m.a.s.l ) rainfall Temperature
E1 Akaki 8054'N 38045'E 2205 1025 18 vertisol
E2 Minjar-1 8o45'N 39o45'E 2000 1118 19.5 nitosol
E3 Holeta-1 09°03’N 38°30’E 2400 1102 14.5 nitosol
E4 Adadi-1 08°31'N 38°13’E 2383 1105 16.5 vertisol
E5 Minjar-2 8o45'N 39o45'E 2000 1118 19.5 nitosol
E6 Holeta-2 09°03’N 38°30’E 2400 1102 14.5 nitosols
E7 Adadi-2 08°31’N 38°13’E 2383 1105 16.5 vertisol
E8 Bichena 10°26'N 38°12'E 2543 1316 16.4 vertisol
E9 Adet 11°16'N 37°29'E 2174 1209 16.5 vertisol
Experimental Design and Management

The field experiment was conducted using a randomized complete block design
with four replications of 2 m x 2 m (4m2) plot size during the two main seasons of
2017 and 2018. The field experiment was managed as per the research
recommendation of agronomic practices of the respective test locations. Data
collected
Data on agronomic yield and yield related traits were collected both on plot and
individual plant base. Data on days to heading or panicle emergence using the
sowing date as a reference, lodging index, grain and biomass yield were taken on
plot bases. Days of heading and maturity were taken when each plot attained 50%
heading (panicle emergency) and 90% physiological maturity respectively, and
days were calculated beginning from the date of sowing. Lodging index was
assessed using the method of (Caldicott and Nuttall, 1979) by considering
assessments of both the lodging degree or the angle of leaning on 0 (completely
upright) to 5 (completely flat on the ground) and the severity as the percentage of
the plot stand manifesting each of the 0-5 degrees of lodging. Then, lodging index
for each plot was taken as the product sum of the degree of leaning and the
respective per cent severity divided by five. Grain yield (g) of each plot was
measured on clean, sun-dried seed and the measured grain yield value (g) has
converted to kilogram per hectare for data analysis.
Plant height (cm), and panicle length (cm) were taken on the five individual
samples of plants which were randomly taken from the central rows of each plot,
and the averages of five plants were as used for analysis.
Data Analyses
For each trait analysis of variance was made first for individual location, and
ultimately upon getting positive results from tests of homogeneity of variances
using the method F-max of (Hartley, 1950), a combined analysis of variance was
made across the environments (locations and years) in order to determine the
[38]
differences between genotypes across environments, among environments and
their interaction. For the analysis of variance, Proc GLM (general linear model)
suitable for the experimental design were employed (Gomez and Gomez, 1984)
using SAS software version 9.00 (SAS, 2002) and the average performance for
different traits presented below (Table 3). AMMI (additive main effects,
multiplicative interactions analysis was used to adjust the main or additive
genotype and environmental effects by analysis of variance, in addition to the
adjustment of the multiplicative effects for the G×E interaction by principal
component analysis.
The sum of squares of the G×E interaction was divided into an n singular axis or
Interaction Principal Component Axis (IPCA), which reflects the standard portion
in which each axis corresponded to a particular AMMI model. Mean comparison
for traits showing significant differences in the analyses of variance were made
using Least Significant Difference (LSD). GEA-R (2015) software version 2.0
was used for the stability analysis and GGE biplot analysis to visualize which
genotypes performed best in which environment.

Components of Variation
ANOVA from additive main effect and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) for
most of traits showed significant (p ≤0.01) for genotypes and environments and
significant (P ≤0.05) effect for genotype by environment interaction (GEI). The
effect of environment, genotypes and genotype by environment interaction
accounted for 67.27%, 7.62% and 25.11% of the total sum squares (Table 3),
respectively. A large sum of squares for environments indicated that the test
environments were diverse with large differences among environmental means
which causing most of the variation in grain yield. Therefore, this result
designated the reliability of the multi-environment experiments. The variation in
temperature, rainfall, soil type, soil fertility, and moisture availability might be the
main reasons for the presence of variation. The AMMI analysis also showed that
the first interaction principal component (PC1) and second interaction principal
component (PC2) explained 39.32% and 19.61% of the interaction sum squares,
respectively. The mean squares for PC1 was highly significant (p<0.01). Likewise,
analysis of variance revealed highly significant (p< 0.01) effect GEI for
aboveground biomass, days to heading, days to maturity, panicle length, plant
height and lodging index. The significant interaction indicated that the genotypes
respond differently across the different environments. The significant interaction
indicated that the genotypes respond differently across different environments.
The significant variability of genotypes traits showed in the present study for
different traits of tef genotypes are in agreement with the previous report by
different authors for genotype variability (Habte et al., 2019; Turineh, 2001).
[39]
Table 3. AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield grown at nine environments
Source DF SS M.S. V.r. F pr Explained GEI SS%
Treatment 179 146663414 819349 14 <0.001
Genotypes (G) 19 11182431 588549 2.97 <0.001 7.62
98656693 67.27
Environments (E) 8 7.85 <0.001
12332087
Block (E) 27 42427854 1571402 7.94 <0.001
Interaction (GEI) 152 36824290 242265 1.22 0.05 25.11
PC1 26 14477805 556839 2.81 <0.001 39.32
PC2 24 7222800 300950 1.52 0.055 19.61
Error 513 101584390 198020
DF = degree of freedom, S.S = Sum squares, V.r.= F calculated value, Fpr = F probability Value
Mean Performance of Selected Tef Genotypes

The mean grain yield performances of the 20 tef genotypes at each of the nine test
environments are presented in Table 4. The overall mean grain yield of tef
genotypes for the nine environments ranged from 1718 kg ha-1 at E8 (Bichena-
2018) to 3846 kgha-1 at E2 (Minjar-2017). Among nine environments, E2
(Minijar-2017), E1 (Akaki), E5 (Holeta-2), E4 (Adadimariam-2017) and E3
(Holeta-2017) were high yielding environments. While, E7 (Adadimariam-2018),
E8 (Bichena-2017) and E9 (Adet-2017) were low yielding environments. The test
genotype G12 (DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea RIL133) was the top yielder at E5 (Holetta-
2018), and the second highest yielder at E1 (Akaki-2017), E4 (Adadimariam-
2017), E7(Adadimariam-2018) and E9 (Adet-2017) (Table 4). Overall, the
genotype code G12 (candidate variety), although not at all of the environments,
performed better than others at least at two low yielding environments
(Adadimariam-2018, and Adet-2017) and three high yielding environment (Akaki
-2017), Adadimariam-2017 and Minjar-2018). The huge variability in the grain
yield among the 20 tef genotypes at the nine environments might be due to wide
variability in climatic and soil conditions. This finding is in accordance with
previous studies (Fufa et al., 2000; Habte et al., 2019; Tiruneh, 1999) that
similarly reported which thereby complicates the selection and recommendations
stable genotype across environment.
In genotype x environment interaction (GEI) the result exhibited the genotypes

gave statistically higher grain yield and aboveground biomass than the standard
check variety. Mean grain yield value of tested tef genotypes averaged over
environments ranged from 2340 kgha-1 (G10) to 2761kgha-1 (G12) (Table 5).
The significant GEI in the present study indicates unstable performance of the tef
genotypes across the testing environments (Figure 1). Thus, it implied that the
genotypes respond differently across the different environments. In addition to
this considering the current tef and straw price, 36 Birrkg-1and 5 Birrkg-1,
respectively, there was an economically meaningful difference among tested
genotypes. Therefore, one promising candidate variety, DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-
133) gave grain yield (2761 kg ha-1) and aboveground biomass 13802 kgha-
[40]
1compared to the standard check variety Negus depicting grain yield
(2526.4kg/ha) and aboveground biomass 11402 kgha-1, respectively. Therefore,
DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133) has been evaluated in by the National Variety
Release Technical Committee in the variety verification trial during 2019/2020.
From the variety verification trial, the candidate variety showed promising
performance than the newly released standard check variety Ebba.
The visualization of a ‘which-won-where’ pattern in multi-environment trials is

essential to study adaptability of genotypes in the specific or across all test
environments (Yan and Tinker, 2006). The vertex genotypes were the most
responsive for being located at the greatest distance from the biplot origin. The
genotypes with either the best or poorest performance in one or all environments
were considered responsive (Yan and Tinker, 2006) falling within the sectors. The
GGE biplots of graph results was used to show the relative performance of all
genotypes at a specific environment (Figure 1).
Table 4. Mean grain yield (kgha-1) performance of tef genotypes across nine environments
Environments
Code
E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9
G1 2980.0 3370 2544.3 2607.2 2718.8 2104.4 2116.7 2130.1 2166.3
G2 2828.8 3332.5 2479.0 2784.1 2796.9 2238.8 2529.5 1761.2 1804.8
G3 2583.8 3108.8 2605.9 2385.0 2298.1 2164.6 1753.3 2625.1 2101.9
G4 2925.0 3846.3 2436.6 2726.0 2310.6 2402.2 1895.0 2680.9 2192.0
G5 2782.6 3582.5 2901.2 2532.5 2732.5 2370.9 2080.4 2682.4 2093.6
G6 3133.8 3478.8 2830.9 2976.5 2384.4 2356.3 2158.5 2140.5 2224.9
G7 3021.3 3480.0 2488.8 2503.9 2553.8 1879.6 2059.5 2394.9 1943.9
G8 3091.3 3582.5 2367.9 2338.9 2513.1 2493.2 1926.3 2638.1 2320.3
G9 2567.5 3191.3 2591.4 2659.4 2376.3 1560.1 1718.2 2833.9 2037.4
G10 2898.8 3231.3 2157.8 2050.3 2393.1 2638.9 1792.4 1777.2 2116.1
G11 2602.5 3586.3 2549.9 2737.1 2510.0 2092.7 2435.5 2387.3 2003.4
G12 3087.5 3553.8 2640.5 3153.7 2963.8 2334.7 2512.2 2281.0 2315.9
G13 2842.5 3092.5 3113.7 3078.1 2145.0 2725.9 2326.5 2805.4 2287.3
G14 2803.8 3325.0 2923.6 2489.0 2865.6 2400.6 2244.3 1943.3 2614.7
G15 2465.0 3025.0 2678.5 2160.8 2383.1 2051.3 1735.7 2838.8 2308.3
G16 2906.3 3432.5 2726.7 3259.9 2647.5 2208.2 2076.0 2693.6 2287.3
G17 2853.8 3683.8 2741.4 2706.8 2423.1 2467.2 2343.3 2912.9 2007.6
G18 2637.8 2945.3 2628.0 2418.1 2613.8 2521.1 2105.3 2130.0 2204.1
G19 2825.0 3686.3 2654.9 2964.1 2915.0 2723.1 2190.7 1995.8 2419.8
G20 2808.8 3091.3 2801.8 2402.3 1987.5 2090.1 1881.8 2429.3 1920.0
CV 10 20 10 15 11 13 22.9 29 10
LSD 421.0 981.7 397.0 571.6 402.7 426.5 678.4 1020 320.6
SE 40.8 78.9 44.3 54.6 42.4 49.6 58.0 94.8 30.6
G1-G20 name of Genotypes, E1= Akaki (2017), E2= Minijar 2017, E3= Holeta (2017), E4= Adadi= 2017, E5= Minijar
(2018), E6= Holeta (2018), E7=Adadi (2018), E8= Bichna (2018), E9= Adet (2018), CV= coefficient of variation, LSD=leas
Significant Difference and SE =Standard error.
[41]
Table 5. Mean grain yield and other agronomic characteristics of 20 tef genotypes averaged over nine environments
Genotypes Yldkg ha-1 AGBkgha-1 PL (cm) PH (cm) DTH (days) DTM (days) LI (%)
G1 2526±116 11403 35 93 52 112 76
G2 2506±103 13045 40 106 55 117 74
G3 2403±84 12104 41 106 58 115 74
G4 2602±118 12778 38 100 58 114 76
G5 2640±110 12990 40 105 57 114 76
G6 2632±115 12514 38 101 55 113 76
G7 2481±99 12601 40 106 56 114 76
G8 2586±109 12295 38 105 55 115 75
G9 2393±109 13288 42 105 59 113 74
G10 2340±100 12618 41 109 54 114 72
G11 2545±103 11910 41 104 55 114 78
G12 2761±95 13802 40 106 55 115 75
G13 2713.0±106 13007 41 106 54 115 75
G14 2623±106 13250 40 105 57 116 73
G15 2405±93 12750 41 105 59 115 74
G16 2686±93 13347 42 112 56 114 74
G17 2682±109 13410 43 110 57 113 75
G18 2467±124 13073 43 111 55 115 74
G19 2708±112 11014 33 90 51 111 80
G20 2379±94 10837 36 95 52 114 80
Genotype (G) ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Environment(E) ** ** ** ** ** ** **
GEI * ** ** ** ** ** **
CV 20 18 11 5 4 2 10
R2 53 88 73 84 94 98 68
Yldkgha-1 = yield kilogram per hectare, DTH= Days to heading, DTM= days to maturity, PH=plant height, GFP=
grain filling period, PH=plant height, PL= Panicle length, LI= lodging index, R2 (%) = the model explain the
variability of the response data around its mean
Stability Analysis
Mean grain yield performance and its stability 20 tef genotypes over nine
environments are shown in Table 6 and Figure 2. From GGE biplot graph for
stability analysis Average environmental axis (AEA) is a line passing through the
origin and pointing to the positive direction with its distance equal to the longest
vector. Besides, an ideal environment is a point on the AEA in the positive
direction of the biplot origin and is equal to the longest vector of all environments
(Yan and Tinker, 2006). This line was reported to be useful to evaluate mean grain
yield and stability of genotypes (Yan and Tinker, 2006). According to such
reports, genotypes considered to be stable are those appeared closer to the origin
with the shortest vector from the AEC. Thus, Figure 2 in the present study shows
the mean performance and stability of the genotypes. Based on this, G12 with the
shortest vector from the AEC axis was identified as the most stable genotypes
while G10 with the longest vector from AEC was the most unstable genotypes.
The mean grain yield value of genotypes averaged over environments indicated
that G12 had the highest (2761kg ha-1) and G10 the lowest grain yield (2340 kg
ha-1), respectively. Genotype superiority with the small measured value indicates
[42]
the more stable genotypes (Table 6). Therefore, from the present study, G12 was
the most stable and G10 most unstable genotypes, respectively. Therefore,
Genotype code G12 released as a new variety in 2020.
Table 6. Stability coefficient analysis of mean grain yield of 20 tef genotypes tested across nine environments
Standard Genotype
Genotypes Grain yield Mean kgha-1
Deviation Superiority
G1 2526 446 135078 (12)
G2 2506 508 179646 (15)
G3 2401 388 198671 (16)
G4 2602 558 108536 (8)
G5 2640 459 81837 (5)
G6 2632 487 91877 (7)
G7 2481 516 162910 (13)
G8 2586 485 125513 (11)
G9 2393 530 226952 (19)
G10 2340 498 290293 (20)
G11 2545 456 122601 (10)
G12 2761 449 53531 (1)
G13 2713 3734 84241 (6)
G14 2623 410 119332 (9)
G15 2405 402 224489 (18)
G16 2686 468 63719 (2)
G17 2682 471 72877 (3)
G18 2467 279 173804 (14)
G19 2708 492 78627 (4)
G20 2379 443 222293 (17)
N. B: Numbers in brackets give the position of each genotype, ranked according to the stability coefficient
(running downwards from 1 = best).
Which Won Where/What
E8
1000
E4
E3
500
G13
G16
AXIS2 24.58 %
G17
E2
E7
G12
54 G9
E1 G6 G11
E9
0
G8 G3 G15
E6G19 G7 G20
E5 G1
G14
G2
G18
-500
G10
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
AXIS1 34.22 %
Figure 1. The which-won-where view of the GGE biplot of 20 tef genotypes to show which genotypes performed bets in which
environments.
[43]
Mean vs. Stability
E8
1000
E4
E3G13
500
AXIS2 24.58 % G16
G17
E2
E7
G12
54 G9
E1 G6 G11
E9
0
G8
E6G19 G7 G3G15
G20
E5 G1
G14
G2
18
-500
G10
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
AXIS1 34.22 %
Figure 2. Means versus stability of 20 tef genotypes tested at nine environments
Beneficial advantage of new variety

DZ-Cr.497 /DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133)
The New variety DZ-Cr.497/DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133)/ has got the following
major advantages.
1) It showed advantage of 235kgha-1 (9.3%) in grain yield and 2399 kgha-1
(21%) in aboveground biomass yield over the standard check variety
Negus as well as 16.1% in grain yield and 36.8% in aboveground biomass
over the local check cultivar.
2) Moreover, the selected genotype showed highly stability (1st rank) among
evaluated genotypes, indicating its suitability for multi environment in the
high potential tef growing areas.
3) This genotype has also got immense farmers’ preference and attention due
to its overall performance and white caryopsis color during the
participatory variety evaluation.
Description of the new variety DZ-Cr-497/ DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea

(RIL-133)
A summary of the description of the candidate variety including its pedigree,
adaptation agro-ecological conditions, required cultural practices, and pheno-
morphologic and agronomic traits is presented on Table 7.
[44]
Table 7. Description of agronomic and morphological characteristics of the new variety DZ-Cr-387 x Rosea (RIL-133).
No. Parameters Description

I Variety Name
1 Breeders Name DZ-.Cr-497
2 Pedigree DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea(RIL-133)
3 Vernacular name given Dinknesh
II Adaptation conditions and agronomic practice
4 Adaptation area High & optimum tef growing areas
5 Altitude (m.a.s.l.) 1700-2500
6 Rain fall (mm) 700-1200
7 Soil type Mainly vertisols and nitosols
8 Seed rate (Kgha-1) 10-15
9 Planting method both broad casting & row sowing
10 Row spacing (cm) 20
11 Planting date July 10-30
12 Fertilizer Use recommended rate for tef
13 Pest reaction Not significant
III Qualitative traits
14 Panicle form Very loss
15 Lemma color Variegated (yellow+red)
16 Anther color Red
17 Caryopsis color Very white
18 Growth habit Erect
IV Quantitative traits Mean
19 Days to heading (days) 52
20 Days to maturity (days) 112
21 Plant height (cm) 93
22 Panicle length (cm) 35
23 1000 seed weight (g) 0.3
24 Grain yield on station (kgha-1) 2761
25 Grain yield on farm (kgha-1) 2140
26 Aboveground biomass (kgha-1) 13802
Conclusions and Recommendations

Crop yield is a complex trait that is influenced by a number of component
characters along with the environment directly or indirectly. If high yielding stable
recombinant inbred lines tef could be developed for diverse environments, it
would be possible to provide diverse and stable varieties for the tef growing
farmers. Stability analysis is a powerful approach to select the most stable high
yielding recombinant inbreeds lines for specific as well as for diverse
environments. In the present study, 20 tef genotypes including 18 promising RILs
originating from two crosses and selected on the basis of previous preliminary
variety trials as well as standard check variety Negus and a local check (farmers’
variety) from each location were field evaluated at nine environments (six location
and two main seasons of 2017 and 2018). Combined analysis of variance revealed
highly significant (P ≤ 0.01) variations due to genotype, environment for most of
traits and significant (p ≤0.05) genotype by environment interaction effects (GEI)
[45]
for grain yield. AMMI analysis revealed 7.62%, 67.27%, 25.11% variation in
grain yield due to genotypes, environments and GEI effects, respectively. Thus,
the GEI mean squares showed tef genotypes exhibited differential performances
across the different environments. Consequently, most of the genotypes showed
environment specificity. The mean grain yield value of genotypes averaged over
environments indicated that G12 had the highest (2761 kgha-1) and G10 the
lowest yield (2340kgha-1), respectively. It is noted that the variety G12 showed
higher grain yield than all other varieties when averaged over all the
environments.
One promising late set candidate variety, DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133) gave
higher grain yield of (2761kgha-1) compared to the standard check variety Negus
(2526.4kgha-1). Therefore, DZ-Cr-387 X Rosea (RIL-133) has been selected and
evaluated by the National Variety Release Committee in 2019/2020 and released
in 2020. Thus, it is recommended for high potential tef growing regions in the
country. Multi environmental trial should be conducted continuously to get high
yielding tef varieties for different tef growing areas to increase production and
productivity.
Overall, the tef varieties released have shown steady and incremental genetic gain
through tef breeding in Ethiopia of 0.90% year under lodging controlled (wire-
mesh support) conditions from the earliest release in 1970 until 1995 (Yifru, 1996;
Yifru and Hailu, 2005), and 0.58% per annum under lodging uncontrolled natural
conditions from 1970 until 2013 (Fano, 2013; Fano et al., 2016). These figures are
relatively good by the standards of most breeding programs for similar crops,
except for the most important world crops like maize, wheat and rice. However, to
bring breakthrough, instead of the steady increment, in in tef improvement further
intensified crossing/hybridization in order to stack productivity traits/genes, break
the apparent linkage between culm thickness and culm length for reduced lodging
vulnerability, and use advanced breeding techniques including genomics are vital
so as to get substantially high yielder and stable genotypes with the required
qualities. Moreover, future research strategies on tef genetic engineering, high
throughput mutant line development, and mining of the tef genetic resources
including the wild relative species must be given due emphasis in the national tef
breeding program.
Acknowledgements
The authors are indebted to the Agricultural Growth Program (AGP-II) for
financial support and all collaborating centers and their respective tef research
staff for the successful execution of the field experiment.
[46]
References
Abebe Y , Bogale A, Hambidgeb K. Michael S, Barbara J., Baileyd K & Gibson, R. S.
2007. Phytate, zinc, iron and calcium content of selected raw and prepared foods
consumed in rural Sidama, Southern Ethiopia, and implications for bioavailability.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 20, 3-4, 161-168.
Caldicott, J. J. B. and A. M. Nuttall. 1979. A method for the assessment of lodging in
cereal crops. Jour. of Nat. Inst. Agri. Botany. 15: 88-91.
Collyns Dan. 2013. Quinoa brings riches to the Andes. Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/ world/2013/jan/14/quinoa-andes-bolivia-peru-crop.
CSA. 2018. Central Statistical Agency, Agricultural Sample Survey 2017/2018 (2010
E.C). Volume I. Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant
Holdings, Meher Season). Statistical bulletin, 586, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Fano Dargo. 2013. Genetic Gain in Grain Yield Grain Yield Potential and Associated
Traits of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Ethiopia, MSc. Thesis, Haramaya
University, Haramaya, Ethiopia
Fano Dargo, Firew Mekbib. and Kebebew Assefa. 2016. Genetic Gain in Grain Yield
Potential and Associated Traits of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Ethiopia.
Global Journals Inc. (USA) 16:2249-4626.
Fufa Hundera, Hailu Tefera, Kebebew Assefa, Tesfaye Tefera, Tiruneh Kefyalew Girma
Taye. 2000. Grain yield and stability analysis in late maturing genotypes of tef
[Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter]. J. Genet. Breed.54:13-18
Freeman GH. 1985. the analysis and interpretation of interaction. Journal of Applied
Statistics. 12: 3-10.
Geremew Bultosa, Hall A., & Taylor J. 2002. The World Factbook. Africa: Ethiopia.
Retrieved from CIA website; https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-
factbook/geos/et.html
Gomez, K.A., and A.A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Hartley, H.O. 1950. The maximum F-ratio as a short cut test for heterogeneity of
variances. Biometrika 37: 308-312
Habte Jifar, Kebebew Assefa, Kassahun Tesfaye, and Zerihun Tadele. 2019. Genotype x
environment interaction and stability analysis in grain yield of tef (Eragrostis tef)
evaluated in Ethiopia. JEAI, 35(5): 1-13; Article no. JEAI.48459. DOI: 10.9734/
JEAI/2019/ v35i530214
Kebebew Assefa, Yu J, K., Zeid, M., Getachew Belay, Hailu Tefera and Sorrells, M.E.
2011. Breeding tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter]: conventional and molecular
approaches. Plant Breed.130: 1-9.
Seyfu Ketema. 1997. Tef. Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter. Promoting the conservation and
use of underutilized and neglected crops. 12. Institute of plant genetics and crop
plant Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome,
Italy.
Seyfu Ketema. 1993. Tef (Eragrostis tef): Breeding, Genetic Resources, Agronomy,
Utilization and Role in Ethiopian Agriculture. Institute of Agricultural Research,
[47]
Tadesse Ebba. 1975. Tef (Eragrostis tef) Cultivars, Morphology and Classification, Part
II. Experiment Station Bulletin No.66, Addis Ababa University, College of
Agriculture. Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
Tiruneh Kefyalew.Genotype x environment interaction in tef. 2001. Tefera H, Belay G,
Sorrells M, (Eds). Narrowing the Rift:Tef Research and Development. Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Tef Genetics and Improvement, Debre Zeit:
EARO; 2001.
Tiruneh Kefyalew. 1999. Assessment of Genotype x Environment Interaction for Yield
and Yield Related Traits in Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] Genotypes, MSc.
Thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia
McLaren CG, Chaudhary C. 1994. Use of additive main effects and multiplicative
interaction models to analyse multiplication rice variety trials. Paper presented at the
FCSSP Conference, Puerton Princesa, and Palawan, Philippines.
MoALR. 2017. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Resource, Plant Variety Release,
Protection and Seed Quality Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register Issue Mo.20,
Provost C. and Jobson E. 2014. Move over quinoa, Ethiopia's Teff poised to be next big
super grain. The Guardian, January 23, 2014
Spaenij-Dekking L., Kooy-Winkelaar Y., Koning F. 2005, ‘The Ethiopian cereal Tef in
celiac disease’, New England Journal of Medicine 353(16), 1748–1750
Yan W, Tinker NA. Biplot analysis of multi- environment trial data: Principles and
applications. Can J Plant Sci. 2006;86: 623-645
Yifru Teklu. 1996. Genetic Gain in Grain Yield Potential and Associated Agronomic
Traits of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter], MSc. Thesis, Alemaya University of
Agriculture, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
Yifru Teklu and Hailu Tefera. 2005. Genetic improvement in grain yield potential and
associated agronomic traits of tef (Eragrostis tef). Euphytica 141:247-254.
[48]
Pre-extension Demonstration of Tef Varieties in
East and North Showa Zones of Ethiopia
Truayinet Mekuriaw, Kidist Tolosa, Worku Kebede, and Kebebew Assefa
Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research, Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Tef Research
Program, P.O. Box32, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia
Abstract
The objectives of this on-farm demonstration were to create awareness on the
availability and importance of the new tef varieties and to expand production area
and reach large number of farmers. Training and experience sharing and field days
were used to demonstrate the new improved tef varieties. In the demonstration, seeds
of the newly released varieties were provided to farmers at the rate of 10kg/ha as a
revolving seed loan basis. The plot size was 10m x10m at all locations. Training on
agronomic practices (land preparation, sowing, weeding, harvesting and post-
harvest handling) was given for farmers and experts by experienced researchers
from respective departments. Farmer, researchers and agricultural experts
periodically evaluated the performance of each variety during field visit. Data were
collected based on visual and direct measurements. A field day was organized at s
Lume, Adea and Minjar-shenkora. A total of 816 participants (760 male and 56
females) were participated on the event. All the demonstrations performed well at
each site and great awareness has been created on the availability and importance
of the new tef varieties. Dagim and Eba variety were preferred more by farmers. In
addition, good institutional linkages were established among the partners including
district and zonal agriculture offices, seed producer companies and seed producing
farmer cooperatives. This study recommended that farmers’ training center (FTC)
based demonstrations of improved varieties greatly enhanced adoption of the tef
varieties. Working in collaboration with zonal and district agriculture offices and
seed producers proved useful for the sustainability of new improved varieties in the
production system.
Introduction
Tef (Eragrostis tef), is an important and major staple cereal crop, playing apivotal
role in the country's food security and farmers' lively hood in Ethiopia. It is
extensively cultivated in many parts of Ethiopia (Fufa, etal., 2011). With yearly
main season acreage of 3.02 million ha and harvests of 5.283 million t (CSA,
2018), tef accounts for about 30% of the total acreage and 20% of the gross grain
production of all cereals grown in the country. Since tef is an excellently adapted
crop to the changing environments in the country, farmers face low risk of failure.
The nutritional status of tef grains is comparable to that of the other major world
cereals (Melak-Hail, 1966). The grain of tef is used as whole flour mostly for
processing “injera”, a staple food for the majority of Ethiopians. In addition to
traditional foods and beverages, tef grain is processed for gluten free markets, in
infant foods and various snack bars as whole grain supplement to the diet. On the
[49]
other hand, both the grains and straw fetch relatively high market prices in
comparison to other cereal crops (Kebebewet al., 2013). Tef straw (chid) is the
main source of feed for ruminants in various agro-ecologies of the country.
According to the agricultural sample survey 2017/18 provided by CSA (2018), at
the country level, about 6.772 million Ethiopian farmers household grown tef on
about 3.02 million ha (29.54 % of the total cereal crops area), while maize,
sorghum and wheat took up 18.53% (about 2.135 million ha), 18.53% (1.896
million ha) and 16.58% (1.697 million ha) of the cereal crops area, respectively.
As to production, tef made up 19.73% (5.283 million t) of the gross cereal grain
production next to maize (30.94% of cereals with 8.286 MT).
The average productivity of tef on smallholder farmers’ field is still low (1.75
t/ha) (CSA, 2018). So far, Debre Ziet Agricultural Research Center released about
26 tef varieties and recently three varieties, Filagot, Tesfa and Nigus, were
released in 2017 in 2019 two new varieties Ebba and Bora were released with on
station production of 2.3-3.2t/ha and 2.0-2.8 t/ha respectively (Table 1). Hence,
there was a huge yield gap to be bridged in production, productivity and income of
smallholder tef growers. Therefore, these improved varieties commands to be
communicated through farmers training center (FTC) based together with their
accompanying management packages so as to bring substantial improvement in
the productivity of smallholder tef growers. The objectives of the study were,
therefore, to create awareness on the availability and importance of the new tef
varieties and enhance institutional and functional linkages with key players
through joint actions and performances.
Methodology
Plant materials
Table 1. Description of varieties used for demonstration
Common variety name Year Seed color Grain yield(t)/ha Grain yield(t)/ha
name of release On-station On-farm
Ebba D-Cr-485 RIL18 2019 Very white 2.3-3.2 2.0-2.6
Tesfa DZ-Cr-457 RIL181 2017 White 2.3-3.0 2.1-2.7
Nigus DZ-Cr-429 RIL125 2017 Very white 2.4-3.3 2.1-2.6
Filagot DZ-Cr-442 RIL77C 2017 Brown 2.2-2.8 1.9-2.4
Research design and selection of farmers

Three districts and three target FTCs were selected in collaboration with the crop
production experts and development agents of the Bureaus of Agriculture of the
respective weredas or districts (Table 1). The criteria used to select target FTCs
include: willingness to provide the required plots and labor; representativeness for
the district and willingness of the experts to collaborate with researchers. The
[50]
plots and labor for all the activities like land preparation, planting, weeding
harvesting and trashing were given by farmer to conduct the demonstration trail.
Approaches
Plot size was 10m x 10m (100 m2) per variety at each location. Seeds were
provided to the participating FTCs at the rate of 10kg ha-1. Method demonstration
was used to demonstrate the improved tef varieties. Training on agronomic
practices (land preparation, sowing, weeding, harvesting and post-harvest
handling) were given for farmers and experts by experienced researchers from the
various disciplines/departments.
Farmers together with researchers and experts periodically evaluate the

performance of each variety during group visit. A field day was organized at
maturity stage of the crop for wider dissemination of the project impact to other
farmers and stakeholders. Participants of the field day were farmers, different
stakeholders, kebele administration officials, district bureau of agriculture and
natural resource and researchers.
Data collection and analysis

Grain yield per plots were measured in all of the target demonstration locations
and ranking matrix was used to compare the performance of the varieties in terms
of panicle length, tillering, grain color and marketability (Table 2). Both farmers
and experts from each of the three districts were participated in evaluating the
performance of the varieties. Data on performances of the varieties and feedbacks
from farmers and experts at different stage the crop were collected by researchers.
Numbers of trained farmers on the availability and importance of the technology
and their perception/opinion/feedbacks on improved tef varieties were recorded.
The number of farmers participated in training, field visits and field days were
also recorded.

Based on the grain yield per plots (100m2) Ebba ranked first rank at all locations
except Minjar-shenkora. The highest yielder variety at Minjar-Shenkora was
Nigus. The grain yield (kg/100 m2) of Nigus and Ebba was equal at Lume (Table
2). Even if farmers and experts had appreciated the performances of the Ebba and
Nigus varieties, the performance of Ebba variety was remarkable at all locations in
terms of some criteria like, panicle length, tillering and marketability (Table 2).
The performance of the evaluated varieties was good and encouraging at all
location in this 2019 budget year. In addition to the grain yield per 100m 2, ranking
matrix at maturity stage was used to compare the performance of the varieties and
to select the best varieties in the cropping season. Based on the grain yield per
[51]
plots (100 m2) Ebba ranked first at all location except Minjar. The highest yielder
variety at minjar was Nigus. The grain yield (kg/100m2) of Nigus and Ebba was
equal at lume (Table 2). Based on the ranking matrix by farmers and experts at
maturity stage, Ebba variety was the first in panicle length, tillering capacity and
marketability. The whitest variety among the evaluated varieties was Nigus and it
ranked second in panicle length, tillering capacity and marketability (Table 2). In
general, the performance of Nigus and Ebba was good in all the locations and they
were appreciated by both farmers and experts.
This study proved that pre-extension demonstration is a best way to popularize the
newly released tef varieties and to recommend the variety/ies suitable for the
respective test locations. The report by Gezahegn et al., (2006) also revealed that
agricultural demonstration is a best way for widespread the new technology and
increase adoption.
Table 2. Grain yield and matrix ranking (based on panicle length, tillering, grain color and marketability) of four improved
tef varieties demonstrated in three districts
Grain yield (kg/100m2)
No Woreda Area (m2) Tesfa Filagot Nigus Ebba
1 Minjar-shenkora 100 9 3.5 11 6
2 Ada 100 5 8 7 10
3 Lume 100 8 9 10 10
Matrix ranking of varieties performance at maturity stage
Panicle
No Districts Vatiety length Tillering Grain color Marketability
1 Ada Tesfa 3 3 3 3
Minjar-shenkora
2 Lume Filagot 4 4 4 4
3 Nigus 2 2 1 2
Ebba 1 1 2 1
A field day was organized at Lume, Adea and Minjar-Shenkorato visit the fields
of Ebba, Nigus, Tesfa and Filagot varieties and a total of 816 participants (760
male and 65 females) attended the event (Table 3). Participants were researchers,
seed producers (both private and community based), farmers from different
districts, experts from district and Zones and Oromia Bureau of Agricultural and
Natural Resources (BoANR). Ebba and Nigus were selected as best variety by
farmers and other stakeholders. The major lesson learnt from the event is that
participating different stakeholders in the evaluation the varieties can help for easy
acceptance and promotion of newly released varieties. All the demonstrations
were performed well at each of the locations and great awareness on the
availability and importance of the new tef varieties was created. A wider demand
pull was created by reaching large number of users over relatively wider
geographical area though demonstration and field day events.
[52]
Table 3. Field Day participant on tef variety evaluation
Districts Kebele Farmer Das Expert Youth Total

M F M F M F M F MF
Minjare Kobplich 600 7 1 3 10 5 0 0 626
Lume Tilit 56 9 1 2 5 2 0 0 75
Ada Gobessaa 65 15 0 1 0 0 22 12 115
Total 721 31 2 6 15 7 22 12 816
N.B: DAs=Development agents; M=Male; and F=Female; MF=Male-Female
Conclusions and Recommendation

This study demonstrated that improved tef varieties performed better than the
current varieties used by farmers. Working at FTC level is an excellent and
effective approach to enhance the promotion and acceptance of newly released tef
varieties and thereby increase the production and productivity of the crop. This is
because of the fact that the FTCs are mostly visited by all farmers during the field
days as well as during their own business. Working in collaboration with zonal
and district agriculture offices and seed producers showed interest for the
multiplication and supply of the new improved varieties. In addition, good
institutional linkage was developed between partners such as farmers, district and
zonal agriculture offices, seed producer companies and seed producing farmers’
cooperatives.
References
CSA. 2018.Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey for 2017/2018(2010
EC): Report on area and production of major crops. (Private peasant holding, Meher
season), Statistical bulletin, 586, April 2018, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Fufa B, Behute B, Simons R, and T. Berhe. 2011. “Strengthening the tef value chain in
Ethiopia.” Mimeo, Agricultural Transformation Agency (ATA), Addis Ababa.
Gezahegn A, Mekonnen B, Samia Z. 2006. Productivity and Efficiency of Agricultural
Extension Package in Ethiopia By The Ethiopian Development Research Institute (
EDRI ). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kebebew Assefa, Solomon Chanyalew and Zerihun Tadele. 2013. “Achievements and
Prospects of Tef Improvement” Proceedings of the Second International Workshop,
November 7-9, 2011, Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia.
Melak-Hail Mengesha. 1966. Chemical composition of tef as compared to that of wheat,
barley and grain sorghum, Economic Botany 20(3): 268-273.
[53]
Registration of the Newly Released Bread Wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) Variety “Dursa” for
Moisture Stress Areas of Ethiopia
Habtemariam Z1, Tafesse S1., Gadisa A1., Alemu D1., Dawit A1., Abebe D1., Rut D1.,
Bayisa A1., Demeke Z1., Abebe G1., and Negash G, 1 Zerihun T1., Bekele G2., Ayele B2.,
Agegnew M.3, and Mizan T.4
1
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Kulumsa, Asela; 2 CIMMYT/Addis Ababa, Ethiopia;
3
Sirinka Agricultural Research Center, Sirinka; 4 Mekele Agricultural Research Center, Mekele
Abstract
A variety verification trial for the two bread wheat candidate varieties (ETBW
9565 and ETBW9578) with two standard checks (Kakaba and Ogolocho) was
carried out during the cropping season of 2019/20 for low moisture areas of
wheat growing areas on research plots and farmers’ fields. The candidate
varieties were selected from multi-environmental trials carried out at Kulumsa,
Dhera, Melkasa, Asasa, Ilala and Garagara locations from 2017/18 to 2018/19
cropping seasons. The candidate varieties were selected based on higher grain
yield performance and diseases resistance (stem, leaf and yellow rust and
sepotoria). During 2019/20, the varieties were evaluated by the National Varity
Release Committee and one candidate variety (ETBW9578) was released for
commercial production in low moisture areas of Ethiopia due to its good
performance of agronomic and disease resistance traits. The variety is named as
“Dursa”. The nucleus seed and breeder seeds of the newly released variety is
maintained by the Kulumsa Agricultural research center.
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum Spp.) is the most widely grown crop in the world and provides
20% of the daily protein and of the food calories for 4.5 billion people. It is the
second most important food crop in the developing world after rice. In recent
years, wheat production levels have not met demand, triggering price instability
and hunger riots. With a predicted world population of 9 billion in 2050, the
demand for wheat is expected to increase by 60%. To meet this demand, annual
wheat yield increases must rise from the current level of below 1% to at least
1.6%. All countries share the need to increase wheat yield, tolerance to abiotic
stresses, pathogens and pests, as well as to improve input use efficiency for a more
sustainable wheat production. Improved agronomic practices and development of
innovative cropping systems are also a priority (GCARD, 2012). Wheat is
becoming an important food crop because of rapid population growth associated
with increased urbanization and change in food preference for easy and fast food
such as bread, biscuits, pasta, noodles and porridge; and in 2013, total wheat
[55]
consumption in SSA reached 25 million tons with import accounting for 17.5
million tons at a price of USD6 billion, while during the same period the region
produces only 7.3 million tons on a total area of 2.9 million hectares (Wuletawu et
al., 2018).
The average low productivity (2t/ha) in the SSA is principally because of abiotic
(drought and heat) and biotic (yellow rust, stem rust, septoria and fusarium)
stresses which are increasing in intensity and frequency associated with climate
change (Wuletawu et al., 2018). Furthermore, increased cost of production,
growing populations, increased rural urban migration, low public and private
investments, weak extension systems and policies, and low adoption rates of new
technologies remain to be major challenges for wheat production in SSA
(Wuletawu et al., 2018). Both domestic production and import—the two key
sources of wheat grain supply to the Ethiopian wheat value chain—have shown a
substantial increase since the mid-1990s; and yet, a steady increase in domestic
wheat consumption has resulted in rising wheat and wheat product prices over the
past two decades (Samuel et al., 2017).
The fast and continuous change in climate in SSA and Ethiopia, affects Ethiopian
agriculture and urge to develop site specific improved management practices
(water logging stresses, moisture stresses, low pH and etc.) for wheat in wheat
growing areas. Important varietal differences in relation to low moisture stress
exist among the bread wheat genotypes. In addition, there exists differences in
diseases resistance and yield potential differences in wheat germplasm. In
Ethiopia, the variation in productivity of wheat among the small holder farmers
during main season is wide. This is due to the differences in use of recommended
management packages, weather variations, and policy intervention (Mann and
warner, 2017). Therefore, development of variety resistant to low moisture stress
and diseases resistance with high yielding genotype is paramount important.
Hence, the experiment was conducted with the objective to verify the
performances of candidate varieties for the target environments and Release as
commercial varieties for the end user.

From 2017/18 to 2018/19 there was a multi-environment trial for bread wheat
national variety trial, early set and carried out at Kulumsa, Asasa, Dhera, Melkasa,
in 2017/18 and 2018/19 and in 2018/19 at Garagara, and Ilala. Based on the multi-
environment trials analyses two bread wheat (ETBW9578 and ETBW9565)
varieties with high yielding, disease resistant and adapted advanced genotypes
were selected for moisture stress areas and put under verification trial during
2019/20 cropping season at different locations and planted on 10 m x 10 m single
[56]
plots at respective research sites, and on at least two farmers' fields per each
research site. Two st. checks (Kingbird and Ogolcho) were included for
comparison. At maturity time, the National Variety release Committee comprising
different disciplines (breeder, pathologist and agronomist) together with farmers
evaluated the performance of the candidate varieties at research fields and on
farms.

The combined analysis of variance using AMMI model across environments are
presented in Table 1 and the individual location analysis was carried out for grain
yield and the means are presented in Table 2. For across location analysis for other
agronomic traits was carried out and the means are presented in Table 3. The
results showed that environment, genotype and environment x genotype
interactions were highly significant (P<0.01) and the summa of square for
environment was larger than the genotype and environment x genotype sum of
squares. This indicates that the test environments were highly variable. From the
interaction sum of squares the first two PCs accounted for 56% of the interaction
total variations. This triggers to work for stability analysis for the genotype x
environment interaction.
The Mean Potential Yield of the Environments and Genotypes

The mean potential yield of the environments and genotypes were presented in
Table 2. The results showed that the mean potential yield of the environment
ranged from 1.90 t/ha (Dhera 2018) to 7.40 t/ha (Kulumsa 2017 and KUlumsa
2018). The environment viz. Asasa-2017, Kulumsa-2017, Asasa-2018 and
Kulumsa-2018 were high potential or high yielding environments while Dhera-
2018 and Melkasa-2018 were low yielding environments. On the other hand,
Dhera-2017; Melkasa-2017, Garagara-2018 and Ilala-2018 were medium yielding
environments. The mean potential yield of the genotypes ranged from 3.50 t/ha
(ETBW9589) to 5.30 t/ha (ETBW9578). The second high yielder genotypes were
ETBW9565 (5.10t/ha), ETBW9571 (5.10 t/ha) and ETBW9576 (5.10 t/ha).
The GGE biplot analysis also confirmed that the two candidate varieties
(ETBW9578 and ETBW9565) outsmarted the other genotypes and the standard
checks. The ETBW 9578 best performed in the environment 7 while the ETBW
9565 performed in environments 9 (Figure 1). The ETBW 9578 has yield
advantage of 36% and 39% as compared to the st. checks Kingbird and Ogolcho,
respectively. It had bold seed size which is higher by 20 and 12 % as compared to
the st. check Kingbird and Ogolcho respectively.
[57]
Table 1. AMMI Analysis for bread wheat national variety trial, early set carried out from
2017/18 to 2018/19 in 10 environments.
Sources of Percent Cumulative

DF SS MS F PROBF
variation variation variation
ENV 9 3582.80 398.09 425.86 0.00 87.10 87.10
GEN 29 159.13 5.49 5.87 0.00 3.87 90.97
ENV*GEN 261 371.63 1.42 1.52 0.00 9.03 100.00
PC1 37 136.19 3.68 9.37 0.00 38.09 38.09
PC2 35 65.35 1.87 4.76 0.00 18.28 56.37
PC3 33 43.95 1.33 3.39 0.00 12.29 68.67
PC4 31 40.56 1.31 3.33 0.00 11.34 80.01
PC5 29 21.42 0.74 1.88 0.00 5.99 86.00
PC6 27 19.76 0.73 1.86 0.01 5.53 91.53
PC7 25 16.40 0.66 1.67 0.02 4.59 96.11
Residuals 596 557.13 0.94
Note: DF- Degrees of freedom; SS- Sum of square; MS- Mean sum of square
Verification of the Candidate Varieties

The candidate varieties (ETBW9578 and ETBW9565) were verified on farmers’
fields during 2019/20 targeting moisture stress areas. the farmers selected the
variety ETBW9578 for its high yielding, good agronomic performance, earliness
and diseases resistances (Table 4). The national variety release committee also
evaluated the candidate varieties and selected the same variety for release. Finally,
the national variety release committee has declared the release of the variety
ETBW 9578 (pedigree: NAVJ07/SHORTENED SR26
TRANSLOCATION/3/ATTILA/BAV92//PASTOR) for production.
[58]
Table 2. Mean grain yield (t/ha) for each location of bread wheat genotypes, early set from 2017/18 to 2018/18 cropping season
S/No Name ASA-17 DRA-17 KU-17 MA-17 ASA-18 DRA-18 GAR-18 ILA-18 KU-18 MA-18 Mean
1 ETBW 9562 5.6 3.7 6.4 2.4 5.5 2.0 3.4 4.2 6.6 1.2 4.1
2 ETBW 9563 5.0 3.9 6.5 3.3 5.9 2.3 3.4 4.7 7.3 1.8 4.4
3 ETBW 9564 7.1 4.2 8.9 2.4 3.3 1.3 3.5 4.6 6.9 2.0 4.4
4 ETBW 9565 7.5 4.7 8.4 3.1 6.7 2.4 3.5 3.3 8.4 2.8 5.1
5 ETBW 9566 7.1 3.5 8.4 4.8 6.6 2.7 2.9 3.2 7.9 2.3 4.9
6 ETBW 9567 6.8 3.5 6.6 4.1 4.8 1.9 3.5 3.0 5.9 1.6 4.2
7 ETBW 9568 6.8 3.0 8.5 4.0 7.2 2.5 3.4 3.1 8.1 2.6 4.9
8 ETBW 9569 7.7 3.4 7.5 4.2 4.5 2.1 3.7 3.9 7.5 1.6 4.6
9 ETBW 9570 7.7 4.6 7.9 5.3 5.2 1.9 3.2 4.0 7.5 2.2 5.0
10 ETBW 9571 8.2 3.8 7.7 4.5 6.4 2.2 3.4 4.0 8.7 2.3 5.1
11 ETBW 9572 5.5 5.3 7.2 4.0 5.2 2.7 2.4 3.2 6.9 2.2 4.5
12 ETBW 9573 7.7 4.6 8.1 3.3 5.8 2.0 3.8 4.1 8.8 1.3 5.0
13 ETBW 9574 6.1 4.1 7.6 3.9 6.2 2.1 2.9 2.6 7.5 2.6 4.6
14 ETBW 9575 7.9 4.7 7.6 3.8 5.9 1.4 3.8 3.0 7.6 1.7 4.7
15 ETBW 9576 7.8 4.2 6.9 4.5 7.2 2.3 3.3 4.7 7.3 2.8 5.1
16 ETBW 9577 6.7 3.3 7.3 3.0 7.1 1.3 3.2 2.9 7.9 2.0 4.5
17 ETBW 9578 7.2 4.4 8.8 4.0 7.0 2.1 2.9 4.4 9.5 2.6 5.3
18 ETBW 9579 7.5 4.7 7.7 3.5 6.0 1.5 3.1 4.4 7.5 1.8 4.8
19 ETBW 9580 5.4 3.6 6.4 3.3 5.7 1.9 3.0 4.1 6.3 1.4 4.1
20 ETBW 9581 6.9 3.8 7.7 4.1 6.6 2.3 3.5 3.4 8.4 1.9 4.9
21 ETBW 9582 7.2 4.3 6.9 4.6 7.1 1.9 3.3 2.8 7.9 1.6 4.8
22 ETBW 9583 5.7 4.5 7.7 3.1 5.8 2.1 2.9 3.1 7.5 1.5 4.4
23 ETBW 9584 5.3 5.7 7.2 4.0 6.6 2.2 2.1 3.6 7.0 1.9 4.6
24 ETBW 9585 7.2 4.5 7.3 2.7 6.8 2.0 3.1 4.1 7.5 2.2 4.7
25 ETBW 9586 7.2 3.1 7.4 2.3 6.6 1.5 2.7 4.3 7.6 3.3 4.6
26 ETBW 9587 6.2 4.2 8.0 2.6 5.9 1.7 3.0 4.4 8.3 2.4 4.7
27 ETBW 9588 6.0 2.8 7.6 1.8 6.0 1.4 3.0 3.9 6.3 1.7 4.1
28 ETBW 9589 3.9 2.3 6.5 2.8 4.8 1.1 2.8 4.1 5.5 1.3 3.5
29 Kingbird 4.9 3.8 6.4 2.5 4.7 1.7 3.3 3.5 6.3 1.4 3.9
30 Ogolcho 4.8 4.5 5.9 3.8 4.8 1.6 3.3 3.4 4.4 1.6 3.8
GRAND MEAN 6.6 4.0 7.4 3.5 5.9 1.9 3.2 3.7 7.4 2.0 4.6
CV (%) 8.81 15.37 5.95 23.87 9.52 23.73 15.78 27.12 7.21 32.40 20.48
LSD (5%) 1.02 1.15 0.79 1.52 0.98 0.84 0.82 1.74 0.93 1.08 1.49
[59]
Table 3. Mean grain yield (t/ha) and other agronomic traits across 10 environments of bread wheat genotypes, early set carried out from 2017/18 to 2018/19 cropping season
Entry Genotypes DH DM PHT (cm) TKW (g) HLW (hg/hl) GYD (t/ha)
1 ETBW 9562 58 105 83 31.1 69.2 4.1
2 ETBW 9563 57 105 81 31.8 68.6 4.4
3 ETBW 9564 59 106 88 31.3 69.9 4.4
4 ETBW 9565 60 107 83 34.9 70.4 5.1
5 ETBW 9566 59 105 84 31.2 72.7 4.9
6 ETBW 9567 61 105 87 31.2 70.5 4.2
7 ETBW 9568 58 105 84 33.0 70.3 4.9
8 ETBW 9569 65 109 90 27.9 69.0 4.6
9 ETBW 9570 58 106 88 37.5 69.2 5.0
10 ETBW 9571 59 106 86 35.6 70.4 5.1
11 ETBW 9572 60 106 83 31.7 71.8 4.5
12 ETBW 9573 59 107 85 33.9 69.5 5.0
13 ETBW 9574 61 106 84 32.4 70.0 4.6
14 ETBW 9575 58 104 83 31.0 71.5 4.7
15 ETBW 9576 57 105 87 32.6 70.6 5.1
16 ETBW 9577 59 105 82 30.5 71.5 4.5
17 ETBW 9578 59 106 84 33.5 70.9 5.3
18 ETBW 9579 58 105 86 35.7 71.2 4.8
19 ETBW 9580 59 108 82 33.0 71.9 4.1
20 ETBW 9581 62 107 80 34.3 70.4 4.9
21 ETBW 9582 60 107 84 31.4 71.7 4.8
22 ETBW 9583 63 108 78 31.3 68.2 4.4
23 ETBW 9584 63 108 83 31.1 70.8 4.6
24 ETBW 9585 58 105 82 34.6 71.7 4.7
25 ETBW 9586 60 106 82 31.3 72.0 4.6
26 ETBW 9587 61 107 83 32.2 69.1 4.7
27 ETBW 9588 61 107 81 30.0 70.3 4.1
28 ETBW 9589 58 102 80 34.0 67.7 3.5
29 Kingbird 59 106 80 27.9 67.9 3.9
30 Ogolcho 63 108 92 29.9 67.9 3.8
Mean 60 106 84 32.3 70.2 4.6
CV (%) 4.28 3.02 6.35 8.59 1.99 20.48
LSD (5 %) 2.22 2.40 3.53 2.15 1.50 1.49
[60]
Table 4. Mean disease reaction of the candidate varieties of bread wheat for low moisture areas.
Diseases ETBW 9565 ETBW 9578 Ogolcho (St. Cheek) Kakaba (Local. Check)
Stem rust (%+ reaction) 5MRMS 5MR 60S 60MSS
Yellow rust (%+reaction) 0 5MR 90S 50S
Leaf rust (%+ reaction) 0 0 0 0
Septoria (00-99) 0 0 71 55
Agronomic Descriptions of the Released Variety ‘Dursa’

The agronomic traits of the released variety are described in Table 5. The variety
is adapted to short growing cycles which it completes its maturity in 100 days
from date of planting. The new variety has bold seed size and medium plant height
which is not susceptible to lodging. Moreover, it is resistant to diseases (rusts and
septoria). The breeder seed is maintained by Kulumsa Agricultural Research
Center.
Table 5. Agronomic descriptions of the released bread wheat variety “Dursa”
S/No Agronomic traits Descriptions

1 Genotype name ETBW 9578
2 Pedigree name NAVJ07/SHORTENED SR26
TRANSLOCATION/3/ATTILA/BAV92//PASTOR
3 Common name Dursa
4 Days to heading 59
5 Days to maturity 100
7 1000 seed weight (g) 34
8 Hectoliter weight (kg/hl) 71
9 Seed color white
10 Adaption areas Lowland to midland
11 Altitude (masl) 1600-2100
12 Annual rainfall (mm) 500-800
13 Seeding rate (kg/ha) 125
14 Average Productivity (t/ha)
On research field 5.1 – 6.2
On farmers’ fields 4.2 – 6.1
15 Yield advantage compared to the standard check (%) 30
16 Reactions to rusts and septoria Resistant
[61]
Figure 1. GGE Biplot analysis for the first PCs of the grain yield from bread wheat national variety trial, early set

The variety EBW9578 (Dursa) can be grown from lowland to midland (1600 –
2100 m), with rainfall amount receiving 500-800 mm annually with all
recommended fertilizer and managements as per the respective site for wheat
production.
References
GCARD. 2012. Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for
Development, 29 Oct. - 01 Nov. 2012, Punta Este, Uruguay.
[62]
Manna, Michael L., and Warner, James M. 2017. Ethiopian wheat yield and yield
gap estimation: A spatially explicit small area integrated data approach,
Field Crops Research, 60–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.014.
Samuel G/selassie, Mekbib G. Haile, Matthias Kalkuhl. 2017 Wheat Sector in
Ethiopia: Current Status and Key Challenges for Future Value Chain
Development. Working Paper 160. Center for Development Research,
University of Bonn.
Wuletaw Tadesse, Zewdie Bishaw and Solomon Assefa. 2018. Wheat production
and breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities in the
face of climate change, International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, 11 (5): 696-715, DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-02-
2018-0015.
[63]
[64]
Registration of the Newly Released Bread wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) Variety ‘Boru’ for Optimum
Moisture Areas of Ethiopia
Habtemariam Z1, Tafesse S1., Gadisa A1., Alemu D1., Dawit A1., Abebe D1., Rut D1.,
Bayisa A1., Demeke Z1., Abebe G1., and Negash G1., Zerihun T1., Bekele G2., Ayele B. 2,
Mathiwos A.3, Mekuria T4., Endeshaw G5., Cherinet A6., and Geleta G7
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Kulumsa, Asela; 2
CIMMYT-Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 3 Areka Agricultural Research Center, Areka, 4 D/Zeit Agricultural
Research Center, D/Zeit; 5 Adet Agricultural Research Center, Adet; 7 Bako Research Center, Bako
Abstract
A multi-environment trials were carried out in different locations of optimum
moisture areas from 2017/18 to 2018/19. Based on the performance of the
genotypes two candidate varieties were selected for their high yield and diseases
resistant. In continuation of this a variety verification trial for the two bread wheat
candidate varieties (ETBW 9553 and ETBW 9554) with two st. checks (Wane and
Hidase) was carried out during the cropping season of 2019/20 in optimum
moisture areas of Ethiopia. During 2019/20, the varieties were evaluated by the
National Varity Release Committee and farmers one candidate variety (ETBW
9554) was selected and released for commercial production in optimum moisture
areas of Ethiopia. The variety is named as “Boru”. The name was derived from
the locality where its performance was superior. Boru is recommended for its
higher yield and diseases resistance with good agronomic traits and can be
produced in areas from midland to highland areas (2100 – 2700 m) with rainfall
amount greater than 800mm annually. All other management practices can be
applied to Boru for production as per the specific location recommendation for
wheat. The nucleus seed and breeder seeds of this variety is maintained by the
Kulumsa Agricultural research center.
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum Spp.) is the most widely grown crop in the world and provides
20% of the daily protein and of the food calories for 4.5 billion people. It is the
second most important food crop in the developing world after rice. In recent
years, wheat production levels have not met demand, triggering price instability
and hunger riots. With a predicted world population of 9 billion in 2050, the
demand for wheat is expected to increase by 60%. To meet this demand, annual
wheat yield increases must rise from the current level of below 1% to at least
1.6%. All countries share the need to increase wheat yield, tolerance to abiotic
stresses, pathogens and pests, as well as to improve input use efficiency for a more
sustainable wheat production. Improved agronomic practices and development of
innovative cropping systems are also a priority (GCARD, 2012). Wheat are
becoming an important food crop because of rapid population growth associated
[65]
with increased urbanization and change in food preference for easy and fast food
such as bread, biscuits, pasta, noodles and porridge; and in 2013, total wheat
consumption in SSA reached 25 million tons with import accounting for 17.5
million tons at a price of USD 6 billion, while during the same period the region
produces only 7.3 million tons on a total area of 2.9 million hectares (Wuletawu et
al., 2018).
The average low productivity (2.0 t/ha) in the SSA is principally because of
abiotic (drought and heat) and biotic (yellow rust, stem rust, septoria and
fusarium) stresses which are increasing in intensity and frequency associated with
climate change (Wuletawu et al., 2018). Furthermore, increased cost of
production, growing populations, increased rural urban migration, low public and
private investments, weak extension systems and policies, and low adoption rates
of new technologies remain to be major challenges for wheat production in SSA
(Wuletawu et al., 2018). Both domestic production and import—the two key
sources of wheat grain supply to the Ethiopian wheat value chain—have shown a
substantial increase since the mid-1990s; and yet, a steady increase in domestic
wheat consumption has resulted in rising wheat and wheat product prices over the
past two decades (Samuel et al., 2017).
The fast and continuous change in climate in SSA and Ethiopia, affects Ethiopian
agriculture and urge to develop site specific improved management practices
(water logging stresses, moisture stresses, low pH and etc.) for wheat in wheat
growing areas. Important varietal differences in relation to Al tolerance exist in
rice, corn, wheat, beans, and soybeans; and the integrated use of all the available
resources including acid tolerant crops and crop species, which improve and
sustain soil and agricultural productivity, is of great practical significance
(Getachew et al., 2019). In Ethiopia, the variation in productivity of wheat among
the small holder farmers during main season is wide. This is due to the differences
in use of recommended management packages, weather variations, and policy
intervention (Mann and warner, 2017). Therefore, the activity was imitated to
verify the performances of candidate varieties for the target environments and
release as commercial varieties for production.

A multi-environment trials for bread wheat national variety trial, late set was
carried out at Kulumsa, Bekoji, Asasa, Arsi Robe, Enewari, Areka, Aweligera,
D/Zeit, Holeta, Adet, and Shambu from 2017/18 to 2018/19. Based on the multi-
environment trials analyses two high yielding, disease resistant and adapted
advanced genotypes (ETBW9553 and ETBW9554) were selected for optimum
moisture areas and put under verification trial during 2019/20 cropping season at
[66]
different locations and planted on 10 m x 10 m single plots at respective research
sites, and on at least two farmers' fields. Two st. checks (Wane and Hidase) were
included for comparison. Finally, the national variety release committee and the
farmers were invited for evaluation.
Analysis of Variance
From multi-environmental trials, combined analysis of variance and individual
location analysis for multi-environments was carried out for grain yield and for
other agronomic traits. The results indicated that Environment, Genotype, and G X
E interaction was highly significant for grain yield and the environmental
component of variation was larger than the other two components. This indicates,
the environments were diverse in terms of locations and years. Both years and
locations contributed to the environmental variations. In addition, the first two
interaction components contributed about 45 % of the total variation of the
interaction component (Table 1).
Mean Grain Yield Performance of the Varieties Across

Environment and Years
The mean yield performance of the genotypes across years indicated that it was
ranged from 2912 kg/ha (for Arsi Robe-2017) to 7607 kg/ha (Kulumsa-2017)
(Table 2). The environments viz. Debre Zeit_2017, Asasa-2017, Kulumsa-2017
and Kulumsa-2018 were high yielding environments while Arsi Robe-2017,
Bekoji-2017, Areka-2018, Areka-2017, Arsi Robe-2018, Enewari-2018, Bekoji-
2018 and Shambu-2018 were low yielding environments and the others
Table 1. AMMI Analysis of the multi-environment trials of bread wheat National variety Trials from 2017/18 to 2018/19
cropping season
Sources of DF MS Fcal Prob % Proportion Cumulative
variation variance
ENV 17 209152639.01 163.95 0.00 72.00 72.00
GEN 29 8568297.07 6.72 0.00 5.03 77.03
ENV*GEN 493 2301330.40 1.80 0.00 22.97 100.00
PC1 45 6079072.63 6.50 0.00 25.31 25.31
PC2 43 4856508.08 5.19 0.00 19.32 44.63
PC3 41 3563567.75 3.81 0.00 13.52 58.15
PC4 39 2933528.59 3.13 0.00 10.58 68.73
PC5 37 2737018.85 2.92 0.00 9.37 78.10
PC6 35 1491010.09 1.59 0.02 4.83 82.93
PC7 33 1475207.53 1.58 0.02 4.50 87.43
Residuals 1065 1275714.75
Note:- ENV- Environment; GEN- Genotype; DF- Degrees of freedom; MS- Mean sum of square;
Fcal- F calculated.
[67]
were medium yielding environments. The mean grain yield of genotypes across 18
environments ranged from 3659 kg/ha (ETBW8804) to 5342 (ETBW8751) and
the high yielding genotypes were ETBW 9553 (5110 kg/ha), ETBW9554 (52225
kg/ha) and ETBW8751 (5342 kg/ha). The mean yield averaged over all
environments for all genotypes was 4710 kg/ha. The average value over 18
environments for other agronomic traits were presented in Table 3. The average
maturity days for the genotypes ranged from 123 days (ETBW8751) to 131 days
(ETBW9553). Plant height ranged from 80 cm (ETBW8804) to 100 cm
(ETBW8862). TKW ranged from 33 g (ETBW8802) to 43 g (ETBW9547) while
hectoliter weight ranged from 70 kg/hl (ETBW9557) to 75 kg/hl (ETBW8668).
The results showed that the two genotypes viz. ETBW 9553 and ETBW 9554
were found to be the most outstanding and diseases tolerant / resistant candidate
varieties (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4). The GGE biplot analysis also confirmed that the
two candidate varieties outsmarted the other genotypes and the standard checks.
The ETBW 9554 and ETBW 9553 best performed in 7 environments out of the 18
environments (Fig. 1 and 2). The candidate variety (ETBW9554) had yield
advantage of 9% and 14% as compared to the st. checks wane and Hidase,
respectively while ETBW 9553 had 6 % and 12 yield advantage over Wane and
Hidase respectively. ETBW 9554 has bold seed size which is higher by 11 and 12
% as compared to the standard check Wane and Hidase respectively.
[68]
Table 2. Mean grain yield (Kg/ha) performance of 28 bread wheat genotypes (Late Set) and 2 checks tested in 2017/18 and 2018/19 cropping season in 18 environments
Entry Name ARK-17 ARO-17 ASA-17 AWG-17 BEK-17 DZ-17 ENA-17 KU-17 ADT-18 ARK-18 ARO-18 ASA-18 AWG-18 BEK-18 HO-18 ENA-18 KU-18 SHA-18 Mean
1 ETBW 8583 2763 3269 7088 5927 3705 5052 3571 6640 5360 2948 3163 6549 4213 3973 5335 3650 7573 4613 4744
2 ETBW 8595 3048 3130 6529 6955 3578 6351 3421 8237 5599 2636 5347 5070 7130 4353 4901 4385 7352 3915 5108
3 ETBW 8668 3019 3539 6953 6080 3922 5721 3597 8236 5493 2821 5870 4667 5673 5385 5391 4035 7748 4922 5171
4 ETBW 8684 2741 3034 6107 5898 3055 5428 3421 8133 4260 2392 4860 4224 4545 4569 4842 3473 8788 4523 4683
5 ETBW 8751 3868 3606 7295 6510 3653 6240 3712 7505 5395 2852 4400 6889 5725 3706 6485 3845 8824 5643 5342
6 ETBW 8802 3045 3222 5368 6590 3447 4470 3101 5697 5172 3435 3142 4695 5215 4206 4465 3030 6842 5332 4471
7 ETBW 8804 2900 2159 5039 5083 2068 3915 2918 5554 4209 2953 1165 4121 3508 4327 2810 4050 6802 2273 3659
8 ETBW 8858 4084 2473 6403 7208 3395 4805 2942 8039 4708 2763 4470 5165 6208 3225 5908 3398 8492 5127 4934
9 ETBW 8862 2815 3138 7013 6815 2700 5822 3382 8555 5900 3744 5257 3915 4510 3945 5922 3916 8655 3193 4955
10 ETBW 8870 3509 2696 7457 6985 2964 6260 3251 8264 5142 3426 4255 4819 5830 3743 5312 3769 8083 4227 5000
11 ETBW 8991 3160 2532 6955 8208 3678 6311 4150 7210 5317 2648 5127 6036 6160 3966 5592 4613 7535 4385 5199
12 ETBW 8996 2667 3053 6788 6798 3402 6189 3637 6713 4645 2786 5488 6458 5898 5807 5974 4017 6922 5280 5140
13 ETBW 9486 2512 2469 6716 5855 1798 6120 3301 8053 3797 2581 3650 4824 5250 4115 4818 4036 7910 2867 4482
14 ETBW 9547 3180 2458 6495 5383 3331 4047 3382 7733 4843 2300 4062 5903 4878 3860 4737 4080 7831 3972 4582
15 ETBW 9548 2961 2304 7089 5995 2805 6444 2880 7952 4421 2688 2927 7477 4830 3124 5156 2894 6806 3377 4563
16 ETBW 9549 3249 2609 5721 5330 2550 7022 3142 7322 4329 2769 1960 5635 3350 4024 3733 3445 6784 4275 4292
17 ETBW 9550 2958 2481 6118 5897 2321 6150 2683 7224 3768 3145 1457 4568 3213 3624 4639 3517 7492 3288 4141
18 ETBW 9551 3116 2574 4716 7385 1113 6314 2751 7742 5462 3404 3070 4590 5128 1826 5365 3200 6643 3850 4347
19 ETBW 9552 3282 2207 5925 5210 1230 5815 2157 7372 4252 2436 2125 5933 4090 2196 3200 2974 6409 4387 3956
20 ETBW 9553 3133 2731 7397 5755 3205 4366 3179 7722 4582 2883 4135 5814 7183 3797 6995 3877 7963 7255 5110
21 ETBW 9554 3411 3191 6211 7807 2621 4911 3750 8152 5922 3395 4552 5233 5963 3851 6392 4073 7798 6813 5225
22 ETBW 9555 3074 3071 5572 6598 2324 5520 3016 7523 4244 3273 3080 4271 5325 3199 3364 3612 6630 3042 4263
23 ETBW 9556 3585 2658 7453 7332 2959 5684 3392 8594 4329 2993 4513 5019 5373 3541 4022 3835 6838 3483 4756
24 ETBW 9557 3218 3937 6871 8527 3985 5546 4164 8419 4748 3437 2413 3246 4635 5169 3916 4211 7132 4563 4897
25 ETBW 9558 3474 2850 6373 7342 2242 5666 3618 8052 5500 3190 4707 5650 5598 3194 5054 3888 8052 4210 4926
26 ETBW 9559 2901 2930 7332 7193 4011 4300 3268 8474 4984 2733 1010 3260 5730 4120 5526 3403 6377 4900 4581
27 ETBW 9560 3106 4606 6996 7335 3048 5301 3545 6469 4503 3936 4643 3804 4340 4321 4132 4109 7717 3855 4765
28 ETBW 9561 2876 3009 6960 6075 4043 3982 3139 7849 4526 3263 2943 4338 4445 3996 5061 3987 7780 5113 4633
29 Hidasse 2690 2607 6877 7375 2648 5695 3834 7939 5059 3052 1107 765 6885 3461 6735 4457 3794 7420 4578
30 Wane 2667 2808 7378 5697 2806 4752 3730 6833 4856 3434 6545 4437 5728 3722 4967 3609 7999 4293 4792
Grand mean 3100 2912 6573 6572 2954 5473 3334 7607 4844 3011 3715 4913 5219 3878 5025 3780 7386 4480 4710
CV% 81 16 9 12 10 11 10 7 7 15 31 29 24 13 12 9 8 25 18.44
LSD (5%) 4536 828 973 1348 522 1054 587 875 624 801 2102 2345 2205 933 1039 590 962 1982 328.04
Where, ARK-17 = Areka-2017; ARO-17 = Arsi Robe 2017; ASA-17 = Asasa 2017; AWG-17 = Aweli Gera 207; BEK-17 = Bekoje-2017; ENA-17 = Enewari 2017; DZ-17 = Debrezeyit
2017; KU-17 = Kulumsa 2017; ADT-17 = Adet 2017; HO-18 = Holetta 2018; SHA-18 = Shambu 2018. Data analysis is based on 18 environments.
[69]
Table 3. Mean grain yield and other agronomic traits of the bread wheat genotypes across environments tested during 2017/18 and 2018/19 cropping seasons
Entry Genotype DH DM PHT (cm) TKW (g) HLW (hg/hl) YLD (kg/ha)
1 ETBW 8583 68 127 89 38.7 73.4 4744
2 ETBW 8595 65 126 95 42.8 74.3 5108
3 ETBW 8668 65 125 95 43.3 74.8 5171
4 ETBW 8684 64 125 90 40.5 74.1 4683
5 ETBW 8751 65 123 89 39.6 73.2 5342
6 ETBW 8802 68 129 90 33.0 71.8 4471
7 ETBW 8804 65 123 80 34.0 72.1 3659
8 ETBW 8858 67 124 91 39.3 73.1 4934
9 ETBW 8862 69 127 100 40.2 73.8 4955
10 ETBW 8870 67 126 94 37.9 72.8 5000
11 ETBW 8991 65 123 85 37.4 72.7 5199
12 ETBW 8996 64 124 93 39.8 73.4 5140
13 ETBW 9486 66 123 87 41.1 73.8 4482
14 ETBW 9547 72 128 87 43.4 73.4 4582
15 ETBW 9548 72 128 87 40.0 73.4 4563
16 ETBW 9549 70 129 88 39.2 73.1 4292
17 ETBW 9550 68 126 85 36.5 73.9 4141
18 ETBW 9551 67 127 87 38.7 71.5 4347
19 ETBW 9552 69 128 89 42.7 72.7 3956
20 ETBW 9553 74 131 92 40.4 72.3 5110
21 ETBW 9554 70 128 94 42.7 71.4 5225
22 ETBW 9555 67 127 88 36.9 71.6 4263
23 ETBW 9556 68 125 91 39.8 73.5 4756
24 ETBW 9557 68 126 90 37.3 69.7 4897
25 ETBW 9558 67 126 91 40.5 73.9 4926
26 ETBW 9559 69 126 92 40.2 72.6 4581
27 ETBW 9560 66 125 89 37.8 72.0 4765
28 ETBW 9561 72 130 90 39.8 74.4 4633
29 Hidasse 66 124 92 38.1 70.8 4578
30 Wane 66 123 89 38.3 71.2 4792
Grand mean 68 126 90 39.3 72.8 4710
CV (%) 4.05 2.81 4.79 7.07 1.90 18.44
LSD (5 %) 4.45 2.57 7.33 2.56 2.16 328.04
Note: DH=Days to heading; DM=Days to maturity; PHT=Plant height(cm); TKW=Thousand kernel weight(g); HLW=Hectoliter weight; YLD=Grain Yield(kg/ha)
[70]
The national variety release committee and the farmers have evaluated the
performance of the two candidate varieties and they have confirmed the
superiority of the candidate variety (ETBW9554) as compared to the st. checks
(Wane and Hidase) and another candidate variety (ETBW9553). Finally, the
committee has decided and declared the release of the variety ETBW9554 for
production. The variety is named “Boru” as the common name. Its name was
derived from the locality during on-farm trials where the candidate variety has
showed high potential. Boru has yield advantage of about 14% and 9% as
compared to the st. check Hidase and Wane, respectively. The variety has bold
seed size and good hectoliter weight and its maturity is a little bit late as compared
to the two st. checks. It has medium plant height and comparable with st. checks.
The breeder seed is maintained by Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center. The
description of the agronomic traits for the variety is presented in Table 5.
Table 4. Mean disease reaction for the candidate varieties of the bread wheat genotypes for high moisture areas of
Ethiopia
Diseases/insects and Wane Hidassie
ETBW 9554 ETBW 9553
other hazards (Standard Cheek) (Local Check)
Stem rust (%+ reaction) 5MR TR 10MS 80S
Yellow rust (%+reaction) 5R TMR 5MS 60SMS
Leaf rust (%+ reaction) 0 0 0 0
Septoria (00-99) 21 32 12 56
NB: MR=Moderately Resistant; MSS=Moderately Resistant; R=Resistant; MR=Moderately resistant
Table 5. Agronomic description of the new Bread wheat variety “Boru”

S/No Agronomic traits Description
1 Genotype name ETBW9554
2 Pedigree name SAUAL/MUTUS/6/CNO79//PF70354/MUS/3/
PASTOR/4/BAV92*2/5/FH6-1-
7/7/CNO79//PF70354/MUS/3/PASTOR/4/BA
V92*2/5/FH6-1-7)
3 Common name Boru
4 Days to heading 70
5 Days to maturity 128
7 1000 seed weight (g) 43
8 Hectoliter weight (kg/hl) 71
9 Seed color white
10 Adaption areas midland to highland
11 Altitude (masl) 1900-2780
12 Annual rainfall (mm) 700-1100
13 Seeding rate (kg/ha) 125-150
14 Average Productivity (t/ha)
On research fields 5.2 - 7.0
On farmers’ fields 4.9- 5.30
15 Yield advantage compared to standard 20
check (%)
16 Reactions to rusts and septoria Resistant
[71]
Figure 1. Biplot analysis for the grain yield (kg/ha) VS PCA1 carried out in 18 environment for the bread wheat
national variety trials, late set during 2017/18 and 2018/9 (the red colour represents the environment while the
blue color represents the genotypes).
Figure 2. GGE Biplot analysis of the grain yield (kg/ha) for PCA1 and PCA2 carried out in 18 environments for the bread
wheat national variety trials, late set during 2017/18 and 2018/9 (the blue colour represents the environmen
while the green color represents the genotypes).
[72]
The variety is adapted to optimum moisture areas of Ethiopia and recommended
for production in areas receiving rainfall amount of greater than 800 mm annually;
with altitude ranging from 2100 – 2700 mm. All other agronomic and
management recommendation per specific site can be used for the production of
the variety.
References
Getachew Agegnehu, Chilot Yirga , and Teklu Erkossa. 2019. Soil Acidity Management.
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
GCARD. 2012. Second Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development, 29
Oct. - 01 Nov. 2012, Punta Este, Uruguay.
Manna, Michael L, and Warner James M. 2017. Ethiopian wheat yield and yield gap
estimation: A spatially explicit small area integrated data approach, Field Crops
Research, 60–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.014.
Samuel G/selassie, Mekbib G. Haile, Matthias Kalkuhl. 2017. Wheat Sector in Ethiopia:
Current Status and Key Challenges for Future Value Chain Development. Working
Paper 160. Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.
Wuletaw Tadesse, Zewdie Bishaw and Solomon Assefa. 2018. Wheat production and
breeding in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges and opportunities in the face of climate
change, International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 11
(5): 696-715, DOI 10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2018-0015.
[73]
[74]
Stability Analysis for Quality Traits in Durum
Wheat (Triticum durum Desf) Varieties under
East Shewa, Ethiopia
1Mekuria Temtme, Tewodros Lulseged, Werknesh Batu,
Wasihun Legesse and Yewubdar Shewaye
1
EIAR-Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia;
E-mail. mektem22@gmail.com
Abstract
The present study was carried out to study stability performance over three
locations for quality traits in 12 genotypes (9 exotic and 3 indigenous) of durum
wheat using a randomized complete block design with three replications during
2018 and 2019. Ethiopian durum wheat varieties were studied for their
agronomic performance and quality traits including Grain yield, TKW, Hecto-
litter weight, yellow pigment content, flour protein, wet and dry gluten, and SDS
sedimentation test. Some stability parameters were used to express stable
genotypes in relation to five quality traits. Some genotypes were stable for one
quality trait and unstable for others, indicating that the genetic factors involved
in g-e interactions vary between studied quality characteristics. The study of
genotypic stability showed that the recently released variety “Utuba” had high
stability for all quality traits considered and proved to be the best among
studied genotypes.
Introduction
There are two types of wheat grown in Ethiopia: bread wheat (Triticum aestivum)
and durum wheat (Triticum durum). Triticum durum is believed to be originated
thousands of years ago from hybridization between the wild diploid T.
monococcum L. subsp. Farmers grow many local varieties of durum wheat
(Triticum turgidum ssp. durum) because of both a natural evolution and farmers’
domestication. Durum wheat quality traits follow a dynamic concept of stability,
meaning that performance may change from environment to environment but in a
predictable way (Becker and Leon 1988). According to this concept, genotypes
with a small contribution to the genotype by environment variance (G × E) are
more stable than genotypes with a larger contribution. Genotypes, environments,
and their interaction are known to have an influence on the quality traits of wheat
grain. Inconsistent genotypic responses to environmental factors such as
temperature, soil moisture, soil type, or fertility level from location to location and
year to year are a function of genotype x environment (GE) interactions. Genotype
x environment interactions have been defined as the failure of genotypes to
achieve the same relative performance in different environments (Baker,
1988). Farmers are capable of meeting requirements concerning the production of
[75]
high-quality wheat grains. However, the annual and local variation in both grain
yield and quality can be considerable. The industries, however, demands a
constant quality of the raw material. Letta et al. (2008) also indicated the stability
of a quality of the raw material, designated as economic stability, guarantees
constant procedures, and low product loss during processing. Hence, economic
instability, as defined by the end-users, is caused by both environment and
genotype-environment (g x e) interaction effects.
Several stability measures have been developed to assess the stability and
adaptability of varieties. The most widely used is regression slope value and
deviation from regression (S2d) (Eberhart and Russell, 1996) and environmental
variance, to multivariate methods (Purchase et al. (2000)) developed the AMMI
(The additive main effects and multiplicative interaction).
Durum wheat is an indigenous crop in Ethiopia and its use is increasingly growing
with the current emerging pasta factories. To date, little information is available
about stability for quality traits. Hence the objective of this study was to highlight
the stability of durum wheat cultivars quality traits
Experimental materials
The experimental materials consist of twelve genotypes introduced from
ICARDA, CIMMYT and local cultivars were evaluated during two cropping
seasons (2018–2019) at three research sites.
Table 1. Durum wheat cultivars included in the study.

Selection Pedigree
Code *Origin
history
G1 Utuba ICARDA (=Icajihan42)Omruf1/Stojocri2/3/1718/BeadWheat24//Karimï¿½
G2 Ude CIMMYT CHEN/ALTAR-84//JORI
G3 Selam CIMMYT 4/B//R-9096-21001(980-SN-PATHO)
G4 Bekalcha ICARDA 980SN Gedirfa/Gwerou
G5 LDRC 167 Ethiopia Landrace
1346/LAHN//BICRE/LOUKOS-4MEX/CRANE//FLAMINGO/3/HUIT[2837][3589];
G6 Quamy CIMMYT
TEZONTLE/YAVAROS-79//HUITLE/3/ALTAR-84
1346/LAHN//BICRE/LOUKOS-4MEX/CRANE//FLAMINGO/3/HUIT[2837][3589];
G7 Werer ICARDA/EIAR
TEZONTLE/YAVAROS-79//HUITLE/3/ALTAR-84
CHORLITO/YAVAROS//FREE-GALLIPOLI/3/FREE-GALLIPOLI/CANADIAN-
G8 Asassa CIMMYT
RED/4/FREE-GALLIPOLI/DON-PEDRO/5/HUITLE
G9 Mangudo ICARDA/EIAR MRF1/STJ2|/3/1718/BT//KARIM,TUN
G10 ICAJIHAN2 ICARDA/EIAR Landrace
G11 LDR164 Ethiopia Landrace
G12 LDR302 Ethiopia Landrace
CIMMYT = International Centre for Wheat and Maize Improvement; ICARDA = International Center for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas.
[76]
Experimental Set up
The genotypes were grown in a randomized complete block design with four
replications at each site. Plot size was 3m2, 6 rows with 2.5 m long, and 1.2 cm
between rows. Where 4 rows harvested to estimate grain per plot and then
converted to kg ha−1. At harvest, grain yield was determined for each genotype at
each environment and subjected to statistical analyses. The seed was drilled by
hand at seed rate of 125 kg/ ha which is equivalent of 45gm/3m2 and planting
depth was ~5cm. Planting carried out at appropriate planting time for each
location and fertilizer applied according to the specific recommendation (250kg/ha
of Urea and 200kg/ha of NPS (Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Sulfur) of each
location.
Description of Experimental Sites and Methodologies

The experiment conducted in three locations namely; Debrezeit, Chefe Donsa, and
Akaki, representing different wheat growing agro- ecologies of Ethiopia.
Locations are representing the high land zone (1800-3000 Meters above sea level)
and are received high rainfall (>750-1300mm) and drained to poorly drained black
(vertisol) soils.
The following parameters are determined: 1000 kernel weight, Hecto-litter weight,
yellow pigment content, wet and dry gluten and SDS sedimentation test. This
quality parameters were analyzed as per ICC standard method (ICC, 1995). Flour
protein was analyzed by previously calibrated NIR. Grain and biomass yield were
measured
Statistical Procedures
Combined analysis of variance on quality traits data from trials in six
environments computed by ANOVA. The tests for quality evaluation performed
on samples taken from replicated plots. Five stability parameters were applied to
assess stability performance of genotypes and to identify superior genotypes; bi,
the linear regression of the phenotypic values on environmental index (Finlay and
Wilkinson, 1963), S2d, the deviation mean square from regression (Eberhart and
Russell, 1966), the stability variance d2i (Shukla, 1972), Wi, the ecovalence
stability index (Wricke, 1964), and coefficient of determination(R2). All analysis
were performed using the statistical package GEA-R and META R
Table 2. Description of experimental sites

Temperature(0C) Annual Rain Altitude (m) Latitude Longitude
Site
(Two years average) fall (average)
Min Average Max
Akaki 8.3 16 25.2 1025 2280 8.9 38.76.
Debre Zeit 11.8 22.4 27.7 867.3 1860 8.71 38.95
Chefe donsa 9 19 28 1200 2460 8.97 39.12
[77]
Results and Discussions
The first aim of the present study was to assess the quality trait stability and
adaptability of durum wheat genotypes. A random sample of each harvested plot
of genotypes was used for laboratory analysis. The analysis of variance revealed
that the mean for genotypes and year were significant for all studied traits.
Stability analysis of seed yield in deferent environments showed that the variance
of genotypes and genotypes × environment interactions and mean squares of
deviations from the regression were significant at a 5% probability.
Based on genotypic stability, varieties such as Utuba, Selam, Mangudo, and

ICAJIHAN2 demonstrated high stability for the majority of quality traits. Based
on Eberhart and Russell (1966) a stable cultivar had a regression coefficient equal
to or near the unity (one) and low or near the zero deviation from regression mean
square. There was no genotype with b-values equal to1. Similarly, some genotypes
had a high deviation from regression and minimal for others (supplementary table
3). Moreover, Letta et al., 2008 suggested that the genetic factors involved in g-e
interaction differed between traits. Widely adapted Variety “Utuba”, released in
2015, revealed high stability for all of the quality traits except for protein content,
SDS and WGC. Other genotypes showed high stability for one trait and unstable
for another trait. Local landraces “LRC302” and “LRC164” showed instability for
the majority of quality traits except for HLW and protein content. However,
besides instability, these landraces recommended being good crossing parent for
future durum wheat national program because of having important resistant genes
such as for stem rust, yellow rust, and fusarium head blight and agronomic traits
such as, long coleoptile, early maturity, and high protein content. Porcecldu and
Perino, 1973; Pacetti et al., 1992 also showed that landraces are adapted to low
fertility, high 1000 seed weight, and protein content.
Utuba, popular, and widely adapted variety, especially in mid and highlands of central
Ethiopia, demonstrated high stability for yield and quality. This variety was “released as
Ethiopian durum wheat variety in 2015 (MoA, 2016) by Debrezeit Agricultural Research
Center. Utuba is amber seeded, high protein content, and high yielding potential variety.
The basic durum wheat quality criteria include high yield, high protein and yellow
pigment content, strong gluten, and good pasta cooking quality (Mohammed et al.,
2011and Bushuk 1998; Troccoli et al. 2000). The authors also emphasized that protein
content and type in the grain of durum wheat are important for human nutrition and well-
known quality criteria for pasta products. In addition, high protein determines premium
prices for wheat in many regions of the world, making high grain protein content a
primary target for durum wheat (Mohammed et al., 2011). All studied genotypes have got
high records in terms of protein content (ranged from 14.5%-18.37%).
[78]
Table 3. Stability parameters for selected quality traits over twelve durum wheat genotypes
Dry Gluten content (DGC)

Eberhart & Russell Wricke's Ecovalence
Genotype name bi S2di R2 DJi Wi
Utuba 0.12 3.89 0.81 4.64 4.85
Ude 0.54 35.77 0.29 36.51 41.19
Selam 0.41 3.10 0.94 3.84 6.55
Bekalcha 0.05 -0.56 0.82 0.19 14.97
0.57 30.94 0.51 31.68 34.69
Quamy 0.45 12.41 0.89 13.16 17.99
Werer 1.92 7.07 0.46 7.81 21.62
Asassa -0.29 -0.67 0.54 0.07 26.99
Mangudo 1.21 9.16 0.50 9.90 10.59
ICAJIHAN2 0.29 2.45 0.88 3.19 11.50
LRC164 1.40 5.34 0.95 6.08 38.01
LRC302 1.34 5.66 0.70 6.40 8.29
Hectoliter weight
(HLW)
Utuba 0.53 -1.16 0.98 0.01 0.14
Ude 0.62 -0.62 0.65 0.54 4.77
Selam 0.83 -1.16 0..65 0.23 0.10
Bekalcha 0.91 -0.69 0.65 0.47 0.76
LRC167 0.47 -0.08 0.85 1.07 9.05
Quamy 0.45 -0.87 0.56 0.29 0.93
Werer 0.97 -1.11 0.59 0.05 0.28
Asassa 0.76 -0.71 0.90 0.45 1.99
Mangudo 0.5 -0.40 0.45 0.75 0.87
ICAJIHAN2 0.70 -0.34 0.66 0.81 0.82
LRC164 0.24 -0.91 0.85 0.25 0.26
LRC302 0.26 -0.91 0.36 0.25 0.26
Protein content
(PRO)
Utuba 0.05 -0.02 0.99 0.04 0.91
Ude -0.26 -0.05 0.73 0.00 1.26
Selam 0.46 -0.05 0.93 0.00 0.17
Bekalcha -0.29 0.84 0.96 0.90 2.20
LRC167 0.94 0.15 0.94 0.20 1.70
Quamy 0.73 0.51 0.99 0.56 6.46
Werer 0.01 -0.05 0.70 0.01 0.79
Asassa 0.29 0.84 0.96 0.90 1.30
Mangudo 0.26 0.12 0.95 0.17 0.61
ICAJIHAN2 0.52 0.02 0.65 0.08 0.26
LRC164 0.97 0.01 0.59 0.06 0.07
LRC302 0.79 -0.03 0.63 0.02 0.06
Sodium deosyl
sulphate (SDS)
Utuba 0.89 -0.31 0.99 0.14 29.46
Ude 0.97 -0.04 0.99 0.41 246.22
Selam -0.85 66.01 0.66 66.46 366.95
Bekalcha 0.67 61.17 0.63 61.63 78.50
LRC167 0.62 -0.09 0.98 0.36 5.65
Quamy 0.96 1.49 0.97 1.95 3.63
Werer 0.41 -0.39 0.99 0.07 6.19
Asassa 0.87 36.47 0.63 36.92 37.56
Mangudo 0.03 58.83 0.70 59.28 59.32
[79]
ICAJIHAN2 0.19 9.12 0.63 9.58 33.72
LRC164 -0.38 11.86 0.50 12.32 82.52
LRC302 0.75 113.63 0.50 114.09 134.93
Wet Gluten
Content (WGC)
Genotype name bi S2di R2
Utuba 0.28 81.58 0.73 84.92 169.37
Ude 0.75 211.92 0.70 215.26 306.71
Selam 0.89 66.40 0.89 69.74 200.45
Bekalcha -0.13 193.46 0.70 196.81 404.10
LRC167 0.18 474.06 0.64 477.41 587.49
Quamy 0.79 91.22 0.52 94.56 101.44
Werer 0.88 3.92 0.99 7.27 134.05
Asassa -0.31 46.91 0.74 50.26 331.21
Mangudo 0.03 130.77 0.57 134.12 134.30
ICAJIHAN2 0.58 6.30 0.85 9.65 38.57
LRC164 0.28 1.32 0.99 4.67 274.44
LRC302 1.76 158.37 0.76 161.71 256.44
Yellow pigment
content (YPC)
Utuba 0.95 0.09 0.71 0.19 0.22
Ude 0.33 2.16 0.80 2.27 2.38
Selam 0.93 4.45 0.71 4.55 4.83
Bekalcha 0.80 1.52 0.98 1.63 3.68
LRC167 0.45 -0.08 0.40 0.02 0.10
Quamy 0.95 2.23 0.69 2.33 2.35
Werer -0.75 1.17 0.70 1.28 3.25
Asassa 0.50 0.05 0.71 0.16 0.22
Mangudo 0.80 0.24 0.65 0.34 0.51
ICAJIHAN2 -0.54 0.78 0.59 0.89 1.51
LRC164 0.01 -0.10 0.39 0.00 0.26
LRC302 0.79 -0.06 0.71 0.04 0.88
The popular semi-dwarf varieties (Utuba, Ude, Bekalcha, Werer and Mangudo)
demonstrated moderately resistant to disease, high mean seed yield,
(protein>14.5%), yellow pigment content ((>5.3%), Hectoliter weight (>77.9
hL/l), 1000 kernel weight (35.55 gram), wet gluten (> 27.2%) and SDS volume
(>37.9)). This indicates, variety development was targeted with high yielding
potential, durable resistant to rust disease and better industrial quality. These
stable, adaptable, high yielding; and consumers preferred durum wheat cultivars
proved to be recommended for the high rainfall and optimum moisture (high
potential) areas of the country. The results of this work indicated that there were
no cultivars stable for all quality characteristics. Comparable results were reported
by other authors (Rharbati et al. 2003, Korbut et al. 2007; Letta et al. 2008).
Correlation between Traits

Grain yield per hectare showed positive and significant association with harvest
index, 1000-grain weight, Hectoliter weight, and SDS (Table 4). However, grain
yield had negatively correlated with flour protein content and gluten strength
(Table 5). Several reports state that varietal differences in flour protein are
[80]
inversely related to their grain and protein yielding abilities, resulting from an
improvement of grain yield via enhanced assimilation and translocation of
carbohydrates to the grain without a corresponding improvement in the
remobilization of N (Terman, 1979; Stewart and Dwyer, 1990; Slaferetal., 1990a).
Flour protein showed a statically significant and positive correlation with gluten
strength(r=0.97**) and Wet gluten content(r=0.55**), but had negative and
significant correlation with grain yield(r=-0.59**), harvest index(r=-0.61**),
1000kernel weight(r=-0.74**), hectoliter litter weight(r=-0.71**). A similar
finding was also reported by Sourour Ayed et al..,2018 Yellow pigment content,
an important parameter for semolina quality, had no significant association with
all tested quality traits except SDS. Dry gluten content had positive and strongly
correlated with wet gluten content(r=0.99**).
Table 4. Correlation coefficients of mean values of yield and quality traits of varieties represented in the study
YPC
Traits GY HI TKW HLW Glu Pro Wgc Dgc SDS
GY 1.00
HI 0.85** 1.00
TKW 0.87** 0.99** 1.00
HLW 0.53 0.73** 0.65** 1.00
Glu -0.40 -0.33 -0.47 -0.60** 1.00
Pro -0.59** -0.61** -0.74** -0.71** 0.96** 1.00
Wgc 0.10 0.06 -0.51 -0.33 0.63** 0.55** 1.00
Dgc 0.19 -0.01 -0.37 -0.40 0.55 0.47 0.99** 1.00
SDS 0.82** 0.71** 0.61** 0.38 -0.20 -0.26 0.54** 0.35 1.00
YPC 0.10 -0.23 -0.46 -0.04 -0.25 -0.10 -0.43 -0.45 0.34** 1.00

Twelve durum wheat genotypes, including three checks, were evaluated during
two cropping seasons (2018–2019) at three research sites, Stability parameters
were applied to assess stability performance of genotypes and to identify superior
genotypes; bi, the linear regression of the phenotypic values on the environmental
index, S2d, the deviation mean square from regression, and coefficient of
determination. Based on genotypic stability, varieties such as Utuba, Selam,
Mangudo, and ICAJIHAN2 demonstrated high stability for the majority of quality
traits. Studied genotypes showed high stability for one trait and unstable for
another trait. Therefore, it is important to recommend the best genotypes in quality
traits for a specific environment. Local landraces “LRC302” and “LRC164”
showed stability for HLW and protein content. Besides stability, they are being
good crossing parent for future durum wheat national program because of having
important resistant genes for fungal diseases such as stem rust, yellow rust, and
fusarium head blight and for agronomic traits such as long coleoptile, early
maturity, high protein content, and adaptation to low fertility.
[81]
References
A. Mohammed, B. Geremew and A. Amsalu, 2012. Variation and Associations of Quality
Parameters in Ethiopian Durum Wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum)
Genotypes. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 6: 17-31.
Baker, R.J. 1988. Tests for cross over genotype x environment interactions. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 68:405–410.
Eberhart, S.A. and W.A. Russel: Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci.,
6, 36-40 (1966).
Grausgruber, H., M. Oberforester, M. Werteker,P. Rucken bauer and J. Vollmann,
2000. Stability of quality traits in Austrian-grov\Tll winter wheats. Field Crops
Res., 66: 257-267
International Association of Cereal Science and Technology. Standard Methods
Korkut KZ, Bilgin O, Başer İ, Sağlam N (2007) Stability of grain vitreousness in durum
wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) genotypes in the North-Western Region of Turkey.
Turk J Agric For 31: 313-318.
MoA. 2016. Ministry of Agriculture, Plant Variety Release, Protection and Seed Quality
Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
MOHAMMADI, M., KARIMIZADEH, R., HOSSINPOUR, T., FALAHI, H. A.,
KHANZADEH, H., SABAGHNIA, N., MOHAMMADI, P., ARMION, M.,
HOSNI, M. H. Genotype × Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis of Seed
Yield of Durum Wheat Genotype in Dryland Conditions. Notulae Sci. Bio., 2012,
4(3): 57–64.
Obsa Chimdesa, 2014. Genetic variability among bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
Genotypes for growth characters, yield and yield components in bore district,
Oromia regional
Rharrabti Y, Garcia del Moral LF, Villegas D, Royo C (2003) Durum wheat quality in
Mediterranean environments III. Stability and comparative methods in analyzing G
x E interaction. Field Crops Research 80: 141-146
Roemer, T., 1917. Sind die ertragreichen Sorten ertragssicherer Mitteihmgen der
Deutschen Land wirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft, 32: 87-89.
Sourour A,Afef O,Salah B,et al,Corrilation between agronomic and quality traits in durum
wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) germplasm in semiarid environment. Adv plants Agri
Res.2018, 612-615.
Stewart. D.W. and Dwyer. L.M. 1990. Yields and protein trends of spring wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) on the Canadian prairies. 19611982. ClUlDdian Journal of
Plant Science70:33-44
Zobel, R.W., M.J. Wright and H.G. Gauch: Statistical analysis of yield trial. Agron. J., 80,
388-393 (1988).
[82]
Genotype x Environment Interaction and Stability
Analysis for Grain Yield of Bread Wheat (Triticum
aestivum) Genotypes under Low Moisture Stress
Areas of Ethiopia
Alemu Dabi1*, Gadisa Alemu1, Negash Geleta, Abebe Delessa1, Tafesse Solomon1, Habtemariam
Zegaye1, Dawit Asnake1; Bayisa Asefa1, Rut Duga1, and Abebe Getamesay1, Demeke Zewudu1;
Bedada Girma2, Ayele Badebo2 and Bekele Abeyo2
1
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Asella, Ethiopia – EIAR; 2CYMMIT Ethiopia office,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; E-mail: alemudabi2009@gmail.com
Abstract
A multi-location’ experiments were carried out from 2018 to 2019 main cropping
seasons in moisture stress areas of Ethiopia to estimate the genotype x environment
interaction and to select stable and adaptable variety/ies for grain yield of bread
wheat. Accordingly, 23 genotypes and two standard checks were arranged in alpha
lattice design in three replications. Data were taken for agronomic traits and
diseases. Then, analysis of variances and stability analysis were carried out for
grain yield using R software. Combined analysis of variance showed highly
significant (p ≤ 0.01) difference among the genotypes, locations, and genotype by
environment interaction (GEI) for grain yield suggesting a differential response of
genotypes across testing environments. The grand mean yield over nine
environments was 5251.90 kg ha-1 and the mean yield of genotypes across nine
environments ranged from 1539.29 kg ha -1 in 2018 at Dhera to 7621.87 kg ha -1 in
2018 at Kulumsa. The first four principal components of the GEI explained 85.6% of
the variation in grain yield. Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction
(AMMI) stability parameter revealed that the genotypes ETBW 9080 (G11), ETBW
9172(G12), ETBW 9646(G19), ETBW 9396 (G13), ETBW 9452(G14), ETBW
9136(G5) and ETBW 9139(G6) were high yielders and more stable inferring little
interaction of genotypes with the environments. Based on stability parameters and
other agronomic traits, the genotypes viz. ETBW 9396 (G13) and ETBW 9080 (G11)
were selected and proposed for variety verification and possible release in 2020/21.
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum spp.) is one of the most important cereal crops cultivated in
Ethiopia. The production and productivity of wheat have increased by 14% due to
the use of full packages for the last decade in Ethiopia (Gashaw et al., 2018). The
current wheat productivity is 2.7 tons per hectare but the potential yield could be
more than 5.0 tons per hectare (CSA, 2018; MOANR, 2018). Due to a higher
increment in demands, about 37% (1.7 million tons) wheat grain deficit was
observed during the 2018 budget year in Ethiopia (https://www.world-
grain.com/articles/11880-ethiopias-wheat-production-to-increase/accessed in Nov.
2019). The observed yield gap could be attributed to different factors including
[83]
lack of high yielder varieties sustainably tolerant to diseases and pests, tolerant to
low pH and waterlogged areas, and lack of application of full packages and
knowledge of production in the farming communities. Among the adverse factors,
fungal diseases such as therusts (Puccinia. spp.) are the devastating rust diseases
that are affecting wheat production in Ethiopia (Wubshet and Chemeda, 2016).
Therefore, identification of high yielding, stable and disease resistant varieties
through multi-environment evaluation of advanced lines is important.
Multi-environment trial helps to evaluate and identify stable and adaptable
genotypes in the presence of GEI. Hence, this demand understanding of GEI at all
stages of plant breeding, including ideotype design, parent selection, selection
based on traits, including grain yield (Yan et al., 1998). Significant GEI is a
consequence of variations in the extent of differences among genotypes in diverse
environments known as a qualitative or rank changes or variations in the
comparative ranking of the genotypes known as a quantitative or absolute
differences between genotypes (Falconer, 1952; Fernandez, 1991. Study of GEI is
important in presence various agro-ecologies and helps to identify genotypes
adapted to these environments. Although bread wheat is produced in optimum and
low moisture environments, low moisture stress areas are becoming among the
target areas due to the expanding irrigated wheat production and the emerging
climate change. Accordingly, evaluation of bread wheat genotypes in the low
moisture areas was included as a product concept in wheat breeding program at
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center. Therefore, in the current study multi-
location trials were undertaken with the objectives to estimate the magnitude of
genotype by environment interactions; and to select best genotypes stable and
adaptable to moisture stress environments.

Experimental Sites’ Descriptions
The experiments were conducted at nine environments namely Dhera, Melkasa,
Asasa, Kulumsa and Asela during 2018 and at Dhera, Melkasa, Kulumsa and
Asasa during 2019 cropping season. The descriptions of the locations are listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Lists and descriptions of testing locations

Location Geographic position Altitude 2018 2019
Temperature (oc) Rainfall Temperature (oc) Rainfall
Latitude Longitude Min Max (mm) Min Max (mm)
Kulumsa 08o01'10"N 39o09'11"E 2200 11.85 23.48 850 11.0 24.0 939.0
Asasa 07o07'09"N 39o11'50"E 2340 6.92 18.11 640 7.0 21.0 640.0
Dhera 08o19'10"N 39o19'13"E 1650 14.00 27.80 680 - - -
Melkasa 08°.24’N 39°.12’E 1550 13.60 28.60 763 - - -
Note: Sources (KARC; 2019; MARC, 2019)
[84]
Experimental Design and Phenotyping
Twenty-five genotypes including two standard checks were planted in Alpha-
Lattice Design with three replications (Table 2). Each experimental unit consisted
of six rows of 2.5 m length with 20 cm spacing between rows; 1 m and 1.5 m
spaces were left between adjacent plots and replications, respectively. A seed rate
of 125kgha-1 was used at all locations. Fertilizers were applied based on the
recommendations of each site and weeding was done uniformly to all plots in each
location as required. Data were collected from the entire plot for days to heading,
days to maturity, grain yield, 1000 kernel weight, hectoliter weight, and plant
height. Yellow rust (Puccinia striformisf. sp. tritici.) and stem rust (P.graminis)
were scored using the modified Cobb scale (Peterson et al., 1948). Disease
severity was estimated from the percentage of leaf (for yellow rust) and stem (for
stem rust) tissue infected and reaction was recorded at each testing location for
each genotype based on Cobb scale and modified Cobb USDA (Peterson et al.,
1948).
Table 2. List of studied bread wheat genotypes
Entry No. Genotype Pedigree
G1 DEKA
PFAU/MILAN/5/CHEN/AEGILOPS SQUARROSA (TAUS)//BCN/3/
G2 ETBW 9116 VEE#7/BOW/4/PASTOR/6/KINGBIRD #1
ELVIRA/5/CNDO/R143//ENTE/MEXI75/3/AE.SQ/4/2*OCI/6/VEE/PJN//KAUZ
/3/PASTOR/7/TILHI/4/CROC_1/AE.SQUARROSA (213)//PGO/
G3 ETBW 9119 3/CMH81.38/2*KAUZ/8/PICAFLOR #2
G4 ETBW 9128 FRNCLN*2/BECARD
92.001E7.32.5/SLVS/5/NS-732/HER/3/PRL/SARA//TSI/VEE#5/4/
G5 ETBW 9136 FRET2/6/SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU
G6 ETBW 9139 KA/NAC//TRCH/5/W15.92/4/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/WBLL1
PRL/2*PASTOR/6/TRAP#1/BOW/3/VEE/PJN//2*TUI/4/BAV92/RAYON/5/KA
G7 ETBW 9149 CHU #1
FALCIN/AE.SQUARROSA (312)/3/THB/CEP7780//SHA4/ LIRA/4/
FRET2/5/DANPHE #1/11/CROC_1/AE.SQUARROSA (213)//PGO/10/
ATTILA*2/9/KT/BAGE//FN/U/3/BZA/4/TRM/5/ALDAN/6/SERI/7/VEE#10/8/O
G8 ETBW 9065 PATA
G9 ETBW 9077 SHORTENED SR26 TRANSLOCATION//2*WBLL1*2/ KKTS/3/BECARD
G10 ETBW 9078 SWSR22T.B./2*BLOUK #1//WBLL1*2/KURUKU
G11 ETBW 9080 KACHU//WHEAR/SOKOLL
G12 ETBW 9172 ND643/2*WBLL1//KACHU
G13 ETBW 9396 BOUSHODA-1/4/CROC-1/AE.SQUARROSA (205)//KAUZ/3/SASIA
G14 ETBW 9452 REBWAH-19/HAAMA-14
KFA//PBW343/PASTOR/3/PBW343*2/KUKUNA/4/PBW343*2/KUKUNA*2//F
G15 ETBW 9543 RTL/PIFED/5/PBW343*2/KUKUNA*2//FRTL/PIFED
ATTILA*2/PBW65*2//MURGA/4/MUU
G16 ETBW 9545 #1//PBW343*2/KUKUNA/3/MUU/5/ATTILA*2/PBW65//MURGA
MELON//FILIN/MILAN/3/FILIN/4/PRINIA/PASTOR//HUITES/3/MILAN/OTUS
G17 ETBW 9641 //ATTILA/3*BCN/5/MELON//FILIN/MILAN/3/FILIN
G18 ETBW 9642 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/4/WHEAR/SOKOLL
G19 ETBW 9646 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/4/PARUS/PASTOR
G20 ETBW 9647 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/4/MEX94.2.19//SOKOLL/WBLL1
G21 ETBW 9648 PUB94.15.1.12/FRTL//92.001E7.32.5/SLVS
G22 ETBW 9650 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/4/GLADIUS
[85]
Table 2. List of studied bread wheat genotypes
Entry No. Genotype Pedigree
G23 ETBW 9651 KACHU*2/3/ND643//2*PRL/2*PASTOR
G24 ETBW 9652 PFUNYE #1/KINGBIRD #1
G25 OGOLCHO Check
Statistical Analyses
Data were subjected to analysis after checking for the assumptions of normality,
homogeneity of variance using Barttlet’s test (Steel and Torrie, 1980). AMMI
method integrates analysis of variance and principal components into a unified
approach (Bradu and Gabriel, 1978; Gauch and Zobel, 1988). AMMI method first
fits the additive main effects of genotypes and environments by the usual analysis
of variance and then describes the non-additive part, genotype by environment
interaction, by principal component analysis. The AMMI analysis was performed
using the model suggested by Gauch and Zobel (1988) for genotypes and
environments is:
Where, Yij is the mean yield of the ith genotype in the jth environment; μ is the
general mean; gi is the ith genotypic effect; ej is the jth location effect; λk is the
eigenvalue of the PCA axis n; and are the ith genotype jth environment
PCA scores for the PCA axis n; is the residual; n’ is the number of PCA axis
retained in the model. The interaction effect was calculated as (Gauch and Zobel,
1988);
( )
AMMI Stability Value (ASV): ASV is the distance from the coordinate point to
the origin in a two-dimensional plot of IPCA1 score against IPCA2 score in the
AMMI model (Purchase, 1997). The larger the ASV value, either negative or
positive, the more specifically adapted a genotype is to certain environments and
the smaller the ASV values the more stable the genotypes are across the testing
environments (Purchase, 1997).
Yield Selection Index (YSI): Stability is not the only parameter for selection as
most stable genotypes and would not necessarily give the best yield performance.
Therefore, based on the rank of mean grain yield of genotypes (rYi) across
environments and rank of AMMI stability value (rASVi) yield selection index
(YSI) was calculated for each genotype as (Farshadfar, 2008):
[86]
Accordingly, a genotype with the least YSI is considered as the most stable
(Farshadfar, 2008). Eberhart and Russell regression model: The model is used
to identify the adaptability and stability of genotypes based on the regression
analysis. The regression coefficient (bi) and deviation from regression (S2d) of
genotype mean across environments index were computed as suggested by
Eberhart and Russell (1966). The analysis was performed using R statistical
software.

Additive Main Effects and Multiple Interaction (AMMI) Model for
Grain Yield
Combined analysis of variance showed highly significant (p ≤ 0.01) differences
among the genotypes, environments, GEI. The first four interaction principal
components (IPCA) of the GEI explained 82.1% of the total variation and 40.5%
is explained by IPCA1 followed by 16.7%, 15.2%, and 9.7% for IPCA2, IPCA3,
and IPCA4, respectively (Table 3). The most accurate model for AMMI can be
predicted by using the first two PCAs (Gauch and Zobel, 1996); since it explains
more than 50% of the GEI component. In this, the first two IPCAs were used to
show genotype by environment interaction and results are shown in the biplots
(Fig 1). The greater the IPCA scores (positive or negative) as it is a relative value,
the more specifically adapted a genotype is to a given environment. The more
IPCA scores approximate to zero, the more stable the genotype is across
environments (Purchase, 1997; Adugna and Labuschagne, 2002). Accordingly, the
genotypes ETBW 9080 (G11), ETBW 9172(G12), ETBW 9646 (G19), ETBW
9396 (G13), ETBW 9452 (G14), ETBW 9136 (G5) and ETBW 9139(G6) were
relatively located near the origin of the biplot indicating better stability i.e. less
interaction of genotypes with the environment and widely adapted genotypes
across environments; whereas, the genotypes Ogolcho (G25), ETBW 9119(G3),
ETBW 9647(G20) and ETBW 9065(G8) were far from the origin of biplot
suggesting less stability i.e. high interaction of genotypes with the environments
and have specific adaptability to a given environment.
[87]
Table 3. AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield (kg ha-1) of 25 bread wheat genotypes
Source of variation Df Sum Squares Mean Squares % Variance Explained

ENV 8 2924185793 365523224***
REP(ENV) 18 29803986 1655777***
GEN 24 102570244 4273760***
ENV x GEN 192 274195518 1428102***
PC1 31 110968396 3579625.7*** 40.5
PC2 29 45899417 1582738.5*** 16.7
PC3 27 41715720 1545026.7*** 15.2
PC4 25 26482907 1059316.3** 9.7
Residual 432 266347198 616544
Note: Df- degrees of freedom
Mean Grain Yield Performances of the Genotypes Across the

Testing Environments
The mean grain yield of the 25 genotypes showed a wide range of variation in the
different environments. The grand mean yield over nine environments was 5252
kg ha-1 and the mean yield of genotypes across nine environments ranged from
1539 kg ha-1 at Dhera in 2018 to 7622 kg ha-1 at Kulumsa in 2018, respectively.
The recorded mean yield of the standard checks; Daka (5067 kg ha-1) and Ogolcho
(4018 kg ha-1) were below the grand mean yield of genotypes across environments
implying the possibility to select superior candidate genotypes better than the
standard. check varieties. The Genotypes ETBW 9136 (5732 kgha-1), ETBW 9139
(5845 kg ha-1), ETBW 9646 (5754 kg ha-1), ETBW9172 (5634 kgha-1),
ETBW9641 (5545 kgha-1), ETBW 9080 (5545 kgha-1) and ETBW9396 (5467
kgha-1) gave the highest mean grain yield across environments; whereas the
standard check Ogolcho showed the lowest mean grain yield across environments
(Table 4).
AMMI Stability Value (ASV) and Yield Selection Index (YSI)

The genotype with lower ASV values is considered more stable and genotypes
with higher ASV are unstable. The ASV is relative and the minimum value
indicates stability of genotypes. The analysis using AMMI stability value revealed
that ETBW 9172 (7.30), ETBW 9396 (6.18), ETBW 9452 (4.77), ETBW 9646
(4.93), ETBW 9651 (9.89), ETBW 9652 (2.99), ETBW 9139 (4.21) and ETBW
9077 (8.47) were among genotypes with lower ASV values, indicating those
genotypes were more stable than the others. However, the genotype OGOLCHO
(102.08), ETBW 9119 (38.89), ETBW 9065 (31.31), ETBW 9545 (28.28) had the
highest AMMI stability values inferring those genotypes were classified under the
least stable genotypes. Stability is not the only parameter for selection, because the
most stable genotypes would not necessarily give the best yield performance
(Mohammadi et al., 2010), hence there is the need to use the YSI which
incorporate both mean yield and stability of genotypes. It was applied to identify
high yielding and stable genotypes in cereal crops like maize (Fan et al., 2007) and
durum wheat (Mohammadi et al., 2010). Accordingly, the YSI revealed that
[88]
genotypes ETBW 9139, ETBW 9646, ETBW 9396, and ETBW 9172 were the
best and top-ranking genotypes integrating both stability and grain yield
performance parameters. This result is further confirmed by conducting analysis
using the Eberhart and Russell regression model. Genotypes ETBW 9172, ETBW
9396, ETBW 9641, and ETBW 9646 had regression coefficients approaching one
and deviation from regression approaching zero implying that they are stable and
widely adaptable than the other genotypes. Genotypes ETBW 9396 and ETBW
9646 selected as high yielding and stable by AMMI model were also selected by
Eberhart and Russell regression model (Table 5).
Table 4. Mean grain yield (kg ha-1) performance of the 25 genotypes of bread wheat tested in nine environments
Genotype Locations
KU18 AA18 DH18 MK18 AT18 KU19 AA19 DH19 MK19 MEAN
DEKA 8040 5864 1818 1300 6317 6282 7759 4144 4074 5067
ETBW 9116 6991 5484 2746 1649 7012 6842 6446 4006 3874 5006
ETBW 9119 7012 6470 1923 1711 7205 5473 5536 4090 4090 4835
ETBW 9128 7417 4917 841 929 5708 7342 6808 4756 4419 4793
ETBW 9136 7708 6894 2377 2201 5995 7671 8123 5452 5164 5732
ETBW 9139 8100 6791 1114 2868 7375 7179 7932 4916 6329 5845
ETBW 9149 7412 5812 1343 1242 5838 7919 6188 4574 5113 5049
ETBW 9065 6731 7038 1086 1620 6998 5976 8386 5687 4879 5378
ETBW 9077 7232 4702 1921 2212 7555 6047 7273 4458 4817 5135
ETBW 9078 7703 4674 1271 2721 6127 6609 7040 4936 3721 4978
ETBW 9080 7706 6868 1713 2507 5100 7519 8186 4996 5314 5545
ETBW 9172 8301 6464 1913 2139 6775 6510 7360 5828 5416 5634
ETBW 9396 7827 6327 1167 2418 6360 7429 7210 5256 5211 5467
ETBW 9452 7903 5689 1031 2521 7045 6607 6982 5618 4986 5376
ETBW 9543 7714 6280 1449 1629 7732 6290 7044 4110 4542 5199
ETBW 9545 8314 5428 1089 1158 6408 7382 8202 4591 3914 5165
ETBW 9641 7788 5943 1852 2547 6942 6308 8393 5063 5114 5550
ETBW 9642 8157 5210 1240 1993 6778 7319 7747 4788 5240 5386
ETBW 9646 8397 5972 1706 2697 6825 6909 7653 5979 5649 5754
ETBW 9647 7731 4280 1564 2727 6708 7512 7688 4357 5916 5387
ETBW 9648 8394 6279 2484 2380 6637 6093 7974 5567 5598 5712
ETBW 9650 7992 4559 1188 1512 7685 6874 7409 5249 5320 5310
ETBW 9651 6919 6306 1021 1369 5845 6549 7004 3709 4977 4855
ETBW 9652 7467 5510 1424 1594 6743 7053 7174 4502 4638 5123
OGOLCHO 5590 4072 1200 792 7027 6484 1558 4279 5163 4018
Mean 7622 5753 1539 1937 6670 6807 7163 4836 4939 5252
CV (%) 5.92 13.42 31.06 47.13 13.70 13.18 8.21 8.33 19.41 14.95
LSD (5%) 801 1391 1090 ns ns ns 966 677 ns
Note: KU18- Kulumsa 2018; AA18_ Asasa 2018; DH18_ Dhera 2018; MK18_ Melkasa 2018; AT18_ Atsela 2018; KU19_
Kulumsa 2019; AA19_ Asasa, 2019; DH19_ Dhera 2019; MK19_ Melkasa 2019.
[89]
Table 5. Stability parameters and the rank of genotypes tested for grain yield
S/No. Genotype bij S2dij ASV YSI Mean grain yield Y rank
(kg ha-1)
1 DEKA 1.06 106253.30 21.50 37 5067 8
2 ETBW 9116 0.86 251329.72 18.29 37 5006 6
3 ETBW 9119 0.86 466019.18 38.90 47 4835 3
4 ETBW 9128 1.10 16019.92 17.82 39 4793 2
5 ETBW 9136 0.97 154110.38 16.49 16 5732 23
6 ETBW 9139 1.07 103245.50 4.21 3 5845 25
7 ETBW 9149 1.03 241996.10 18.18 35 5049 7
8 ETBW 9065 1.06 576631.12 31.32 34 5378 15
9 ETBW 9077 0.92 167188.90 8.47 23 5135 10
10 ETBW 9078 0.93 195231.34 11.05 30 4978 5
11 ETBW 9080 0.97 505655.56 27.75 28 5545 19
12 ETBW 9172 0.98 -37970.73 7.30 11 5634 21
13 ETBW 9396 1.02 -57483.87 6.18 13 5467 18
14 ETBW 9452 1.00 -9718.48 4.77 15 5376 14
15 ETBW 9543 1.07 118148.19 17.46 28 5199 12
16 ETBW 9545 1.22 78965.93 28.28 37 5165 11
17 ETBW 9641 0.98 27637.70 18.81 24 5550 20
18 ETBW 9642 1.10 -87313.60 15.84 22 5386 16
19 ETBW 9646 0.99 -54204.30 4.94 6 5754 24
20 ETBW 9647 0.97 446791.96 25.59 29 5387 17
21 ETBW 9648 0.92 75084.50 14.38 15 5712 22
22 ETBW 9650 1.12 177172.22 13.58 23 5310 13
23 ETBW 9651 1.03 79368.60 9.89 30 4855 4
24 ETBW 9652 1.05 -170007.71 2.99 18 5123 9
25 OGOLCHO 0.71 3153092.50 102.09 50 4018 1
Figure 1. GGE-biplot analysis for the first two IPCA scores of the genotype x environment interaction for mean grain yield
[90]
Figure 2. GGE-biplot analysis for the mean yield (kg ha-1) with first IPCA score of the genotype x environment interaction.
Mean Performance of the Genotypes for Other Important

Agronomic Traits
The mean for days to heading of genotypes ranged from 57 to 65 days with an
average value of 60 days which indicates almost all genotypes had the narrow
range of heading dates. Similarly, there narrow range for days to maturity
confirming that the tested genotypes can be categorized under similar maturity
groups. Plant height varied from 82 to 93 cm with minimum values for genotype
ETBW 9651 and maximum values for genotype ETBW 9646. The mean 1000
kernel weight ranged from 28 g (ETBW 9396 and OGOLCHO) to 38 g (ETBW
9545) with an average value of 32.75 g. The genotypes with higher 1000 seed
weight include ETBW 9545 and had 1000 seed weight advantage of 22.5 % and
35% over DEKA and OGOLCHO respectively. Hectoliter weight provides a
rough estimate of flour yield potential in wheat and is important to millers just as
grain yield is important to wheat producers. The value this trait ranged from 64
kg/hl (OGOLCHO) to 69 hg/hl (ETBW 9136, ETBW 9080, ETBW 9646 and
ETBW 9651) (Table 6).
[91]
Table 6: Combined mean performance of bread wheat for some important agronomic traits tested across 9 environments
from 2018 to 2019 cropping seasons
S/No Genotype DTH DTM PHT (cm) TKW (g) HLW (kg/hl)
1 DEKA 62 110 89 31 66
2 ETBW 9116 65 110 86 31 67
3 ETBW 9119 63 110 86 29 67
4 ETBW 9128 61 110 85 30 66
5 ETBW 9136 60 107 91 35 69
6 ETBW 9139 58 107 85 34 68
7 ETBW 9149 60 108 85 35 67
8 ETBW 9065 58 108 90 32 68
9 ETBW 9077 60 109 83 31 68
10 ETBW 9078 60 108 84 30 68
11 ETBW 9080 59 108 87 37 69
12 ETBW 9172 61 108 86 32 68
13 ETBW 9396 59 107 83 28 68
14 ETBW 9452 59 108 84 36 68
15 ETBW 9543 59 110 83 32 67
16 ETBW 9545 57 107 83 38 68
17 ETBW 9641 60 108 91 36 67
18 ETBW 9642 60 108 89 35 68
19 ETBW 9646 60 109 93 36 69
20 ETBW 9647 60 109 89 37 68
21 ETBW 9648 59 109 90 32 68
22 ETBW 9650 60 108 89 34 68
23 ETBW 9651 58 107 82 31 69
24 ETBW 9652 61 110 86 29 67
25 OGOLCHO 62 109 92 28 64
Mean 60.11 108.43 86.89 32.75 67.63
LSD (5 %) 1.81 1.98 3.50 2.81 2.00
CV (%) 4.10 2.07 6.78 9.69 2.57
Note: DH=Days to 75% heading; DM=Days to 95 % maturity; PHT=Plant height (cm); TKW=Thousand kernel weight
(g); HLW=Hectoliter weight; YLD=Grain Yield (t/h
Responses of Genotypes to Yellow and Stem Rust

The level of severity and response were slightly different between locations and
years indicating that the level of the rust's disease severity is dependent on the
suitability of the environments. All the top-ranking and stable genotypes except
ETBW 9396 had weak resistance to yellow and stem rust under conditions of high
disease pressure in the testing environments. The differences insusceptibility of
wheat to yellow rust across locations due to variation in virulence spectra of the
pathogen and climatic conditions was reported by Wubishet et al. (2015). The
highest yellow and stem rust score was recorded in the 2019 cropping season at
Kulumsa indicating this suitability of the season for the buildup of both types of
rusts (Table 7). Among the evaluated genotypes that showed the best stability and
high mean grain yield; genotype ETBW 9080 and ETBW 9396 were scored low
yellow rust and stem rust responses over locations and years. Hence, these two
genotypes were selected and proposed for variety verification and possible release
in 2020.
[92]
Table 7. Mean severity percentage of yellow rust and stem rust on 25 bread wheat genotypes
S/No. Genotype KU18YR KU18Sr AA18Yr AA18Sr MK18Sr KU19Yr KU19Sr AA19Yr
1 DEKA 1MRMS 5MSMR 5MSMR 15MSMR 15SMS 30MSS 50S 15MSMR
2 ETBW 9116 0 1MS 5MSMR 5MSMR 10SMS 5MSMR 40S 1MR
3 ETBW 9119 5MS 10MSS 10MSS 10MR 15S 60S 50S 10MRMS
4 ETBW 9128 5MSMR 5S 5MSMR 60S 20S 50S 50S 5MS
5 ETBW 9136 1MR 5S 5MSMR 40MSS 15SMS 5MSMR 50S 5MRMS
6 ETBW 9139 5MR 10MSS 10MSMR 20MSS 154SMS 60S 50S 15S
7 ETBW 9149 5MR 1MS 1MSMR 5MR 5MSMR 5MSMR 40S 5MS
8 ETBW 9065 1MR 1MS 5MR 30MS 15SMS 60S 30S 1MR
9 ETBW 9077 30MSS 1MS 10MSS 20MSMR 10MRMS 40S 40S 10MS
10 ETBW 9078 5MSMR 0 10MSMR 10MSMR 5MSMR 15MSS 50S 15MS
11 ETBW 9080 1MR 5MS 1MSMR 10MSMR 15SMS 10MSMR 15MSS 5MR
12 ETBW 9172 5MRMS 5MSS 5MSMR 10MSMR 10MSMR 15MSMR 50S 1MR
13 ETBW 9396 5MRMS 0 1MSMR 1RMR 1MRMS 1MR 40S 5MSMR
14 ETBW 9452 1MR 0 15MSMR 0 1MRMS 60S 40S 1MR
15 ETBW 9543 15MRMS 0 20MSS 10MRMS 5MSMR 50S 30S 10MSS
16 ETBW 9545 15MRMS 1MR 15MSMR 10MS 1MRMS 5MSMR 50S 10MS
17 ETBW 9641 0 20S 5MSMR 60S 20SMS 40S 80S 1MR
18 ETBW 9642 1MR 10MSS 5MSMR 60S 15SMS 5MSMR 70S 1MR
19 ETBW 9646 1MR 20S 5MSMR 40MSS 30S 10MSMR 70S 1MRMS
20 ETBW 9647 1MR 10S 5MSMR 70S 30S 15MSS 50S 1MSMR
21 ETBW 9648 5MRMS 15S 10MSMR 10RMR 1MRMS 60S 30MSS 15MS
22 ETBW 9650 1MSMR 15S 5MSMR 60S 20S 60S 30S 1MR
23 ETBW 9651 5MR 1MSMR 5MSMR 20MS 1MRMS 60S 30S 5MSMR
24 ETBW 9652 5MRMS 1MSMR 5MSMR 10MRMS 5SMS 60S 60S 10MSMR
25 OGOLCHO 10MSMR 40s 20MSMR 50S 30S 40S 70S 90S
Note: Yr= Yellow rust, Sr= Stem rust, KU= kulumsa, AA=Asasa, MK=Melkasa, R –Resistant, MR- Moderately resistant,
MS- Moderately susceptible, S-Susceptible

Due to changes in climatic factors and/or weather variability, production of wheat
in moisture stress environments is becoming a challenge. Hence, there is a need to
develop varieties which could adapt to this short growing cycle in moisture stress
environments. In view of this, 25 bread wheat genotypes including two standard
checks were evaluated in nine environments from 2018 to 2019 cropping seasons
with the objectives to estimate the magnitude of genotype by environment
interaction and to select stable and adaptable varieties across the testing
environments. The results indicated the variations due to environment is more
pronounced as compared to the genotype and GEI components on all agronomic
traits. Then, the segregations due to environments was larger as Dhera 2018 (1539
kg/ha) was the least yielding while Kulumsa 2018 (7622 kg/ha) was the highest
yielding environment. It can be concluded that not only the location but also the
year variations contributed to GEI for grain yield. Similarly, the segregation for
yield potential for genotypes was larger as the standard check OGOLCHO (4018
kg/ha) was the least yielder while ETBW 9139 (5845 kg/ha) was the highest
yielder genotype followed by ETBW9646 (5754 kg/ha) and ETBW9139 (5732
kg/ha). Moreover, the genotypes viz. ETBW9172 (5634 kg ha-1), ETBW9641
[93]
(5545 kg ha-1), ETBW 9080 (5545 kg ha-1) and ETBW9396 (5467 kg ha-1) were
among the highest yielders. AMMI stability parameters revealed that the
genotypes ETBW 9080, ETBW 9172, ETBW 9646, ETBW 9396, ETBW 9452,
ETBW 9136 and ETBW 9139 were high yielders and more stable inferring little
interaction of genotypes with the environment whereas Ogolcho, ETBW 9119,
ETBW 9647 and ETBW 9065 was low yielder and unstable suggesting high
interaction with the environments. Based on the results of grain yield stability
parameters and other agronomic traits including diseases resistances, genotypes
ETBW 9396 and ETBW 9080, were selected as candidate varieties for variety
verification trial during 2020/21 and the variety ETBW 9396 released for
commercial production and named as ‘Abay’ for low moisture stress areas of
Ethiopia.
References
Adugna W. and Labuschagne MT. 2002. Genotype-environment interactions and
phenotypic stability analyses of linseed in Ethiopia. Plant Breeding 121, 66-71.
Bradu D. and KR Gabriel. 1978. The biplot as a diagnostic tool for models of two-way
tables. Technometrics 20:47-68.
Central Statistical Agency. CSA .2018. Agricultural sample survey 2017/18 (2010 E.C.)
Volume 1. Report on area and production of major crops (Private peasant holdings,
Mehere season). Statistical Bulletin 586. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Eberhart SA and Russell WA. 1966. Stability parameter for comparing varieties. Crop
Science 6:36-40.
Falconer DS. 1952. The problem of environment and selection. The American Naturalist.
86:293–298.
Fan X.-M, Kang MS, Chen H, Zhang Y, Tan J and Xu C. 2007. Yield Stability of Maize
Hybrids Evaluated in Multi Environment Trials in Yunnan, China. Agronomy
Journal, 99: 220.
Fernandez GCJ. 1991. Analysis of genotype x environment interaction by stability
estimates. Hort Science.; 26:947–950.
Gauch HG. and Zobel RW. 1996. AMMI analysis of yield trials. In: Genotype by
Environment Interaction, pp. 85-122, (Kang, M. and Gauch, H. eds). Boca Raton.
CRC Press, New York.
Gauch HG and Zobel RW. 1988 Predictive and postdictive success of statistical analyses
of yield trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76:1-10.
Getachew Agegnehu, Amare Ghizaw, Woldeyesus Sinebo. 2008. Yield potential and
land-use efficiency of wheat and faba bean mixed intercropping. Agron. Sustain.
Dev. 28: 257–263. DOI: 10.1051/agro: 2008012.
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2018. Plant Variety Release, Protection
and Seed Quality Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register, Issue No. 21, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
[94]
Mohammadi, R, Roostaei M, Ansari Y, Aghaee M and Amri A. 2010. Relationships of
phenotypic stability measures for genotypes of three cereal crops. Canadian Journal
of Plant Science, 90: 819-30.
Peterson F, Campbell B, Hannah E. 1948. A diagrammatic scale for estimating rust
intensity on leaves and stems of cereals. Can. J. Res. 26:496-500.
Purchase JL. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe GxE interaction and yield stability in
winter wheat. PhD. Thesis, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of the Orange Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa
Steel RG and Torrie JH. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw-Hili, New
York.
Wubishet A, Chemeda F. and Bekele H. 2015. Effects of environment on epidemics of
yellow rust (Puccinia striiformis West.) of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in
Bale highlands, South-Eastern Ethiopia. Global Journal of Pests, Diseases and Crop
Protection, 3 (2): 096-107
Wubshet Alemu and Chemeda Fininsa. 2016. Effects of Environment on Wheat Varieties’
Yellow Rust Resistance, Yield and Yield Related Traits in South-Eastern Ethiopia.
Plant, 4(3): 14-22; http://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/j/plant; doi:
10.11648/j.plant.20160403.11; ISSN: 2331-0669 (Print); ISSN: 2331-0677 (Online)
Yan W and Hunt LA. 1998. Genotype by environment interaction and crop yield. Plant
Breed. Rev. 16: 135-178.
[95]
[96]
Development of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) Varieties for High Moisture Areas of Ethiopia:
A G x E Interaction and Stability
Analysis for Grain Yield
Gadisa Alemu1*, Alemu Dabi1, Negash Geleta1, Tafesse Solomon1; Abebe Delessa1, Rut
Duga1, Habtemariam Zegeye1, Dawit Asnake1, Abebe Getamesay1, Bayisa Asefa1,
Demeke Zewdu1; Bekele Geleta Abeyo2, Ayele Badebo2; and Bedada Girma1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 489, Asella,
Ethiopia; 2 CIMMYT, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, E-mail: gadalemu@gmail.com
Abstract
A multi-location trial was carried out across high-moisture areas of Ethiopia from
2018-2019 cropping seasons to estimate the magnitude of genotype x environment
interaction and to select high yielding and adaptable genotype/s across the tested
environments. The genotypes consisted of 25 including two standard checks and
arranged in alpha-lattice design replicated three times. The genotypes were tested
in 10 environments. The combined ANOVA showed highly significant differences
(P<0.001) among E, G and GEI for grain yield and all agronomic traits. The
environmental variance was more accountable (78.7%) to the total variance as
compared to the genetic variance (6.1%) and the interaction variance (15.2%) for
grain yield. Kulumsa-2018 was the highest yielding (7.58 t/ha) while Adet-2019
was the lowest yielding (2.87 t/ha) environment. The mean grain yield of the
genotypes across ten environments was 4.90 t/ha. GGE biplot analysis indicated
the G+GEI explained 69.01% of the total variance and divided the ten
environments into three major groups. Genotypes ETBW9594, ETBW9615,
ETBW9233, ETBW9635 and ETBW9606 were identified as the top five, the most
stable and high yielding genotypes while ETBW9627 and ETBW9628 were stable
but low yielding genotypes across the ten environments. Genotypes ETBW9624,
ETBW9626, BW174469, and ETBW9597 were identified as the least stable and
low yielding genotypes. Based on the other desirable agronomic performance and
wide adaptability genotype ETBW9606 (5.7 t/ha) was superior to rest of the
genotypes and the two standard checks. This genotype was selected as candidate
variety for verification in the year 2020 for releasing as commercial variety.
Introduction
Ethiopia is characterized by diverse climatic conditions ranging from humid to

semi-arid environments. The country has various agro ecological zones due to its
geographical and topographical characteristics. The considerable variation in soil
and climatic conditions largely affect the annual yield performance of bread wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Ethiopia is among the food insecure countries in
Africa due to its great reliance on rainfed agriculture (Conway and Schipper,
2011; Rosell, 2011).
[97]
In Ethiopia, bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the most important
cereal crops in terms of production and consumption. It is predominantly grown
by small-scale farmers under rainfed condition. Wheat can grow in an altitude
range of 1500 to 3000 m.a.s.l (Bekele et al., 2000) however, the most suitable
agro-ecological zones for wheat production fall between 1900 and 2700 m.a.s.l
(Hailu, 1991). It is an important staple food providing an estimated daily per
capita caloric intake of 12% for the country’s over 90 million population (FAO,
2017). Wheat is annually grown in 1.7 million hectares of land which is 13.38% of
the total area of land used for cereal production and it ranks second after maize
contributing 15.17% of the total annual cereal production (CSA, 2018). The
current wheat productivity is 2.7 tons per hectare but the potential yield could be
more than 5.0 tons per hectare (CSA, 2018; MOANR, 2018). However, due to the
increased domestic demand, about 1.7 million tons of wheat grain deficits was
observed during 2018 budget year in Ethiopia (https://www.world-
2019). The choice for wheat cultivation on larger area is partial; however,
development of high yielding wheat cultivars with wider adaptability would play
significant role. Selections of high yielding, stable and disease resistant genotypes
are key steps in wheat variety development strategy. Consequently, multi-
environment yield trials are crucial to identify adaptable, high yielding cultivars
and discover sites that best represent the target environment (Dabessa et al.,
2016).
Genotypes perform differently in different environments. This difference in

response of genotypes to different environmental condition is the result of
genotype and genotype by environment interaction (Funga et al., 2017). In other
words, the phenotypic value of a trait is a function of the genotype, the
environment, and the interaction between the two. GEI refers to a different
ranking of genotypes across environments and may complement the selection
process and recommendation of a genotype for a target environment (Gauch,
2006). Genotype main effect plus genotype-by-environment interaction (GGE)
biplot produces a graphical display of results that facilitates a better understanding
of complex genotype-by-environment interaction in multi-environment trials of
breeding. Dividing the target environment into meaningful mega-environments
and deploying different cultivars for different mega-environments is the only way
to utilize positive GE and avoid negative GE and the sole purpose for genotype by
environment interaction analysis (Yan et al., 2007). A mega-environment is
defined as a group of environments that consistently share the same best
cultivar(s) (Yan and Rajcan, 2002). Multi-environment trials (MET) are required
to identify genotypes that have specific and general adaptability in testing
environments. Hence, the objective of the present work is to estimate the
magnitude of genotype x environment interaction and to select high yielding and
stable candidate genotype/s across the tested environments.
[98]
Experimental Materials and Site Descriptions

Twenty-five bread wheat genotypes along with two standard checks (Wane and
Lemu) were planted for two consecutive years (2018-2019 cropping seasons).
Description of testing locations and list of genotypes used for the study are
presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.
Table 1. Description of the study area
Location Geographic position Altitude Temperature (oc) Rainfall (mm)

Latitude Longitude Min Max
Adet 11° 16’ N 37° 29’ E 2216 9.2 25.5 1250
Asasa 07o07'09"N 39o11'50"E 2340 5.8 24.0 644
Bekoji 07o32'37"N 39o15'21"E 2780 7.9 18.6 1020
Enawari 9°53'00.0"N 39°09'00.0"E 2650 NA NA 878
Kulumsa 08o01'10"N 39o09'11"E 2200 10.5 22.8 820
Robe Arsi 07o53'02"N 39o37'40"E 2420 6.0 21.1 890
Table 2. List of tested advanced genotypes across environments

Entry Genotype Pedigree
1 WANE Standard Check
2 ETBW 9601 KACHU*2/MUNAL #1
3 ETBW 9233 W15.92/4/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/WBLL1/6/VEE/MJI//2*TUI/3/2*PASTOR/4/BERKUT/5/PFAU/MILAN
4 ETBW 9594 PRL/2*PASTOR*2//FH6-1-7*2/3/PBW343*2/KUKUNA*2//FRTL/PIFED
5 ETBW 9597 C80.1/3*BATAVIA//2*WBLL1/5/REH/HARE//2*BCN/3/CROC_1/AE.SQUARROSA
(213)//PGO/4/HUITES/6/FRANCOLIN #1/BLOUK #1
6 ETBW 9605 MEX94.27.1.20/3/SOKOLL//ATTILA/3*BCN/5/W15.92/4/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/WBLL1
7 ETBW 9606 NGL//2*WHEAR/SOKOLL
8 ETBW 9611 NGL//2*WHEAR/SOKOLL
9 ETBW 9613 SERI.1B//KAUZ/HEVO/3/AMAD*2/4/KIRITATI*2/6/BAV92//IRENA/KAUZ/3/HUITES/4/T.SPELTA
PI348764/5/BAV92//IRENA/KAUZ/3/HUITES
10 ETBW 9615 SIALIA/4/PBW343*2/KUKUNA//SRTU/3/PBW343*2/KHVAKI/5/SAUAL/3/C80.1/3*BATAVIA//2*WBLL1/4/SAUA
L #1
11 ETBW 9616 SIALIA/4/PBW343*2/KUKUNA//SRTU/3/PBW343*2/KHVAKI/5/SAUAL/3/C80.1/3*BATAVIA//2*WBLL1/4/SAUA
L #1
12 ETBW 9617 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU*2/4/PAURAQ
13 ETBW 9618 SOKOLL/3/PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/4/PARUS/PASTOR
14 ETBW 9619 SUP152//PUB94.15.1.12/WBLL1
15 ETBW 9623 WBLL1/KUKUNA//TACUPETO F2001/6/PVN//CAR422/ANA/5/BOW/CROW//BUC/
PVN/3/YR/4/TRAP#1/7/CNO79//PF70354/MUS/3/PASTOR/4/BAV92*2/5/FH6-1-7
16 ETBW 9624 WBLL1/KUKUNA//TACUPETO F2001/6/PVN//CAR422/ANA/5/BOW/CROW//BUC
/PVN/3/YR/4/TRAP#1/7/CNO79//PF70354/MUS/3/PASTOR/4/BAV92*2/5/FH6-1-7
17 ETBW 9626 BAV92//IRENA/KAUZ/3/HUITES*2/4/MURGA/6/CNO79//PF70354/MUS/3/PASTOR/4/BAV92*2/5/FH6-1-
7/7/FRNCLN*2/TECUE #1
18 ETBW 9627 KACHU#1/6/NG8201/KAUZ/4/SHA7//PRL/VEE#6/3/FASAN/5/MILAN/KAUZ/7/KACHU/8/KZA//WH
542/2*PASTOR/3/BACEU #1/9/KACHU #1/KIRITATI//KACHU
19 ETBW 9628 TACUPETO F2001/SAUAL//BLOUK #1/3/SAUAL/YANAC//SAUAL/4/TACUPETO F2001/SAUAL//BLOUK #1
20 ETBW 9635 REEDLING #1//KFA/2*KACHU
21 ETBW 9636 KFA/2*KACHU/3/KINGBIRD #1//INQALAB 91*2/TUKURU/4/KFA/2*KACHU
22 BW174468 KAUZ/FCT//ETBW 4920/3/MILAN/PASTOR
23 BW174469 HUW 234/REBWAH-19
24 BW174470 FLORKWA-2/85 Z 1284//ETBW 4920/3/LOULOU-18
25 LEMU Standard Check
[99]
Experimental Design
The experiment was laid out in alpha lattice design with three replications. The
experimental plot for each entry consisted of six rows of 2.5-meter length and
rows were spaced 20 cm apart. Spacing between plots and blocks were 1 m and
1.5 m, respectively. The seed rate was 150 kg/ha. Fertilizer was applied at a rate of
121 kg/ha of NPS and 100 kg/ha of urea fertilizers at each location. All NPS was
applied at planting while urea was applied in split: half at the time of planting and
the remaining half at the tillering stage. In addition, other relevant field trial
management practices were carried out uniformly for all experimental units. Data
were taken for days to 50% heading, plant height, days to 90 % maturity,
hectoliter weight, thousand kernel weight, and grain yield.
Statistical Analysis
Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each environment
separately; and also combined analysis of variance was conducted to determine
the effect of environment (E), genotype (G) and GXE interaction on the
expression of traits. The SAS software version 9.3 and R- software were used for
combined ANOVA and GGE biplot respectively. The data were graphically
presented for interpreting GXE interaction using the GGE biplot software (Yan,
2001). The stability analysis among genotypes over environments was done using
GGE biplot multivariate analysis methods as described below. GGE biplot
analysis is an effective method, based on principal component analysis, to fully
explore multi-environment trial data (Yan and Wu, 2008). The basic model for a
GGE biplot is:
where is the mean for the genotype in the environment, is the grand
mean is the main effect of environment j, and are the singular values of
the 1st and 2nd principal components (PC1 and PC2), and are the PC1 and
PC2 scores, respectively, for genotype; and are the eigen vectors for
the environment for PC1 and PC2 and is the residual error term.

The combined analysis of variance of the six traits is presented in Table 3. The
variances due to environment was significant(P<0.001) for days to 50% heading,
days to 90% maturity, plant height, thousand kernel weights, hectoliter weight and
grain yield, indicating the distinct and differential effects of different
environmental conditions. The variances due to genotypes were significant
(P<0.001) for days to 50% heading, days to 90% maturity, plant height, thousand
kernel weight, hectoliter weight and grain yield indicating the genetic differences
of the genotypes in the environments. This result was in line with the finding of
[100]
Kifle et al. (2016) who reported highly significant variations among bread wheat
genotypes in all studied traits. The variance due to GEI was significant (P<0.001)
for days to 50% heading, days to 90% maturity, plant height, thousand kernel
weight, hectoliter weight and grain yield, showing the differential response of the
varieties in the different testing environments. The significant GEI effects suggest
that some genotypes may be selected for adaptation to specific environments.
Hence, the GEI effects demonstrated that genotypes responded differently to the
variation in environmental conditions which necessitates testing of bread varieties
across multiple environments.
Table 3. Combined analysis of variance of grain yield and agronomic traits for 25 bread wheat genotypes evaluated at ten
environments
Source of DTH DTM PHT TKW HLW GYLD
variation Df MS Df MS MS Df MS MS MS
ENV 9 4048** 8 7730.8** 5301.6** 9 1878.93** 2678.45** 233.579**
GEN 24 144.8** 24 113** 292.1** 24 389.15** 57.97** 6.798**
ENV*GEN 216 28.4** 192 46.6** 36.6** 216 38.67** 9.19** 1.88**
Residuals 480 20.5 432 29.2 23.2 480 14.88 2.29 0.692
Total 729 - 656 - - 729 - - -
Where,** highly significantly different at P<0.001; GYLD = Grain yield (t/ha); DTH = Days to 50% heading; DTM= Days to
90% maturity; PHT= plant height (cm); TKW = Thousand kernel weight (g) and HLW = Hectoliter weight (kg/hl); MS =
Mean square; Df= degrees of freedom; ENV = Environment; GEN = Genotype.
The variance components were estimated for the six agronomic traits of bread
wheat genotypes (Table 4). Two years’ data showed different responses in the
same location and this indicate the presence of high seasonal variation within the
same location and the need to test across multiple years. The environmental
variance accounted the largest proportion of the total variance (78.66%) than the
genetic variance (6.13%) and the interaction variance (15.22%) for grain yield.
This may indicate that grain yield of bread wheat lines is largely affected by the
variation in environment followed by the genotype by environment interaction and
the genotypic effect. A large sum of squares for environments indicated that the
environments were diverse, with large differences among environmental means
causing variation in the bread wheat genotypes performance for grain yield.
Different authors (Melkamu et al., 2015; Dawit et al., 2017) reported that grain
yield of bread wheat is highly affected by variation in environments. The GEI
effect was higher than the genotypic effect. This may indicate the existence of a
considerable amount of deferential response among the genotypes to changes in
growing environments and the differential discrimination ability of the testing
environments.
The TKW, DTM, PHT and DTH were highly affected by the environment. The
environmental variations contributed more than 80% to total treatment sum of
squares for TKW and DTM; 70-80% for PHT and DTH (Table 4). The
environment contributed 54.97% to total sum of square for HLW. A large sum of
[101]
squares for environments indicates that the environments were diverse, with large
differences among environmental means causing variations in the bread wheat
agronomic traits. High environmental variance on evaluation of bread wheat for
agronomic traits was also reported by Desalegn (2012) and Demelash et al. (2013)
on a different study. The genotype contributed less than 10% to total treatment
sum of square of GYLD, DTH and DTM and 10-20% in PHT, TKW and HLW
indicating the genetic potential of the genotypes are similar for the traits. GEI
contributed less than 10% to total treatment sum of square in TKW. It contributed
10-20% in DTM, PHT, DTH, and GYLD; 20-30% in HLW.
Table 4. The contributions of source of variations to the variance of the measured traits
Source of variations Contributions to the total variance (%)
GYLDa DTHb DTMc PHTd TKWe HLWf
Environments 78.66 79.12 84.14 75.13 81.45 54.97
Genotype 6.13 7.55 3.69 12.42 16.87 23.22
Interactions 15.22 13.33 12.16 12.49 1.68 21.81
aGYLD: Grain yield (t/ha); bDTH: Days to 50% heading; cDTM: Days to 90 % maturity; dPHT: plant height; eTKW:
Thousand kernel weight (g) and fHLW: Hectoliter weight (kg/hl)
Mean Grain Yield Performance of Bread Wheat Genotypes

The result revealed that there was significant difference among genotypes for
grain yield across the testing environments indicating that there is a possibility to
select good performing genotype/s. The mean grain yield of the genotypes across
the ten environments were 4.90 t/ha which ranged from 4.13 t/ha (ETBW9601) to
5.88 t/ha (ETBW9616) (Table 5). The observed environmental mean grain yield
ranged from 2.87 t/ha for Adet-2019 to 7.58 t/ha for Kulumsa-2018. In general,
the ranking of genotypes changes from one environment to another and this is also
an indication of the existence of cross over genotype by environment (GEI). This
was due to variation among the testing environments and agrees with the findings
of (Trakanovas and Ruzagas, 2006; Temesgen et al., 2015) who reported that the
GEI was highly significant reflecting the differential response of bread wheat
genotypes in various environments.
The lowest grain yield was obtained from the genotype ETBW 9613 (1.51 t/ha) at
Bekoji-2019 while the highest mean grain yield was obtained from the genotype
ETBW 9606 (9.21 t/ha) at Asasa-2019. The advanced genotype ETBW 9616
ranked first in mean grain yield over the ten environments (Table 5). The
advanced genotype ETBW 9606 ranked third in mean grain yield over the ten
environments; and it ranked first at Asasa-2018, Asasa-2019, and Kulumsa-2018.
This rank change of the same genotype over different environments for the same
trait is the consequence of the highly significant GxE interaction. Genotype
ETBW 9606 ranked first in the highest-yielding environment Kulumsa-2018 with
a mean yield of 9.21 t/ha and 25th at Kulumsa-2019 with a mean yield of 6.2
[102]
t/ha. This indicates that the two years’ data showed the different response at the
same location and the presence of high seasonal variation within the same
location; and the need to consider both seasons and locations for multi-
environment trial (MET) analysis of bread wheat genotypes for agronomic traits.
Where, KUL-18: Kulumsa-2018; BK-18: Bekoji-2018; AA-18: Asasa-2018; RB-
18: Robe Arsi -2018, EN-18: Enewari-2018; KUL-19: Kulumsa-2019; BK-19:
Bekoji-2019; AA-19: Asasa-2019; RB-19: Robe Arsi-19; and Ad-19: Adet-2019
Which Won Where Pattern

The present results showed that the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2)
obtained by singular value decomposition of the environment-centered data
explained 68.01% of the total variability attributable to G+GE of yield data (Fig.
1). The biplot enabled visual comparison of the locations and genotypes studied
and their interrelationships. The vertices of the polygon were the genotype
markers located farthest away from the biplot origin in various directions, such
that all genotype markers were contained within the resulting polygon. The vertex
genotypes were ETBW 9616 (11) for quadrant I; ETBW 9597 (5), and ETBW
9613 (9), and BW174469 (23) for quadrant II; ETBW 9623 (15), for quadrant III
and two genotypes (ETBW 9606 (7) and ETBW 9624 (16)) for quadrant IV. Mega
environment may have more than one winning cultivar. These genotypes were the
best or worst in some or all environments because they are farthest from the origin
of the biplot (Yan and Kang, 2003) and are more responsive to environmental
changes and are considered as specifically adapted genotypes.
The environments fall into three quadrants while the genotypes fall into four
quadrants (Fig. 1). The first quadrant contained three environments: Enawari-2018
(EN-18), Bekoji-2018 (BK-18) and Bekoji-2019 (BK-19) and six genotypes
ETBW 9233 (3), ETBW 9594 (4), ETBW 9611(8), ETBW 9615 (10), ETBW
9616 (11) and ETBW 9635 (20) and the vertex genotype for this section was
ETBW 9611(8), that represents the highest yielding genotype at these three
environments. Environments within the same sector share the same winning
genotype. Enawari-2018 (EN-18), Bekoji-2018 (BK-18) and Bekoji-2019 (BK-19)
are high-altitude environments (Table 2). The second quadrant contained one
environment: Kulumsa-2019 (KUL-19) and eight genotypes namely; ETBW 9601
(2), ETBW 9597 (5), ETBW 9613 (9), ETBW 9617 (12), ETBW 9618 (13),
ETBW 9627 (18), BW174469 (23) and Lemu (25), and the vertex genotype for
this section were ETBW 9597 (5), ETBW 9613 (9) and BW174469 (23).
Genotype BW174469 (23) was high yielding while ETBW 9613 (9) was low
yielding genotype for this environment.
[103]
Table 5: Mean performance for grain yield (t/ha) of 23 genotypes and 2 checks tested across 10 environments (2018 - 2019 cropping seasons)
Genotype KUL-18 BK-18 AA-18 RB-18 EN-18 KUL-19 BK-19 AA-19 RB-19 AD-19 Mean
WANE 7.52 4.45 5.34 3.25 3.91 6.52 3.64 7.78 5.15 3.06 5.06
ETBW 9601 6.18 3.98 4.41 2.15 4.11 7.06 2.13 5.01 3.45 2.77 4.13
ETBW 9233 8.49 4.56 4.64 3.55 4.58 8.35 4.41 6.69 4.19 3.38 5.28
ETBW 9594 6.82 5.17 6.06 2.67 4.13 8.14 3.73 8.1 4.51 3.18 5.25
ETBW 9597 6.33 5.48 4.2 2.78 4.00 6.78 3.99 5.05 4.48 2.76 4.58
ETBW 9605 7.86 4.89 5.13 3.68 4.47 7.02 3.37 7.99 4.55 3.3 5.23
ETBW 9606 8.98 5.03 6.16 3.37 4.48 6.20 5.6 9.21 5.02 2.99 5.70
ETBW 9611 8.94 5.79 4.46 3.02 4.63 6.59 6.93 8.99 5.07 3.21 5.76
ETBW 9613 6.36 3.62 5.26 3.25 4.73 8.38 1.51 4.39 3.13 2.67 4.33
ETBW 9615 7.61 5.02 5.92 3.00 4.32 7.68 5.72 8.94 4.96 2.92 5.61
ETBW 9616 8.75 5.46 5.57 3.79 4.14 6.96 7.03 8.74 4.79 3.52 5.88
ETBW 9617 7.79 4.63 3.25 2.78 4.99 8.37 4.31 6.58 3.2 2.89 4.88
ETBW 9618 6.35 4.67 2.89 3.71 4.38 6.72 3.26 6.49 4.07 3.72 4.63
ETBW 9619 7.47 3.91 4.59 3.47 4.29 7.01 3.36 7.91 5.09 3.37 5.05
ETBW 9623 8.01 3.37 3.24 3.33 4.26 7.27 1.68 7.5 4.4 2.12 4.52
ETBW 9624 8.82 3.94 4.45 4.07 3.13 6.35 2.75 8.89 3.59 2.78 4.88
ETBW 9626 7.58 3.46 4.00 3.02 4.10 7.15 1.66 7.36 4.72 2.88 4.59
ETBW 9627 7.02 3.3 4.54 2.89 4.38 7.28 2.51 5.44 3.96 2.58 4.39
ETBW 9628 7.29 3.81 4.93 2.11 4.24 7.05 2.89 6.97 3.63 3.02 4.59
ETBW 9635 8.14 4.48 4.68 2.82 4.60 7.48 4.55 7.36 3.26 2.61 5.00
ETBW 9636 7.74 3.46 4.22 2.24 3.73 7.54 2.43 6.63 3.11 2.96 4.41
BW174468 7.73 2.52 4.41 2.32 4.26 7.75 4.27 7.12 4.35 2.49 4.72
BW174469 6.46 4.99 4.00 2.58 3.89 6.29 5.43 6.13 2.92 2.31 4.50
BW174470 8.45 2.46 5.39 3.08 3.72 7.86 4.37 7.49 3.99 2.41 4.92
LEMU 6.80 5.5 4.76 3.16 4.48 7.46 3.31 6.22 3.97 1.75 4.74
Mean 7.58 4.32 4.66 3.04 4.24 7.25 3.79 7.16 4.14 2.87 4.9
LSD (5%) 0.65 1.01 0.7 0.65 0.45 0.32 1 1.26 0.72 0.41
CV (%) 4.8 15.3 29.15 22.48 8.75 15.25 15.91 11.45 10.45 8.76
[104]
The third quadrant contained five genotypes ETBW 9623 (15), ETBW 9626 (17),
ETBW 9628 (19), ETBW 9636 (21) and BW174468 (22), and the vertex for this
quadrant was ETBW 9623(15). Quadrant four contained six environments Adet-
2019 (AD-19), Asasa-2018 (AA-18), Asasa-2019 (AA-19), Robe-2018 (RB-18),
Robe-2019 (RB-19) and Kulumsa-2018 (KUL-18) and five genotypes namely
Wane (1), ETBW 9605 (6), ETBW 9606 (7), ETBW 9619 (14), ETBW 9624 (16)
and BW174470 (24). The vertex and highest yielding genotypes for this section
were ETBW 9606 (7) and ETBW 9624 (16). Environments Adet-2019 (AD-19),
Asasa-2018 (AA-18), Asasa-2019 (AA-19), Robe Arsi-2018 (RB-18), Robe Arsi-
2019 (RB-19) and Kulumsa-2018 (KUL-18) are in the mid-altitude areas.
Figure 1. The which-won-where view of the GGE biplot to show which bread wheat genotype performed better in which
environment for grain yield
Grain Yield Performance and Stability of

Bread Wheat Genotypes
The stability and grain yield performance of twenty-five wheat genotypes were
evaluated using average environment coordination (AEC) method (Fig.2). In GGE
biplot methodology, the estimation of yield and stability of genotypes can be done
using the average environment coordinate (AEC) methods (Yan, 2001). In the
GGE biplot, genotypes with high PC1 scores can be considered as genotypes with
high mean yield and those with low PC2 scores are considered stable across
environments (Yan and Tinker, 2006). Within a single mega-environment,
genotypes should be evaluated for both mean performance and stability across
environments. Therefore, in the present study, genotype ETBW 9616 (11), ETBW
9611 (8), ETBW 9606 (7), ETBW 9624 (10) and ETBW 9233 (3) showed highest
[105]
average yield followed by genotypes ETBW 9594 (4), ETBW 9605 (6), Wane (1),
ETBW 9619 (14) and ETBW 9623 (20). Additionally, the grain yield performance
stability of genotypes across the testing environments is very important. A
genotype which has shorter absolute length of projection in either of the two
directions of AEC ordinate (located closer to AEC abscissa), represents a smaller
tendency of GEI, which means it is the most stable genotype across different
environments or vice versa. Hence, genotypes ETBW 9619 (14), ETBW 9624
(10), ETBW 9233 (3), ETBW 9623 (20) and ETBW 9606 (7) were identified as
the most stable and high yielding genotypes and ETBW 9627 (18) and ETBW
9628 (19) were identified as stable and low yielding genotypes across the ten
environments. Whereas genotypes ETBW 9624 (16), ETBW 9626 (17),
BW174469 (23) and ETBW 9597 (5) were identified as the least stable and low
yielding genotypes (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Grain yield performance and stability of bread wheat genotypes
Evaluation of Genotypes Relative to the Ideal Genotypes

An ideal genotype is defined as one that is the highest yielding across test
environments and it’s absolutely stable in performance (that ranks the highest in
all test environments) (Yan and Kang, 2003; Farshadfar et al. 2012). Although
such an “ideal” genotype may not exist in reality, it could be used as a reference
for genotype evaluation and a genotype is more desirable if it is located closer to
“ideal” genotype (Mitrovic et al., 2012). Genotypes closer to an “ideal” genotype
were ETBW 9606 (7) followed by ETBW 9615(10), ETBW 9616(11) and ETBW
9611(8). On the contrary, the lower yielding genotypes ETBW 9613(9) and
ETBW9601 (2) were unfavorable because they are far from the ideal genotype
(Fig. 3). The relative contributions of stability and grain yield to the identification
[106]
of desirable genotype found in this study by the ideal genotype procedure of the
GGE biplot is in agreement with the report of Fan et al. (2007) for maize grain
yield.
Evaluation of Environments Relative to the Ideal Environments

An ideal environment is one which is highly differentiating (discriminating) the
tested genotypes and at the same time be representative of the target locations
(Yan and Kang, 2003) and desirable environments are close to the ideal
environment. Accordingly, nearest to the first concentric circle, the environment
Asasa-2019 was the ideal environment to select widely adapted bread wheat
genotypes, whereas, Kulumsa-2019 and Enawari-2018 were far from the ideal
environment and considered as unstable and it is, therefore, not a representative
environment for the other eight environments included in this study (Fig. 4). This
result was in line with the works of (Muez et al., 2015; Gadisa et al., 2019) for
bread wheat.
Figure 3. Ranking of genotypes related to ideal genotype

Note: KUL-18: Kulumsa-2018; BK-18: Bekoji-2018; AA-18: Asasa-2018; RB-18: Robe Arsi -2018, EN-18: Enewari-2018;
KUL-19: Kulumsa-2019; BK-19: Bekoji-2019; AA-19: Asasa-2019; RB-19: Robe Arsi-19; and Ad-19: Adet-2019.
[107]
Figure 4. Ranking of environments based on ideal genotype
Discriminating Ability and Representativeness of Environments

Discriminating power and representativeness view of the GGE- biplot is an
important measure of testing environments (Dehghani et al., 2006). The GGE
biplot revealed the discriminating ability and representativeness of test
environments (Fig. 5). The similarity (covariance) between two environments is
determined by both the length of their vectors and the cosine of the angle between
them. In this case, a long environmental vector reflects a high capacity to
discriminate the genotypes. Environments Bekoji-2019 and Asasa-2019 had good
discriminating ability as shown by a long environmental vector and give more
information on the performance of the genotypes while Adet-2019 was the least
discriminating environment, as indicated by short environment vector. This means
if the study is carried out for several seasons and same sites continue to be non-
discriminating (less informative); it means the locations can be dropped and not be
used as test locations. The representativeness of the test environments with a small
angle to the average environmental axis (AEA) is more representative than other
test environments. This means that Adet-2019 was the most representative test
environment but had poor discriminating ability whereas Bekoji-2019 and Asasa-
2019 had good discriminating ability and less representativeness. Environments
Enawari-2018, Kulumsa-2018 and Bekoji-2018 were the least representative
environments. Test environments which are discriminating but non-representative
like Bekoji-2019 and Asasa-2019 are important under circumstances of selecting
genotypes that are specifically adapted if the target environments can be divided
into mega-environments.
[108]
Figure 5. Discriminating ability and representativeness of environments

The GGE biplot analysis showed that both year and location are important for
studying stability and adaptability of bread wheat genotypes for grain yield in high
moisture areas of Ethiopia. The information generated regarding the test
environments for bread wheat breeding and MET analysis is useful for the future
works. The model identified the following genotypes, ETBW9594, ETBW9615,
ETBW9233, ETBW9635, and ETBW9606 as the most stable and high yielding
across the ten environments. Based on other desirable agronomic performance and
wide adaptability, genotype ETBW9606 was selected as candidate variety for
verification in the year 2020 to release as a commercial variety.
References
Abdennour S, Houcine B, Rhouma S, Sahbi F, and Tahar S. 2019. Stability and
adaptability concepts of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the northwest of
Tunisia. Biologia futura, 70: 240-250.
Bekele H, Verkuiji H, Mawangi W, and Tanner DG. 2000. Adaptation of Improved
Wheat Technologies in Adaba and Dodola Woredas of The Bale highlands of
Ethiopia. CIMMYT/EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2018. Agricultural Sample Survey 2017/18 (2010 E.C.)
Volume 1. Report on Area and Production of Major Crops (Private Peasant
Holdings, Mehere Season). Statistical Bulletin No. 586. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[109]
Chamekh Z, Karmous C, Ayadi S, Sahli A, Hammami Z, Fraj MB, Benaissa N, Trifa Y
and Slim-Amara H. 2015. Stability analysis of yield component traits in 25 durum
wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) genotypes under contrasting irrigation water
salinity. Agricultural Water Management, 152: 1-6.
Conway D, Schipper ELF. 2011. Adaptation to climate change in Africa: Challenges and
opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 21: 227-237.
Dabessa A, Alemu B, Abebe Z and Lule D. 2016. Genotype by environment interaction
and kernel yield stability of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) varieties in western
Oromia, Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Crops, 2(11): 113-120.
Dawit A, Tigabu, Zerihun T, Habtemariam Z and Alemayehu A. 2017. Seasonal
variability and genetic response of elite bread wheat lines in drought prone
environments of Ethiopia. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 05 (01): 15-21.
Dehghani H, Ebadi A and Yousefi A. 2006. Biplot analysis of genotype by environment
interaction for barley yield in Iran. Agron. J., 98: 388-393.
Demelash AL, Desalegn T, & Alemayehu G. 2013. Genetic variation of bread wheat
(Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes based on number of phenological and
morphological traits at Marwold Kebele, Womberma Woreda, West Gojam.
Wudpecker . J. Agr. Res. 2(6):160 –166.
Desalegn Regasa. 2012. Genotype-Environment Interaction and Disease Severity in Bread
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties in Borena and Guji Zone, Southern
Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Fan XM, Kang MS, Chen H, Zhang Y, Tan J. and Xu C. 2007. Yield stability of maize
hybrids evaluated in multi-environment trials in Yunnan, China. Agron. J. 99:220-
228.
Farshadfar E, Mohammadi R, Aghaee M, & Vaisi Z. 2012. GGE biplot analysis of
genotype x environment interaction in wheat-barley disomic addition lines. Aust. J.
Crop Sci. 6: 1074–1079.
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2017. Crop Prospects
and Food Situation. Rome, Italy.
Funga A, Bekele D, Monyo E, Tadesse M, Mohamed R, Gaur P, Eshete M, Ojiewo C,
Bishaw Z, Fikre A, Rao G, Korbu L, Girma N, Siambi M. 2017. Genotype by
environment interaction on yield stability of desi type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
at major chickpea producing areas of Ethiopia. Aust. J. of Crop Sci. 11(02):212-
219.
Gadisa A, Asnake D, and Mohammed H. 2019. GGE Biplot Analysis of Genotype by
Environment Interaction and Grain Yield Stability of Bread Wheat Genotypes in
Central Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 7(2), pp.75-85.
Gauch H. 2006. Winning the Accuracy Game. American Scientist, 94: 133.
Hailu GM. 1991. Wheat production and research in Ethiopia pp: 1-15. In: Hailu G,
Tanner, DG. and Mengistu H (eds). Wheat research in Ethiopia: A historical
perspective. Addis Ababa, IAR/CIMMYT.
https://doi.org/10.1511/2006.2.133
Kifle Z, Firew M and Tadesse D. 2016. Genetic variability, heritability and genetic
advance in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum.L) genotypes at Gurage Zone, Ethiopia.
Inter. J. Micr and Biot. 1(1): 1-9.
[110]
Melkamu T, Sentayehu A & Firdissa E. 2015. GGE Biplot analysis of genotype by
environment interaction and grain yield stability of bread wheat genotypes in South
East Ethiopia. W. J. Agri. Sci. 11(4):183-190.
Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. 2018. Plant Variety Release, Protection
and Seed Quality Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register, Issue No. 21, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Mitrovic B, Stanisavljevi D, Treski S, Stojakovic M, Ivanovic M, Bekavac G & Rajkovic.
M. 2012. Evaluation of experimental Maize hybrids tested in Multi-location trials
using AMMI and GGE biplot analysis. Turkish J. Field Crops. 17(1):35-40.
Muez M, Mizan T, Haddis Y, Adhiena M, Teklay A, Assefa W, Birhanu A
2015. GGE biplot analysis of genotype-by-environment interaction and grain yield
stability of bread wheat genotypes in South Tigray, Ethiopia. Communications in
Biometry and Crop Science.10.17–26.
Rosell, S. 2011. Regional perspective on rainfall change and variability in the central
highlands of Ethiopia, 1978-2007. Applied Geography, 31: 329-338.
Tarakanovas P & Ruzgas V. 2006. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction
analysis of grain yield of wheat varieties in Lithuania. Agronomy research.4 (1). 91-
98.
Temesgen B, Sintayew A & Zerihun T. 2015. Genotype X environment interaction and
yield stability of bread wheat (Triticum Eastivum L.) genotype in Ethiopia using the
Ammi Analysis. J. Bio, Agri and Healthcare, 5(11): 129-139.
Yan & Tinker. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and
applications. Canadian J. Plant Sci, 86: 623–645.
Yan WS, Kang M, Baoluo M, Woods S & Cornelius PL. 2007. GGE Biplot vs. AMMI
analysis of genotype-by-environment data. Crop Sci. 47:643-653.
Yan W. 2001. GGE biplot: a Windows application for graphical analysis of multi
environment trial data and other types of two-way data. Agronomy, 93: 1111-1118.
Yan W and Kang MS. 2003. GGE biplot Analysis: a Graphical Tool for Breeders,
Geneticists and Agronomists CRC Press LLC: Boca Roton, Florida.
Yan W and Rajcan I. 2002. Biplot evaluation of test sites and trait relations of soybean in
Ontario. Crop Sci. 42: 11–20.
Yan W and Wu, HX. 2008. Application of GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype (G),
environment (E), and G× E interaction on Pinus radiata: A case study. New Zealand
Journal of Forestry Science, 38(1), pp.132-142. https://www.world-
2019.
[111]
[112]
Performance Evaluation and Yield Stability of
Advanced Bread Wheat Genotypes in Ethiopia
Gadisa Alemu, Alemu Dabi, Tafesse Solomon, Negash Geleta, Abebe Delessa,
Ruth Duga, Demeke Zewudu, Habtemariam Zegeye, Dawit Asnake,
Bayisa Aseffa, and Abebe Getamesay
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center, Kulumsa Research Center, Kulumsa, Ethiopia
Abstract
Plant breeders have long sought to develop lines that combine outstanding
performance with high and stable grain yield in different environments. The study
of genotype by environment interaction is important in genotype testing programs
because the yield performance of a genotype is a result of the genotype,
environment and the interaction between the two. This study was carried out with
the objectives to identify advanced genotypes with better yield performance and
stable yield across the different agro-ecologies of Ethiopia; and to identify
candidate varieties for the end user. Therefore, twenty-five bread wheat genotypes
were evaluated using alpha lattice design in three replications at eleven
environments (year by location) in Ethiopia. The results of the study of the genotype
by environment interaction of genotypes tested during two consecutive years (2018-
2019), under rain-fed conditions indicated highly significant differences among
environment, genotype, and interactions. During the two cropping seasons,
genotype ETBW9089 was a high yielder genotype. The presence of genotype x
environment interaction was shown in the combined analysis of variance. The total
variance is composed of 83.0%, 13.8%, and 3.1% of the variation due to the
environment, interaction and the genotype. The results showed that the interactions
lead to different rankings of the tested genotypes across the cropping seasons with
groupings between genotypes. The present study identified ETBW9089 as a high
yielder which ranked first and with other good agronomic performance better than
the standard check Wane. This genotype is proposed as a candidate variety for
variety verification in the year 2020.
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the first most important and strategic cereal crop
for the majority of the world’s population. It is the important staple food for about
two billion people (36% of the world population) (https://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-
halle.de/diss-online/04/04H184/t2.pdf). Wheat constitutes a staple food
worldwide, providing ~20% of the total calories and proteins to human diets
globally (Shiferaw et al., 2013). It exceeds in acreage and production every other
grain crop (including rice, maize, etc.) and is the most important cereal crop of the
world which is cultivated over a wide range of climatic conditions. The
understanding of genetics and genome organization using molecular markers is of
great value for genetic and plant breeding purposes.
[113]
The yield potential of a cultivar is the result of its performance over locations and
years. Therefore, stability analysis of genotypes is required in the presence of GEI
to identify high-yielding and relatively stable genotypes. On assessing grain yield
of a set of cultivars in a multi-environmental trial, changes are commonly
observed in the relative performance of genotypes across locations. This
difference in performance of genotypes from one environment to another is called
Genotype x environmental interaction (GxE) (Baye et al., 2011). Genotype x
environmental interaction (GxE) can lead to differences in performance of
genotypes over environments (Dia et al., 2017). Analysis of GxE enables breeders
to select superior genotypes for a target environment. To identify superior
genotypes across multiple environments, plant breeders conduct trials across
locations and years during the final stages of cultivar development (Dia et al.,
2017). Several studies of genotype by environment interactions (GxE) and yield
stability have been reported on wheat grown under different locations and
conditions of Ethiopia (Ayalneh et al., 2013, Dawit et al., 2017, Zerihun et al.,
2018, Gadisa et al., 2019). Each variety has a genotype-specific ability to maintain
performance over a wide range of environmental conditions (Hancock, 2004).
This ability is usually referred to as the sensitivity or adaptability of a variety.
Such ability is an important property, because farmers naturally want to use
varieties which perform well in their own fields. Assessing sensitivity has,
however, proved difficult, because of problems involved in defining and
measuring the wide diversity of natural environments (Khan et al., 2019).
The process of variety development of wheat with disease resistance, wide

adaptability, and high yield, which resulted in the release of many cultivars to end-
users in the country is a continuous activity performed by various research
institutes and universities. However, most of these cultivars were out of
production due to their susceptibility to rust. Several bread wheat varieties were
developed to alleviate the wheat production constraints in Ethiopia. The
productivity of bread wheat in Ethiopia can be improved by the identification of
adaptable, high-yielding, and rust-resistant genotypes through the evaluation of
advanced wheat genotypes for yield in multi-environment trials (Mizan et
al.,2019). Therefore, this study was aimed at identifying advanced bread wheat
genotypes with better yield performance and yield stability across different agro-
ecologies of Ethiopia and proposes as a variety for end users.
Location Descriptions
The genotypes were evaluated in seven environments (years by location) in 2018
and 2019 main cropping seasons in the mid to highland wheat-growing parts of
Ethiopia.
[114]
Table 2. List of test locations and their descriptions
Geographic position Temperature (oc)
Code Location Latitude Longitude Altitude Min Max Rainfall(mm)
1 Kulumsa 08o01'10"N 39o09'11"E 2200 10.5 22.8 820
2 A.Robe 07o53'02"N 39o37'40"E 2420 6 21.1 890
3 Asasa 07o07'09"N 39o11'50"E 2340 5.8 24 644
4 Bekoji 07 32'37"N
o 39o15'21"E 2780 7.9 18.6 1020
5 Areka 7°3′25'' N 37°40'52'' E 2230 1290
6 Holeta 09°03′41′′N 38°30′44′′E 2400 6.2 22.1 1044
7 Adet 11° 16’ N 37° 29’ E 2216 9.2 25.5 1250
Experimental Materials
Twenty-three advanced bread wheat genotypes and two standard checks (released
varieties) were evaluated in this study. The list of the genotypes was indicated in
Table 2.
Table 2. List of materials tested across locations

Entr
y Genotype Pedigree
1 WANE Check
2 ETBW 9185 KISKADEE #1/5/KAUZ*2/MNV//KAUZ/3/MILAN/4/BAV92/6/WHEAR//2*PRL/2*PASTOR
3 ETBW 9193 CHWINK/GRACKLE #1//FRNCLN
4 ETBW 9086 MINO/898.97/4/2*PFAU/SERI.1B//AMAD/3/KRONSTAD F2004
5 ETBW 9087 ATTILA/3/URES/PRL//BAV92/4/WBLL1/5/CHYAK1/6/NAVJ07
6 ETBW 9089 BABAX/LR42//BABAX/3/ER2000/4/BAVIS
PFAU/MILAN/3/BABAX/LR42//BABAX/8/JUP/ZP//COC/3/PVN/4/TNMU/5/TNMU/6/SITE/7/
7 ETBW 9109 TNMU
PRL/2*PASTOR//WAXWING*2/KRONSTAD F2004/4/PBW343*2/KUKUNA//KRONSTAD
8 ETBW 9284 F2004/3/PBW343*2/KUKUNA
9 ETBW 9299 WHEAR/SOKOLL/4/WBLL1/KUKUNA//TACUPETO F2001/3/UP2338*2/VIVITSI
CROC_1/AE.SQUARROSA
10 ETBW 9304 (205)//BORL95/3/PRL/SARA//TSI/VEE#5/4/FRET2*2/5/WHEAR/SOKOLL
11 ETBW 9313 ROLF07/YANAC//TACUPETO F2001/BRAMBLING*2/3/WHEAR//2*PRL/2*PASTOR
12 ETBW 9094 THELIN/3/BABAX/LR42//BABAX/4/BABAX/LR42//BABAX*2/5/KIRITATI/2*TRCH
13 ETBW 9066 PRL/2*PASTOR/4/CHOIX/STAR/3/HE1/3*CNO79//2*SERI/5/KIRITATI/2*TRCH
14 ETBW 9102 CETA/AE.SQUARROSA (174)//2*MUU
BABAX/LR42//BABAX/3/ER2000/11/CROC_1/AE.SQUARROSA
(213)//PGO/10/ATTILA*2/9/
15 ETBW 9315 KT/BAGE//FN/U/3/BZA/4/TRM/5/ALDAN/6/ SERI/7/VEE#10/8/OPATA/12/BAVIS
16 BW174459 THELIN/WAXWING//ATTILA*2/PASTOR/3/INQALAB91*2/TUKURU 9Y-0B
17 BW174460 PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/SOKOLL/WBLL1/4/SAFI-1//NS732/HER/3/SAADA,
18 BW174461 PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/SOKOLL/WBLL1/4/SAFI-1//NS732/HER/3/SAADA,,
19 BW174462 PASTOR//HXL7573/2*BAU/3/SOKOLL/WBLL1/4/SAFI-1//NS732/HER/3/SAADA
SERI.1B//KAUZ/HEVO/3/AMAD/4/ESWYT99#18/ARRIHANE/5/SITTA/BUCHIN//CHIL/BO
20 BW174463 MB
21 BW174464 PFAU/MILAN//FUNG MAI 24/3/ATTILA*2/CROW
22 BW174465 FLORKWA-2/85 Z 1284//ETBW 4920/3/LOULOU-18
23 BW174466 SHARP/3/PRL/SARA//TSI/VEE#5/5/VEE/LIRA//BOW/3/BCN/4/KAUZ/6/HUBARA-5
24 BW174467 CHEN/AEGILOPS SQUARROSA (TAUS)//BCN/3/VEE#7/BOW/4/PASTOR/5/HUBARA-1
25 LEMU Check
[115]
Experimental Layout and Phenotyping
The experiment was laid out using alpha lattice design in three replications at all
environments. Each experimental field plot had six rows of 2.5 m length by 1.2 m
width (3m2) with an inter-row spacing of 0.2. Each plot was planted at a seeding
rate of 150 kg/ ha. Fertilizer application and other crop management practices
were done as per the recommendations of each test location. Data were recorded
on days to heading, days to maturity, plant height, thousand kernel weight,
hectoliter weight and grain yield. However, only grain yield was considered for
stability analysis.
For the combined analysis of variance, each year x location combination was
considered as an environment (E). The genotypes (G) and environments (E) were
subjected to the AMMI method of analysis. The SAS software (Hussein et
al.,2000) and R- software (Gauch,2006) were used for combined ANOVA and
AMMI analysis respectively The AMMI analysis was performed using the model
suggested by Crossa et al. (1990) as:
∑
Where is the yield of the genotype in the environment, μ is the grand
mean, is the mean of the genotype minus the grand mean, is the mean of
the environment minus the grand mean, is the square root of the Eigenvalue
of the principal component analysis (PCA) axis, and are the principal
component scores for PCA axis n of the genotype and environment and
is the error term.

The results of the analysis of variance for grain yield revealed highly significant
(P <0.001) differences between genotypes (G), environment (E), and interactions
(GEI) (Table 3). Highly significant differences between G and E for grain yield
might indicate the presence of genetic variability among the genotypes as well as
differences among the testing environments. This is indicated by the mean yield of
genotypes across the environment that range from 4.9 t ha (G22) to 5.6 t ha-1 (G6)
and the environmental index ranged from 2.6 t ha-1 (Areka-2018) to 7.61 t ha-1
(Kulumsa-2019) (Table 4). The presence of significant GxE interaction showed
the differential performance of bread wheat genotypes across environments and
unstable performance of genotype across the different testing locations and
complicates selection and recommendation of genotype in a specified
environment.
[116]
Environment and genotype accounted for about 83.02% and 3.13% of the total
variation for grain yield, respectively while the GEI explained 13.85% of the total
variation (Table 3). This high percentage of the mean sum of squares due to the
environment is an indication that the test environments were very diverse and play
a significant role in influencing yield performance and causing most of the
variation in grain yield. The results were in agreement with the findings of (Dawit
et al, 2017, Gadisa et al., 2019; Gadisa et al., 2020) who reported that bread wheat
grain yield was significantly affected by the environment.
Table 3. AMMI analysis of variance for grain yield (t ha-1) of 25 genotypes tested across eight locations in
2018 and 2019
Source of variation Df Sum Square Percent Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Loc. 10 2477.07 83.02 247.71 450.89 <.0001
Rep (Loc) 22 35.33 1.61 2.92 <.0001
Gen. 24 93.26 3.13 3.89 7.07 <.0001
Loc. X Gen. 240 413.38 13.85 1.72 3.14 <.0001
PC1 33 185.53 44.53 5.62 13.88 <.0001
PC2 31 89.31 21.44 2.88 7.11 <.0001
PC3 29 39.97 9.59 1.38 3.40 <.0001
PC4 27 30.36 7.29 1.12 2.78 <.0001
PC5 25 22.84 5.48 0.91 2.26 <.0001
PC6 23 21.19 5.09 0.92 2.28 <.0001
Error 528 290.07 0.55
Total 824 3309.12
Mean Yield Performance Across Testing Environments

The highest grain yield across environments was recorded from Kulumsa-2019
(G6=9.03 t ha-1) and Asasa (G21=8.83 and G1=8.55 t ha-1) while the lowest grain
yield was recorded from the genotype G24 at Areka-218 (Table 4). The standard
check variety G1 (Wane) remained the second-highest yielding 8.55 t ha-1 at
Asasa-2019. Variety Wane (4.96 t/ha) and Lemu (4.97 t/ha) ranked 18th and 16th,
respectively in grain yield over all locations. Twelve promising genotypes better
than the standard checks based on grain yield potential across locations were
identified. Among twelve genotypes, genotype six (ETBW 9089) was selected and
promoted to Variety verification trials in 2020. Environments differed in climate
(amount and distribution of rainfall and temperature) providing variable growing
conditions that led to a range of grain yield (Table 1).
AMMI Analysis
GEI component of variation was partitioned into ten possible interaction principal
component axes (IPCA). The F-test indicates that the first six IPCA were highly
[117]
significant (P≤0.001) and they explained 93.43 % of the total GEI sum of a square
and the remaining IPCAs only explained 6.57% and were non-significant. The
first two IPCA explained 65.97% of the total GEI sum of the square. Prediction
assessment indicated that the AMMI model with only two IPCA was the best
predictive model (Yan et al., 2000).
AMMI-1 biplot for grain yield of 25 wheat genotypes and eleven locations for two
years are plotted from the main effect against IPCA1 scores of the genotypes and
environment (Fig. 1). Accordingly, the IPCA-1 scores ranged from 0.58 to -1.00
and grain yield means from 4.19 up to 5.6 t ha-1 and both locations and genotypes
are dispersed widely in all quadrants in the biplot (Fig. 1). The AMMI biplot on
the relative magnitude of the position and direction of genotypes on the plane of
stability parameters (i.e., interaction principal component axis) regressed on
environment mean yield (main effect) is considered an important measure of not
only for the pattern of adaptation (wide versus specific adaptation) but also for
performance stability (Zobel et al., 1988). Accordingly, genotypes with IPCA-1
scores close to zero are considered better general adaptation while those with
IPCA-1 score far from zero are considered as genotypes with specific adaptation
(Ebdon and Gauch 2002). Genotypes G3 (-0.03), G15 (0.05), and G20 (0.03), with
IPCA-1 scores closer to zero, showed less differential response to the changes in
the growing environments as compared to the other genotypes. All these
genotypes had high grain yield above and equal to the mean across tested
locations (Table 4). On the other hand, G14 (0.35), G18 (0.51), and G21 (0.58)
had the highest IPCA-1 and they are considered as unstable and all these
genotypes showed better grain yield performance across locations (Table 4).
[118]
Table 4. AMMI adjusted mean grain yield (t ha-1) of 25 genotypes tested across eleven locations in 2018 and 2019
A.Robe- Bekoji- Kulumsa- Adet- Areka- Holeta- Holeta- Asasa- Bekoji- Kulumsa- A.Robe - Combined mean
Entry Genotype 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019 2019 GYLD
1 WANE 3.16 4.32 7.57 5.03 2.30 6.24 2.10 8.55 2.74 7.56 4.82 4.94
2 ETBW 9185 4.40 5.73 7.15 4.81 3.18 4.89 2.56 6.04 3.70 7.84 4.50 4.98
3 ETBW 9193 3.67 4.73 7.71 5.35 2.60 5.92 2.45 6.70 3.30 7.35 5.49 5.02
4 ETBW 9086 3.61 4.74 7.90 5.01 2.59 6.65 2.79 7.54 4.76 7.22 5.47 5.30
5 ETBW 9087 4.19 4.98 7.76 4.29 2.88 5.17 2.22 6.57 3.99 7.77 4.75 4.96
6 ETBW 9089 2.37 5.66 8.01 6.08 2.98 6.15 2.85 8.37 6.20 9.03 3.93 5.60
7 ETBW 9109 3.07 4.22 7.47 5.77 3.26 6.57 3.05 6.36 3.39 6.84 3.75 4.89
8 ETBW 9284 2.74 4.52 7.69 5.85 2.88 7.55 3.58 7.28 1.08 7.62 3.43 4.93
9 ETBW 9299 2.85 4.98 7.26 5.13 2.90 4.07 2.06 5.70 4.52 7.59 4.55 4.69
10 ETBW 9304 3.24 5.08 7.42 5.51 2.80 7.23 2.42 7.87 5.85 7.80 4.72 5.45
11 ETBW 9313 1.65 3.12 7.09 4.58 2.92 7.72 2.87 6.63 0.52 7.14 3.26 4.32
12 ETBW 9094 2.90 4.59 7.52 4.87 2.11 5.59 3.33 7.87 4.94 8.02 5.01 5.16
13 ETBW 9066 2.89 5.11 6.13 5.09 2.81 4.92 3.42 6.86 2.64 6.99 4.20 4.64
14 ETBW 9102 3.88 5.26 7.41 5.82 2.63 5.69 4.18 7.80 6.05 7.91 4.13 5.52
15 ETBW 9315 3.85 4.41 6.60 5.79 2.27 7.41 2.73 7.47 4.57 7.16 5.52 5.25
16 BW174459 3.98 3.82 8.03 4.81 2.84 6.76 3.20 6.81 2.57 7.79 5.51 5.10
17 BW174460 3.80 4.36 7.88 5.10 2.64 6.67 2.64 7.17 5.31 7.92 5.08 5.32
18 BW174461 3.49 4.95 8.13 5.13 2.10 4.91 2.56 7.50 5.97 7.46 4.43 5.15
19 BW174462 3.11 4.91 7.89 4.96 2.18 5.42 2.11 7.76 4.78 7.42 5.24 5.07
20 BW174463 3.93 4.53 7.58 5.43 2.81 5.61 3.50 7.31 4.17 8.41 4.45 5.25
21 BW174464 3.10 4.59 7.94 5.95 1.85 4.31 3.35 8.83 5.79 7.82 5.67 5.38
22 BW174465 3.31 3.32 6.28 4.03 2.69 4.11 2.64 5.01 3.52 7.41 3.81 4.19
23 BW174466 2.76 3.75 7.28 5.32 2.17 7.03 2.89 7.94 4.34 7.44 4.29 5.02
24 BW174467 1.85 3.36 7.27 5.42 1.51 5.10 2.80 8.27 5.22 6.85 3.57 4.66
25 LEMU 3.27 4.09 6.44 5.08 3.13 7.54 3.67 6.05 3.20 7.85 4.36 4.97
Env. Mean 3.24 4.53 7.42 5.21 2.60 5.97 2.88 7.21 4.13 7.61 4.56 5.03
CV (%) 20.30 18.82 7.85 12.85 19.32 12.68 21.15 13.32 17.50 15.16 15.97 14.73
LSD (5%) 1.08 1.40 0.96 1.10 0.82 1.24 1.00 1.58 1.19 1.52 1.20 -
R2 0.64 0.52 0.58 0.47 0.65 0.77 0.55 0.62 0.87 0.39 0.61 0.91
[119]
Figure1. AMMI-1 biplot for grain yield of 25 wheat genotypes evaluated in 2018 and 2019 (the blue color indicates the
genotypes while the red color indicates the environment).
AMMI-2 biplot generated by using the first two interaction principal component
axes (IPCA1 and IPCA2) was used visualize and interpret the GEI patterns and
identify genotypes or locations that exhibit low, medium or high levels of
interaction effects (Yan, 2002). AMMI-2 interaction bi-plot for grain yield of 25
bread wheat genotypes tested in 2018 and 2019 is shown in Figure 2. AMMI-2
analysis positioned the genotypes in different locations, indicating the interaction
pattern of the genotypes. The AMMI-2 analysis for the IPCA1 captured 44.53%
and the IPCA2 explained 21.44% and the two IPCs cumulatively captured 65.97%
of the mean sum of the square of the GEI of bread wheat genotypes. Purchase
(1997) reported that when the IPCA1 was plotted against IPCA2, the closer the
genotypes score to the center of the biplot the more stable the genotype are and the
further the genotypes score from the center the less stable they are. Genotypes
near the origin are non-sensitive to environmental interactive forces and those
distant from the origin are sensitive and have large interactions (Samonte et al.,
[120]
2005). Accordingly, genotypes G3, G4, G13, G14, G17, and G20 are non-
sensitive to environmental interactive forces; and hence, these genotypes are
considered stable genotypes based on AMMI-2 biplot. Whereas; G2, G8, G9, G11
G21, G22, and G24 were highly influenced by the interactive force of the
environment and sensitive to environmental changes, so these varieties were
considered as unstable genotypes due to the long projections from the origin
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. AMMI Biplot showing interaction of 25 genotypes with eleven environments (note that the blue color in the
biplot indicates the genotypes while the red color indicates the environments).

The differential ranking of genotypes showed the presence of the genotypes by
location interaction for grain yield. After carrying out this study we concluded that
the significant GEI in grain yield among the genotypes obtained differential
response of the genotypes across the testing sites that are subjected to the different
climatic conditions and environmental factors. The Wheat genotype G6
(ETBW9089) out yielded all the tested genotypes. Therefore, the said genotype
[121]
G6 (ETBW9089) could be recommended for variety for verification in the year
2020 for releasing as a commercial variety for mid to highland agro ecology of
Ethiopia.
References
Ayalneh, T., Letta, T. and Abinasa, M. 2012. Assessment of stability, adaptability and
yield performance of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars in south estern
Ethiopia. Plant Breeding and Seed Science, 67, pp.3-12.
Baye TM, Abebe T and Wilke RA. 2011. Genotype–environment interactions and their
translational implications. Personalized medicine, 8(1), pp.59-70.
Crossa J. 1990. Statistical analysis of multi-location trials. Advances in Agronomy, 44: 55-
85
Dawit A. Tigabu, Zerihun Tadesse, Habtemariam Zegeye and Alemayehu Assefa.. 2017.
Seasonal variability and genetic response of elite bread wheat lines in drought prone
environments of Ethiopia. J. Plant Breed. Genet. 05 (01) 2017. 15-21
Ebdon JS and Gauch Jr, HG. 2002. Additive main effect and multiplicative interaction
analysis of national turfgrass performance trials: I. Interpretation of genotype×
environment interaction. Crop science, 42(2), pp.489-496.
Gadisa A. Wardofa, Hussein M, Dawit A, and Tesfahun A. 2019. Genotype x
environment interaction and yield stability of bread wheat genotypes in Central
Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 7(2), pp.87-94.
Gadisa A, Alemu D, Negash G, Tafesse S, Abebe D, Rut D, Habtemariam Z, Dawit A,
Abebe G, Bayisa A, Demeke Z, Bekele G, Ayele B, and Bedada G. 2020.
Development of Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties for High Moisture
areas of Ethiopia: A G x E Interaction and Stability Analysis for Grain Yield. J.
Plant Breed. Genet. 07 (02) 2019. 87-94
Gauch HG. 2006. Statistical analysis of yield trials by
AMMI and GGE. Crop Sci., 46: 1488-1500
Hancock JF. 2004. Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. CABI
Publishing:
Hussein MA, Bjornstad AS and Aastveit AH. 2000. SASG× ESTAB: A SAS program for
computing genotype× environment stability statistics. Agronomy journal, 92(3),
pp.454-459.
Khan FU, Khan M, and Khattak SG. 2019. Performance of some improved bread wheat
varieties grown in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Adv Plants Agric Res. 9(1):191-
193. DOI: 10.15406/apar.2019.09.00434
Mizan Tesfay Abraha, Hussien Shimelis, Teka Solomon & Azeb Hailu. 2019. Genotype-
by-environment interaction and selection of elite wheat genotypes under variable
rainfall conditions in northern Ethiopia, Journal of Crop Improvement, 33:6, 797-
813, DOI: 10.1080/15427528.2019.1662531
Ohiagu CE, Ahmed A, Orakwe FC, Maurya P, Ajayi O, Falaki A and Kau, N. 1987. A
National Wheat Production Strategy: 1987 – 1996.
Olabanji OG, Omeje MU, Mohammed I, Ndahi WB and Nkama I. 2004. Wheat: In Cereal
Crops of Nigeria: Cereals: Principles of production and utilization. NU, 4, pp.230-
249.
[122]
Purchase JL. 1997. Parametric analysis to describe Genotype x Environment
interaction and yield stability in winter wheat. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of
Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Samonte SOPB, Wilson LT, McClung AM and Medley JC. 2005. Targeting
Cultivars on to Rice Growing Environments Using AMMI and SREG GGE
Biplot Analyses. Crop Science 45:2414-2424.
Shiferaw B, M. Smale, H.-J. Braun, E. Duveiller M, Reynolds and G Muricho. 2013.
Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played
by wheat in global food security. Food Security 5:291–317.
Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q and Szlavnics Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega
environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science 40:597-
605
Yan W. 2002. Singular-value partition for biplot analysis of multi-environment
trial data. Agronomy Journal 94:990–996.
Zerihun Tadesse, Habtemariam Zegeye, Dawit Asnake, Tafesse Solomon, Yewubdar
Shewaye and Tolessa Debele. 2018. Identification of Stable Bread Wheat (Triticum
Aestivum L) Genotypes using AMMI Analysis in Ethiopia. International Journal of
Research in Agriculture and Forestry, 5(6), pp 6-14
Zobel RW, Wright MJ and Gauch Jr HG. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial.
Agronomy Journal 80:388-393.
https://sundoc.bibliothek.uni-halle.de/diss-online/04/04H184/t2.pdf
[123]
Evaluation of Diallel Crosses of Highland Adapted
Quality Protein Maize (QPM) Hybrids Under
Optimum Conditions
Tefera Kumsa1, Demissew Abakemal1, Dufera Tulu1, Zeleke Keimiso1,
Habtamu Zeleke2 and Mekuanent Belay2
1
Ambo Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia, P.O. Box 037, Ambo, Ethiopia
2
Haramaya University, P.O. Box 138, Haramya, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
Abstract
Eight inbred lines collected from Ambo Agriculural Research Center’s highland
maize breeding program were evaluated under optimum condition at Ambo and
Haramaya University in 2018. Breeding programs have created inbred lines of
maize introduced from CIMMYT; they were tested locally for their heterosis. The
objective of this study was to generate information regarding the combining ability
effect of selected highland adapted maize inbred lines and their crosses for further
breeding and cultivar development in view of this limitation. P6 was the lines that
exhibited positive and hence good combiner for gain yield in a tested locations and
environmental condition and crosses found to be good yield potential in this study
were (P2xP6) and (P4xP6).
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L) has key importance in assuring the world food
security and a high yielding cereal crop as well (Rohman et al., 2019). In Ethiopia,
maize crop has been considered as one of the most important food security
assurance and expansion of its agricultural production. According to the report of
(CSA, 2019), among cereals crop grown in the country in total grain production
(28.75%) and second in area coverage (17.68%) it rank first and the average
national yield was 4.2 ton ha-1.
In Ethiopia QPM development program was launched in 1994 with the evaluation
of openpollinated varieties (OPVs) and pools introduced from CIMMYT
(Adefires et al.,2015). Higher content of lysine and tryptophan have been
successfully increased in maize through conventional breeding.The Ambo
highland maize program release two improved QPM variety with the help of
NUME project sofar however, right now the breeding were countinued at Bako
national maize.
The Ambo highland breeding program is one of the three maize breeding
programs under National Maize Research Program of the Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research. Yearly, the breeding program handles several numbers of
QPM and non QPM crosses generated at different stages of the breeding pipeline
with the aim of identifying, superior genotypes for the target agroecolgy. This is
[125]
because improved commercial maize varieties suited to highland areas of Ethiopia
have been fewer and consequently access to maize seed has also been limited.
Evaluation of the genetic potential or performances of maize genotypes within the
breeding, pipeline will help identifying genotypes with good traits of interest for
future use in breeding and cultivar development.
QPM is a type of maize, developed through conventional breeding, that contains

nearly twice the amount of tryptophan and lysine compared to common varieties.
Research shows that eating QPM can improve quality protein intake among young
children and QPM is nutritionally advantageous over conventional maize,
especially for families with an undiversified diet dominated by maize. The
Ethiopian government now aims to ensure 10% of the total maize growing area is
planted with QPM. Ethiopia has included QPM as a key intervention in national
strategies and programs, such as the Agriculture Growth Program-II and
the Seqota Declaration Simiret Yasabu,2019.
Combining ability analysis is of special importance in cross-pollinated crops like

maize as it helps in identifying potential inbred parents that can be used for
producing hybrids and synthetics . Combining ability also helps in identifying
potential inbred lines for producing hybrids and synthetic varieties in maize
breeding. Apart from evaluation of cross performances at early stages of line
development, several studies were conducted to study general combining ability
(GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) of lines for different traits using
diallel. (Kempthorne, 1957) . A number of studies conducts by different
researchers on combining ability of highland QPM inbred lines for grain yield
and yield related traits (Bitew Tilahun et al.,2017and Gudeta Napir et al.,2015) .
However , generating inbred line and developing variety for a program is a key
duties as usual.
For target environment mating design such as diallel play an important role in the
selection and advancement of breeding materials. Hayman (1954) and Griffing
(1956) proposed the concept of diallel cross as the recombination of genetic
variability available in the program, performing crosses among all lineages. The
diallel scheme of analysis allows estimating useful genetic information to select
parental lines and verify the combining ability effect, which are described as
general and specific. The objective of this study was, therefore, to generate
information regarding the combining ability effect of selected highland adapted
maize inbred lines and evaluating the hybrid performance.
[126]
Study Location
The study was conducted at Ambo Agricultural Research Center and Haramaya
University in the main cropping season of 2019. The locations represent highland,
sub-humid maize growing environments of Ethiopia (Mosisa et al., 2011) (Table
1).
Table 1. Agro-ecological features of the experimental locations
Location Latitude Longitude Altitude Soil type Rain fall Min.T0 Max. T0
(mm)
Ambo 8057’N 38007’E 2225 Black verisol 1050 26.3oc 10.40oc
Haramaya 8037’N 42002’E 2050 Redish brown loam 820 25oc 8.90
Eight QPM inbred lines were selected depending on their performance and diverse
pedigree back grounds (Table 2). The experiment was composed of 28 F1 crosses
formed using half diallel mating design at Ambo during the main cropping season
of 2019 and two commercial hybrid checks: check-1 (Kolba) and check-2 (Jibat).
Table 2 List of highland QPM inbred lines used for diallel cross formation
Lines
S/N Pedigree Source
Code
1 L1 [ECU/SNSYN[SC/ETO]]c1F1-##(GLS=1)-34-3-1-2/CML144(BC2)-34-8-2-2-1-1-#-1-B-#-#-B AHMBP
2 L2 [POOL9Ac7-SR(BC2)]FS67-1-2-3-1-#/CML144(BC2)-10-11-2-4-1-2-#-#-B AHMBP
3 L3 [POOL9Ac7-SR(BC2)]FS68-1-1-2-1-1/CML144(BC2)-33-10-2-4-1-2-#-1-B-#-B AHMBP
4 L4 (CML197/(CML197/[(CLQRCWQ50/CML312SR)-2-2-1-BB/CML197]-BB)F2)-B-B-9-1-B-# AHMBP
7 L7 (CML197/(CML197/(CLQRCWQ50/CML312SR)-2-2-1-BBB)F2)-B-B-18-2-B-# AHMBP
8 L8 (CML395/(CML395/CML511)F2)-B-B-37-1-B-# AHMBP
*AHMBP = Ambo Highland Maize Breeding Program
Experimental Design and Agronimic Practices

In each location alpha lattice experimental design (5x6) were used with two
replications. Each plot consisted a single row of 5.25m long. The spacing was 75
cm between rows and 25 cm between plants. Planting was done in the rainy
season of 2019 after reliable moisture level of soil attained to ensure good
germination and seedling development using two seeds per hill and thinned out to
one plant after 35 days of planting. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer will be
applied in theform of Urea and Di ammonium Phosphate (DAP) as per
recommendation, at the rate of 200 kg per ha-1 and 150 kg per ha-1, respectively.
All the recommended DAP was applied at the time of planting, and Urea was
applied in the form of split application first at planting, second at knee height
stage and thirdly at flowering stage.
[127]
Data Collection
The data were recorded by field scorer and taken mostly from twenty- one maize
plants for each plot. Traits such as Grain yield , days to anthesis , days to silking ,
Plant height, ear height , root and stalk lodging , husk cover , ear rot, disease( TLB
and Rust) , plant aspect , ear aspect , days to maturity , Ear per plant , number of
ear and number of plant were recorded for the study. Days to silking and days to
anthesis were number of days from sowing until 50% of plants in each plot row
showing silk and tassel sheding pollen respectively. Anthesis-silking interval
(ASI; days) computed as the difference between days to 50% anthesis and silking.
Plant height (PH- cm) was measured as the distance from the soil surface to the
top of tassel. Ear height (EH-cm) was measured as the distance from the soil
surface to the main ear bearing node. Plant aspect was recorded by observing
overall phenotypic appearance of the plant in a plot by using 1 to 5 scoring scale;
where 1 = excellent and 5 = poor. Ear aspect was recorded by observing overall
phenotypic appearance of the ears in a plot at harvesting time by using 1 to 5
scoring scale; where 1 = excellent and 5 = poor. Kernel modification data
measured using 1 to 5 scoring scale of opaqueness of the kernel, where 1=
excellent and 5= chocky type.
Data Analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for individual location was conducted using
PROC GLM procedure of SAS, version 9.0 (SAS, 2003) to determine the
differences among the genotypes. Combined ANOVA was not conducted because
of heteroginiety of variances.
Further genetic analyses were done for traits that showed statistically significant
difference among genotypes. F1 diallel crosses were subjected to combining
ability analysis using the DIALLEL-SAS program (Zhang and Kang, 1997).

Individual location analysis of variances (ANOVA) were conducted for grain
yield and yield related traits such as days to anthesis, bad husk cover, ear rot, ear
aspect, plant aspect, ear texture and anthesis silking interval for each location
(Table 3).
Result in table 3 indicated that mean squares due to genotypes revealed highly
significant (p<0.01) difference for grain yield and other related traits at Ambo
optimum condition and Haramaya as well, indicating that there is variability
between materials evaluated. As the study result showed that significant
differences were observed among F1 hybrids for all traits in line with the report of
[128]
Mohamed (2020). Results in Table 3 indicate that mean squares of genotypes and
most characters in all locations were showed significant difference.
Table 3. Mean squares due to genotypes for grain yield and related traits at two locations under optimum 2019
Mean squares
Ambo Haramaya
Genotypes Error Genotypes Error
Traits df=29 df=18 df=29 Df=18
GY 4.33** 0.8 9.2* 1.4
AD 26.41** 8.21 84.5* 97.6
AsI 18.23** 6.04 0.38* 0.29
HC 396.4** 122.4 1830.6* 670.4
EA 0.3* 0.04 0.34** 0.1
PA 0.4* 0.51 0.3** 0.1
TXT 0.29* 0.21 ----- -----
CV(%) 18.7 15.9
GY mean 6.8 7.5
** = highly significant at (p<0.01), * = significant at (p<0.05), GY = grain yield, AD = number of days to anthesis,
ASI=anthesis - silking interval, HC=husk cover, EA= ear aspect, PA= plant aspect, TXT = seed texture (Modification)
Combining Ability Analysis

Analysis of variances for combining ability is presented in Table 4. The analysis
revealed that variances for general combining ability (GCA) and specific
combining ability (SCA) were significant for some traits while non-significant for
most traits under the tested environmental conditions and its similar with the
finding of (Eman et al., 2019). Traits like ear rot were revealed significant
variation for GCA at Haramaya site. At Ambo optimum condition traits that
showed significant variation for GCA were days to tasseling and plant aspect.
Table 4. Diallel analysis of variance for yield and yield related traits of highland maize hybrids
grown at Ambo and Haramaya
Mean squares
Source Df DA DS ASI HC PA Kmod EA Yield ER
(t ha-1)
Ambo
Crosses 27 21.4 1.4 11.8 110.3 0.28 0.3* 0.31* 3.3 ---
GCA 7 35.3* 2.1* 12.6 150.8 0.3* 0.2 0.1 0.8 ---
SCA 20 22.4 1.5 12.1 96.9* 0.4 0.3* 0.2 4.5 ---
Error 22 13.1 25.2 16.11 106.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.9 ---
Haramaya
Crosses 27 68.8 69.5 0.31* 187.5* --- 172.1* 0.29* 2.5 19
GCA 7 130.2 127.1 0.16 162.3 --- 216.3* 0.19 0.8 0.18
SCA 20 80.1 83.2 0.4 195.7** --- 156.6 0.28* 3.1 0.2
Error 22 190.1 184.9 0.4 699.4 --- 83.5 0.14 3.2 0.19
*Significant at P < 0.05. ** Significant at P < 0.01. GCA, general combining ability; SCA, specific combining
ability; DT, days to tasseling; DS, days to silking; ASI, anthesis silking interval; PA, plant aspect;
Kmod,kernel modification; EA, ear aspect; HC, husk cover and GY, grain yield , ER , ear rot.
[129]
General Combining Ability (GCA) Effects
Estimates of general combining ability effects are presented in Table (5). Some
inbred parents showed positive and significant GCA effects for some traits at
Ambo optimum conditions site. Parents with significantly desirable GCA effects
were considered as high combiners, Low or poor combiners had significant but
negative (undesirable) GCA effect for grain yield (Amiruzzamans et al., 2020). At
Ambo the good general combiners for major yield determining characters were
P2, P4, P5, P6 and P7 were good combiner or had good per se performance. At
Haramaya inbred lines such as P3 and P6 showed positive gca effect for gain yield
thought not significant. Lines with Positive gca estimate have genes that
contribute to the increment of yield and the GCA effects represent the additive
nature of gene action and a good general combiner parent is characterized by its
better breeding value when crossed with other parentsas stated in the in the report
of Kumar et al., (2017) .
Table 5. Estimates for general combining ability effects of inbred parents

Ambo
Parents DA DS ASI PA Kmod HC EA GY
P1 2.4** 1.2 1.1 0.03 0.15 -4.72* -0.10 -0.51
P2 1.5 -1.4 0.0 0.03 -0.02 4.07 -0.19 0.20*
P3 0.4 -0.9 0.6 -0.01 -0.19* 0.23 0.06 -0.15
P4 2.1** 3.7** -1.6 0.16 0.15 -2.48 0.10 0.36*
P5 -0.2 1.3 -1.5 0.11 -0.02 2.47 0.06 0.12
P6 2.8** 3.3** 0.5 -0.14 -0.02 1.14 0.19 0.43*
P7 -0.2 -0.4 0.2 -0.22* -0.15 3.85 -0.10 0.24
P8 0.5 -0.2 0.7 0.03 0.10 -4.55* -0.02 -0.20
SE(gi) 0.69 0.9 0.7 0.08 0.07 1.9 0.09 0.32
[130]
Table 6. Estimates of specific combining ability (SCA) effects on yield and its components in diallel cross of maize at
Ambo and Haremaya
Haramaya
Parent DA DS ASI PA ER HC EA GY
P1 0.35 0.38 -0.02 -0.17 -6.55* -14.29* -0.10 -0.16
P2 2.31* 2.21* -0.10 0.08 -4.56* -11.49* -0.19* 0.25*
P3 2.02 1.96 0.06 0.13 -1.17 11.25 0.06 0.38*
P4 1.44 1.46 -0.02 0.08 2.46 12.24* 0.10 0.31*
P5 2.60 2.71 -0.10 0.00 0.19 11.99* 0.06 -0.09
P6 5.65* 5.71* 0.06 0.08 7.20* -14.27* 0.19* 0.55*
P7 2.73 2.63 -0.10 0.00 1.58 -4.10 -0.10 0.01
P8 4.27 4.04 0.23 -0.21* 0.84 -9.87 -0.02 0.04
SE(gi) 2.63 2.59 0.12 0.08 1.74 5.04 0.07 0.34
Ambo
Crosses DA DS ASI PA Kmod HC EA GY
P1xP2 1.40 0.26 1.14 0.71** -0.54* -4.84 0.35* -2.06*
P1xP3 1.32 1.76 -0.44 0.01 -0.12 -1.00 -0.40 0.66
P1xP4 2.82* 5.10* -2.27 0.34 0.05 1.71 0.05 -0.29
P1xP5 5.15* 7.51* -2.36 0.38 -0.29 -0.59 0.43 0.22
P1xP6 -3.26 -2.90 -0.36 -0.37 0.21 5.59 -0.20 1.00
P1xP7 -2.85 -6.74* 3.89* -0.54* 0.84** -4.63 -0.07 -0.35
P1xP8 -4.60 -4.99 0.39 -0.54* -0.16 3.77 -0.15 0.83
P2xP3 -0.35 -1.57 1.23 -0.24 0.55* -4.79 0.01 -0.19
P2xP4 -2.35 -6.74* 4.39* -0.41 0.46 -2.84 -0.03 0.52
P2xP5 -1.01 0.18 -1.19 0.13 -0.37 -7.04 0.10 -1.53
P2xP6 -1.93 1.26 -3.19 -0.37 -0.37 8.15* -0.03 2.15*
P2xP7 -0.01 2.93* -2.94 -0.04 0.01 11.58* -0.15 0.11
P2xP8 4.24* 3.68* 0.56 0.21 0.26 -0.22 -0.24 1.01
P3xP4 -3.43 -5.74 2.31 -0.37 0.13 -0.74 -0.03 -0.27
P3xP5 0.90 2.68 -1.77 0.42* -0.20 6.81* 0.35* -1.27
P3xP6 3.49 2.26 1.23 0.42* -0.45* -6.86* 0.22 -1.74
P3xP7 -4.10* -0.57 -3.52 -0.24 0.17 4.52 -0.15 2.68*
P3xP8 2.15 1.18 0.98 0.01 -0.08 2.07 0.01 0.14
P4xP5 0.40 0.01 0.39 0.01 -0.29 -4.04 -0.20 -0.22
P4xP6 2.51 0.90 -1.61 -0.24 0.21** 11.25* -0.07 1.31*
P4xP7 5.40* 6.76* -1.36 0.59* -0.41 -6.87* 0.55* -1.80
P4xP8 -0.35 1.51 -1.86 0.09 -0.16 1.53 -0.28* 0.76
P5xP6 1.32 -0.99 2.31 -0.20 0.38** -5.55 -0.20 -0.28
P5xP7 -2.76 -6.32* 3.56* -0.37 0.01 10.68* -0.32 2.09*
P5xP8 -4.01* -3.07 -0.94 -0.37 0.76 -0.27 -0.15 1.00
P6xP7 2.32 1.76 0.56 0.38 0.01 -10.49* -0.20 -0.71
P6xP8 0.57 -0.49 1.06 0.38 0.01 -2.09 0.47 -1.72
P7xP8 1.99 2.18 -0.19 0.21 -0.62 -4.80 0.35 -2.01*
SE(ij) 2.16 2.99 2.39 0.27 0.23 6.16 0.29 1.02
[131]
Haramaya
Crosses DA DS ASI PA HC ER EA GY
P1xP2 -0.02 0.23 -0.25 -0.27 6.79* 26.3* 0.20 1.13
P1xP3 -3.36 -3.44 0.08 0.43 1.21 -3.11 0.20 -1.08
P1xP4 -3.27 -3.44 0.17 -0.02 6.13 10.3 0.41* -0.08
P1xP5 -3.94 -4.19 0.25* -0.44* -2.31 -17.7* -0.30 1.11
P1xP6 3.81 4.23 -0.42 0.23 -9.32* -26.1* -0.17 -1.40
P1xP7 1.89 1.64 0.25 -0.19 0.46 5.3 -0.38 1.15
P1xP8 4.89 4.98 -0.08 0.27 -2.96 5.11 0.04 -0.82
P2xP3 8.81* 9.14* -0.33* -0.07 -0.28 -12.9 -0.46* 0.86*
P2xP4 8.89* 9.14* -0.25 -0.27 -6.57 -20.3 -0.51 0.33
P2xP5 3.23 3.39 -0.17 0.31 1.35 10.01 0.04 -1.10
P2xP6 -15.02* -15.7* 0.67* 0.23 -1.91* -28.9* 0.41* 1.10*
P2xP7 -6.44 -6.77 0.33 -0.19 0.32* 30.64* -0.05 1.14*
P2xP8 0.56 0.56 0.00* 0.27 0.30 -4.8 0.37 -1.26
P3xP4 -2.94 -2.52 -0.42 0.43* -0.25 50.6** 0.24 -1.20
P3xP5 -4.11 -3.77 -0.33 0.02 -2.93 4.71 0.04 -0.65
P3xP6 3.14 3.14 0.00 -0.57* -9.69* -29.9* -0.59* 0.64*
P3xP7 1.73 1.56 0.17 0.27 15.53* 8.2** 0.45 -0.05
P3xP8 -3.27 -4.11 0.83* -0.52* -3.58 -17.53* 0.12 1.48
P4xP5 -7.52 -7.77* 0.25 0.06 -6.07* -47.23* -0.26 -0.73
P4xP6 4.23* 3.64* 0.58* -0.02 15.9* 44.2* 0.37 1.43*
P4xP7 4.81 5.06 -0.25 0.06 -5.35* -30.9* -0.09 -0.42
P4xP8 -4.19 -4.11 -0.08 -0.23 -3.82 -6.72 -0.17 1.67*
P5xP6 7.56* 7.39* 0.17 0.06 14.49* 66.4** 0.41* 1.36*
P5xP7 4.64 4.31 0.33 0.14 -0.08 -9.04 0.45* -1.23
P5xP8 0.14 0.64 -0.50 -0.15 -4.45 -7.11 -0.38 1.25
P6xP7 -6.11 -5.27 -0.83* -0.19 -17.4* -30.4** -0.42* 0.90*
P6xP8 2.39 2.56 -0.17 0.27 7.94* 4.76 -0.01 -0.83
P7xP8 -0.52 -0.52 0.00 0.10 6.57* 26.27* 0.04 -1.49
SE(ij) 8.24 8.12 0.38 0.26 5.46 15.80 0.22 1.07
Specific Combining Ability (SCA) Effects

Results of the SCA effects of the crosses for yield and different yield related
characters are presented in Table 6. Positive SCA effect for grain yield was
observed in 14 crosses but significant positive effects were observed on three
crosses for gain yield as well. For traits such as days to silking and plant aspect,
the cross (P1xP7) showed significant negative SCA effect, but positive and
significant effect for the trait kernel modification from the same crosses at this
location.
At Ambo condition, 14 F1 crosses revealed positive SCA effect for grain yield, of
these crosses (P2xP6), (P3xP7) and (P5x P6) showed significant positive SCA
effect for gain yield. At Haramaya 12 crosses revealed positive SCA effect for
gain yield thought not significant .The cross of (P3 x P6) and (P5 x P6) exhibited
significant SCA effect for traits husk cover, ear rot and ear aspect indicating
tolerant to open tip and rotting. This finding is in line with the report of in line
with the report of Francis et al., (2020). At all testing and environments crosses
that exhibited positive SCA effect for gain yield indicating the prevalence of non-
additive gene effects for the inheritance of these traits as the report of Motiar et
[132]
al.,(2019). Significant SCA effects indicated that the crosses performed better or
poorer than what would be expected based on GCA effects of the respective
parent as the report of Bitew et al., (2017).
Conclusion and Recommedation

In conclusion, inbred lines such as P2, P4, P5, P6 and P7 had positive but non-
significant GCA effect for grain yield at Ambo optimum condition. At Haramaya
P3, P6. P7 and P8 had positive but insignificant GCA effect for gain yield.
Therefore, P6 was the lines that exhibited positive and hence good combiner for
gain yield in both locations. Positive SCA effects observed from crosses such as
(P2xP4), (P2xP6), (P2xP7), (P3xP8), (P4xP8) and (P5xP8) both at Ambo and
Haramya. The overall study indicated cross that showed positive and siginificant
SCA effects in both testing locations are (P2xP6) and (P4x P6). Therefore, these
crosses with promising performance could be more rewarding in the highland
maize hybrid breeding program.
References
Adefris Teklewold, Dagne Wegary, Abraham Tadesse, Birhanu Tadesse, Kassahun
Bantte, Dennis Friesen and B.M. Prasanna, 2015. Quality Protein Maize
(QPM): A Guide to the Technology and Its Promotion in Ethiopia. CIMMYT:
Amiruzzaman, M.A. Islam, L. Hassan and M.M. Rohman.2020.Combining Ability
and Heterosis for Yield and Component Characters in Maize.
Bitew Tilahun , Midekisa Dida , Temesgen Deresa , Belay Garoma , Girma
Demissie , Dejene Kebede , Dagne Wegary and Adefiris Teklewold .2017.
Combining ability analysis of quality protein maize (QPM) inbred lines for
grain yield, agronomic traits and reaction to grey leaf spot in mid-altitude
areas of Ethiopia.
CSA. 2018. Agricultural Sample Survey 2017/2018: Report on area and production
of major crops (private peasant holdings, 'Meher' season). Statistical Bulletin.
Vol. 1. CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gudeta Nepir, Dagne Wegary, Habtamu Zeleke 2015. Heterosis and combining
ability of highland quality protein maize inbred lines
Eman A. Fayed , A.A.A. Lelah , El-Shimaa E.I. Mostafa and S.F. Morgan.2019
.Morphological Identification And Evaluate The Combining Ability And
Heterosis Of Some Inbred Lines Of Maize And Its Crosses.
Francis Chukwuma Onejeme , Emmanuel Ogbonna Okporie , Chinedu Emmanuel
Eze. 2020. Combining Ability and Heterosis in Diallel Analysis of Maize (Zea
mays L.) Lines .
Griffing, B. 1956. Concept of general and specific ability in relation to diallel
crossing systems. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, v. 9, n. 4, p. 462-
493.
[133]
Hayman, B. I. 1954. The theory and analysis of diallel crosses. Genetics, v. 39, p.
789-809.
Mohamed Ali, 2020. Diallel Analysis of Maize Inbreds for Grain Yield, Protein and
Tryptophan Content.Agronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Assiut
University, Egypt.
Mosisa, W., M. Bänziger, D. Friesen, G. Schulte Auf’mErley, W.J. Hors. B.S.
Vivek. 2011. Relative importance of general combining ability and specific
combining ability among tropical maize (Zea mays L.) inbreds under
contrasting nitrogen environments. Maydica 53: 279–288.
Motiar Rohman* , Mohammad Golam Hossain , Sumaiya Haque Omy , Nusrat Jahan
Methela and Md. Rezwan Molla .2019. Evaluation of diallel crosses of maize
at multilocation (Zea mays L.) for saline tolerance.
Rohman MM, Islam M R, Naznin T, Omy S H, Begum S, Alam SS, Hasanuzzaman
M (2019). Maize Production under Salinity and Drought Conditions: Oxidative
Stress Regulation by Antioxidant Defense and Glyoxalase Systems. In Plant
Abiotic Stress Tolerance (pp. 1-34): Springer, Cham.
Simiret Yasabu 2019, Sustaining the production and demand of Quality Protein
Maize in Ethiopia
Zhang Y, Kang MS .1997. Diallel-SAS: A SAS program combining ability of inbred
lines in quality protein maize (QPM) for varietal improvement for Griffing’s
diallel analyses. Agronomy Journal 89:176182.
[134]
Combining Ability Analysis of Highland Maize
Inbred Lines for Grain Yield and Yield Related
Traits for Highland agroecology of Ethiopia
Dufera Tulu1, Demissew Abakemal1, Tefera Kumsa1, Zeleke Keimeso1,
Worknesh Terefe2, Legesse Wolde2 and Abenezer Abebe2
1
Ambo Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 37, Ambo, Ethiopia,
2
Holetta Agricultural Research Center, P.O.Box 31, Holetta, Ethiopia; E-mail: : duferatulu@gmail.com
Abstract
In the process of developing maize inbred lines, information on combining ability of
parental maize inbred lines is an important input for designing breeding strategy
aimed at exploiting the genetic potential of maize for achieving higher productivity.
The current study was conducted to estimate the combining ability of highland maize
inbred lines for grain yield and yield related traits. 48 test crosses together with two
standard checks were evaluated using alpha lattice design with two replications at
two high-altitude sub-humid agro-ecology representing trial sites (Ambo and
Holetta) in Ethiopia during 2018. Combined analysis of variance showed highly
significant differences among the two locations for all the studied traits except EH,
indicating the presence of considerable variation among locations for genotype
performance. The interaction between locations and genotypes, were significant for
GY, DA, DS and EA. The significance of both GCA and SCA mean squares for some
traits indicates the role of additive and non-additive gene action in the inheritance of
the traits. The contribution of GCA variance for all the traits was greater than the
contribution of SCA variance. L1, T3 and T4 had significant positive GCA effects
and are considered as good combiners for grain yield. Likewise, L4, L8, L9, T2 and
T3 were identified as parents good for short plant stature. The selected inbred lines
from this study could be crossed to more testers and evaluated under more testing
locations in order to get more information on Genotype x environment interactions
of the lines for further use in the highland maize breeding program.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.; 2n=2x=20) is an important food security crop in the
developing world, especially in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and Latin America. In
Africa, maize is produced on a total area of 38.7 million hectares; with the
production of 78.9 million metric tons which is about 19.96% of the total maize
area of the world and 6.88% of the global production respectively
(http://www.fao.org/faostat). Lack of congruence between the proportion of
production and the cultivated area is due to the low productivity of maize in Africa
(< 2 t ha-1) as compared to a global average of 5.6 t ha−1. In Ethiopia Maize
contributes the greatest share of production and consumption together with other
major cereal crops, such as tef [Eragrostis tef(Zucc.)Trotter],wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) and sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Among the cereal
[135]
crops, maize ranks second in area coverage and first in total annual production and
productivity in Ethiopia (CSA, 2020).
Maize is cultivated in all of the major agro-ecological zones in Ethiopia. The
production and productivity of maize in all agro-ecologies are constrained by
several biotic and abiotic stresses. The importance of the constraints varies from
agro-ecology to agro-ecology and from location to location within the same agro-
ecology. In response to the constraints, the highland maize improvement project
was launched back in 1998 in Ethiopia in partnership between the International
Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the National Agricultural
Research Systems (NARS) of east and central African (ECA) countries (Twumasi
et al. 2002). This initiative has resulted in the development of seven improved
highland maize varieties for the transitional-highland to highland agro-ecologies
of Ethiopia to date. To keep this momentum moving forward, the process of
developing new highland maize inbred lines has been progressing well at the main
breeding station of Ambo Agricultural Research Center. In the process of
developing new maize inbred lines, information on combining ability of parental
maize inbred lines, i.e., general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining
ability (SCA), is an important input for designing breeding strategy aimed at
exploiting the genetic potential of maize for achieving higher productivity
(Chawla and Gupta, 1984).
Several studies on combining ability of highland maize inbred lines for grain yield
and yield related traits were conducted for different sets of locally
developed/introduced inbred lines (Legesse et al., 2009, Gudeta et al., 2015,
Tesfaye et al., 2019a, Zeleke et al., 2020). However, it is always necessary for any
breeding program to generate such information for any new batch of inbred lines
generated locally or received from exotic sources. The focus of the current study
was, therefore, to generate information on combining ability of newly developed
highland maize inbred lines for grain yield and yield related traits using line-by-
tester mating scheme.
Description of Experimental Sites

The study was conducted at two locations in the highland sub-humid agro ecology
of Ethiopia, namely, Ambo and Holetta Agricultural Research Centers, in the main
cropping season of 2018 (Table 1).
Table 1. Description of testing locations
Location Altitude Rainfall Temp (°C) Latitude Longitude Soil type

(masl) (mm) Min Max
Ambo 2225 1050 10.4 26.3 8°57’N 38°7’E Black vertisol
Holeta 2400 1102 6 22 09°04’N 38°29’E Nitosols and vertisols
Rainfall and Temp were taken as averages of many years’ data for each location
[136]
A total of 50 entries composed of 48 test crosses, formed by crossing 12 highland
maize inbred lines with four line testers (referred to as heterotic testers A and B),
and two standard checks (Jibat, and Kolba,) were studied. The inbred lines were
previously developed by Ambo highland maize breeding program and CIMMYT
from the crosses of elite by elite inbred lines. The list and the pedigrees of the
inbred lines used in the line x tester crosses and testers are given in Table 2. Two
of the line testers are CIMMYT developed testers and widely used in Ethiopian
maize breeding programs, while the other two are locally developed line testers
commonly used by the highland maize breeding program at Ambo.
Table 2. List of highland maize inbred lines and testers used for test-cross formation
S/N Lines Code Pedigree Source (Origin)

1 L1 [[ECU/SNSYN[SC/ETO]]c1F1-##(GLS=1.5)-3-2-1-2-#-3-#-#-#-#-#- EIAR- HMBP
#/[POOL9Ac7-SR(BC2)]FS241-1SR-3-1-3-2-1-#-#-#-#-#-#)FS-4-2-1-1
2 L2 [[KIT/SNSYN[N3/TUX]]c1F1-##(GLS=1)-21-2-3-1-1-3-#-#-#-#- EIAR- HMBP
#/SRSYN95[ECU//SC/ETO]F1-##(GLS=3.5)-20-1-1-1-#-#-#-#-#-#)FS-3-3-3-1
13 T1 FS59 EIAR- HMBP
14 T2 FS67 EIAR- HMBP
15 T3 CML312 CIMMYT
16 T4 CML395 CIMMYT
*HMBP = Highland Maize Breeding Program
Experimental Design and Field Management

The experimental design was alpha lattice design (0, 1) (Patterson and Williams,
1976) with 5 plots per an incomplete block and 10 incomplete blocks with two
replicates. Each entry was planted in a one row 5.25 m long plot with spacing of
0.75 m between rows and 0.25 m between plants within a row. The experimental
materials were hand planted with two seeds per hill, which were later thinned to
one plant to get the recommended planting density for the testing sites, 53,333
[137]
plants per hectare. Planting was conducted on the onset of the main rainy season
after an adequate soil moisture level was reached to ensure good germination and
seedling development. Other agronomic practices were carried out as per the
recommendation for the test areas.
Data Collection
Data on grain yield and other important agronomic traits were collected on a plot
and sampled plants bases. Data collected on a plot basis include days to 50%
anthesis, days to 50% silking, number of ears per plant, field weight (kg/plot) and
ear aspects, while data recorded on sampled plants basis were ear height (cm) and
plant height (cm). Yield in t/ha was calculated using CIMMYT fieldbook software
(Banziger and Vivek, 2007).
Data Analysis
All Data collected for this study were subjected to analyses of variance (ANOVA)
using the PROC GLM procedure in SAS® computer program (SAS Institute,
2004). Least significant difference (LSD) was used for mean comparisons. For
traits that displayed significant differences among crosses, line by tester analysis
was performed to further partition the variances due to crosses into lines, tester
and line by tester effects using SAS program (SAS institute, 2004).
Line by Tester Analysis

Line by tester analyses was performed for traits that showed significant
differences among crosses as suggested by Dabholkar (1999) and Singh and
Chaudhary (1985) to partition the mean square due to crosses into lines, testers
and line x tester interactions. The following mathematical model was used for the
combining ability analysis of individual locations:
Yijk   rk  gi  gj Sij eijk
Where, Yijk = the value of a character measured on cross of line i by tester j in k th
replication; µ = population mean; rk= effect of kth replication; gi = general
combining ability (GCA) effects of ith line; gj = general combining ability (GCA)
effect of the jth tester; Sij = specific combining ability (SCA) of ith line and jth
testers such that Sij equals Sji; eijk = experimental error for ijkth observation. The
significance of GCA and SCA sources of variation was determined using the
corresponding interactions with the environment as error terms (Dabholkar, 1992)
The proportional contributions of lines (GCAL), testers (GCAT), and their
interaction (SCALxT) with the sum square of crosses were calculated as the ratio
between sum of squares of each component and the cross sum of squares
expressed in percentage following Singh and Chaudary (1985) as follows:
Contribution of lines (L) =
Contribution of testers (T) =
[138]
Contribution of line by tester (L x T) =
The significance of GCA and SCA effects were tested by dividing the
corresponding SCA and GCA values by their respective standard error, to obtain
the calculated t values, and comparing the calculated t value with tabular t-value at
the error degree of freedom.

Combining Ability Analyses of Variances
Genotypes and crosses exhibited significant differences in all traits at both
locations (Ambo and Holeta). Highly significant GCA mean squares for testers
were observed for all traits at both locations whereas significant GCA mean
squares for lines were observed only for GY, PH, EA and EPP at Ambo and for
EA and EPP at Holeta. SCA mean squares were significant for GY, DS and EA at
Ambo while it was significant for GY, PH and EPP at Holeta (Table 3). The
relative contribution of GCA is greater than that of the SCA contribution in all
traits at both locations. Significant differences observed among Genotypes and
crosses for individual sites indicate the existence of a high level of variation for
various characteristics which makes selection possible for improved grain yield
and related traits. Significance of GCA and SCA mean squares for some traits at
each site indicates the importance of both additive and non-additive genetic effects
in the inheritance of these traits.
Table 3 Mean squares from line x tester analysis of variance for yield and yield related traits evaluated at Holetta and
Ambo in 2018
Traits Genotype Crosses GCA(L) GCA(T) SCA(L*T) Error Df=31 Cont. of Cont. of
Df=49 Df=47 Df=11 Df=3 Df=33 GCA (%) SCA (%)
Holetta
GY 478.37** 11.23** 9.95 81.85** 5.24** 0.94 67.26 32.74
DA 6.35** 8.76** 3.78 87.37** 3.28 2.02 73.71 26.29
DS 6.56** 8.61** 5.65 70.20** 4.00 1.46 67.40 32.62
PH 720.75** 847.52** 401.49 7056.49** 431.75** 116.84 64.23 35.77
EH 399.69** 482.54** 296.23 4751.07** 156.6 106.5 77.21 22.79
EA 0.29** 0.31** 0.22* 3.15** 0.09 0.07 80.07 19.98
EPP 0.011** 0.13** 0.19* 0.48** 0.08* 0.03 57.77 43.21
Ambo
GY 6.76** 7.44** 5.24* 81.12** 1.48* 0.78 86.08 13.97
DA 60.27* 64.72** 16.40 553.57** 36.38 28.98 60.53 39.47
DS 34.43** 43.74** 14.58 517.83** 10.36** 2.13 83.37 16.63
PH 593.07** 788.25** 937.31* 4055.38** 441.56 223.7 60.67 39.33
EH 359.41** 399.91** 147.8 2809.61** 264.88 145.81 53.49 46.51
EA 0.54** 0.60** 0.82** 3.83** 0.24** 0.06 72.73 28.09
EPP 0.04** 0.04** 0.06** 0.23** 0.02 0.02 71.81 29.19
*=0.05 and **= 0.01 significant probability level respectively; GY=Grain yield, DA = Days to anthesis, DS = Days to silking,
EH = Ear height, PH = Plant height, EA=Ear aspect, EPP = Number of ears per plant, DF = degrees of freedom, Cont. of
GCA = contribution of general combining ability of lines and testers, Cont. of SCA = contribution of specific combining
ability of line by tester.
[139]
Combined analysis of variance showed significant differences among the two
locations for all the studied traits except EH (Table 4). The result also showed
highly significant (P>0.01) mean squares due to genotypes and crosses for all
traits studied. The interaction between Locations and genotypes (Loc x G), were
highly significant for GY, DS and EA, indicating that the performances of the
genotypes were not consistent across locations for these traits. Similar results were
reported for GY by different authors (Badu-Apraku et al., 2011, Gudeta et al.,
2017, Zeleke et al., 2020). However, non-significant interaction effects of Loc x
G were observed for DA, PH, EH, and EPP, indicating that the genotypes were
performed uniformly across sites for those traits. In line with this finding, Tesfaye
et al. (2019b) reported non-significant Loc x G interaction for DA, PH, EH and
EPP in their study.
The combined analysis of variance for grain yield and other related traits also
showed significant GCAL mean squares for EH and EPP, while significant GCAT
mean squares were observed for GY, PH, EH, EA and EPP. Significant SCA (L x T)
mean squares were obtained GY, PH and EA. The interactions of GCA L*Loc
showed significant differences for GY, DS, PH and EA; whereas the mean squares
of GCAT*Loc revealed highly significant differences for GY, DA and DS. On the
other hand, significant differences were observed in SCA (LxT)*Loc only for DS
and EA (Table 4). The significance of both GCA and SCA mean squares for most
of the traits indicates the role of additive and non-additive gene action in the
inheritance of the traits. Various scientists (Dagne et al., 2011, Tolera et al., 2017)
also reported similar findings in other groups of inbred lines they studied.
Similarly, for all of the traits, the contribution of GCA variances were greater than
the contribution of SCA variances, revealing the predominance of additive gene
action in the inheritance of all traits. This showed that parents with good GCA and
per se performance could be used to predict the performance of their crosses.
Therefore, these parents can be crossed to develop high-yielding hybrids that can
potentially be used in further breeding work (inbred line development). Similar
results were reported by other authors in their study on combining ability for yield
and yield related traits in maize (Dufera et al., 2018, Bitew et al., 2019). The
significance of the interaction of GCA of parents (lines and testers) with the
environment and SCA of the crosses with the environment revealed that the GCA
effects of the parents and SCA of the crosses over the test environments were
different.
[140]
Table 4. Mean squares from line x tester analysis of variance for yield and yield related traits over two locations in
Ethiopia in 2018
Source of
DF GY DA DS PH EH EA EPP
variation
Location (Loc) 1 84.97** 9856.08** 13744.82** 1404.50* 169.28 15.96** 0.96**
Rep (Loc) 2 3.42* 33.94 11.38** 81.80 121.70 0.15 0.01
BLK (Rep*Loc) 36 3.11** 16.06 4.96** 290.68* 176.78 0.09 0.04*
Genotype (G) 49 13.65** 36.95** 26.22** 1072.16** 620.07** 0.64** 0.10**
Crosses (Cr) 47 15.56** 48.73** 37.75** 1336.83** 761.16** 0.72** 0.13**
G*Loc 49 2.24** 23.47 11.04** 200.81 110.68 0.17** 0.03
Cr*Loc 47 3.12** 24.75* 14.60** 298.95 121.29 0.20** 0.05*
GCA(L) 11 10.66 8.88 10.51 853.91 365.14** 0.66 0.20*
GCA(T) 3 155.31* 518.35 469.62 10716.47* 7400.74** 6.90** 0.66*
SCA(L*T) 33 4.49* 19.32 7.57 645.10** 289.57* 0.17 0.06
GCA(L)*Loc 11 4.53** 11.30 9.71** 484.89* 78.89 0.38** 0.05
GCA(T)*Loc 3 7.65** 122.59** 118.42** 395.39 159.93 0.07 0.05
SCA(L*T)*Loc 33 2.22 20.34 6.79** 228.2 131.9 0.15** 0.04
Pooled Error Cr 94 1.56 16.34 3.02 219.36 145.81 0.07 0.03
Pooled Error G 62 0.86 15.50 1.80 170.27 126.16 0.06 0.02
CV(%) 12.07 3.80 1.27 6.28 10.49 8.30 12.43
Cont. of GCA
79.72 72.16 85.92 66.12 73.29 82.89 67.10
(%)
Cont. of SCA (%) 20.28 27.84 14.08 33.88 26.71 17.11 32.90
*=0.05 and 0.01 significant probability level respectively.
**=
GY=Grain yield, DA = Days to anthesis, DS = Days to silking, EH = Ear height, PH = Plant height, PA=Plant aspect,
EA=Ear aspect, EPP = Number of ears per plant, DF = degrees of freedom, Cont. of GCA = contribution of general
combining ability of lines and testers, Cont. of SCA = contribution of specific combining ability of line by tester, Rep=
Replication and BLK=Blocks.
[141]
General Combining Ability Effects
The GCA effects of the 12 inbred lines and 4 testers for GY and related traits are
presented in Table 5. Among the 12 inbred lines, only L1 was with significantly
positive mean GCA effects at Ambo and across locations for GY. Similarly,
among the four testers T3 and T4 were showed highly significant positive GCA
effects for this trait. In addition L9, L10 and L11 were showed positive and
significant GCA effects at Holeta and non-significant positive GCA effects were
observed theses across location. Therefore, the inbred line and the testers with
positive and significant GCA effects are good combiner for improving GY. On
other hand, L4, L6 and L8; T1 and T2 were showed significantly negative GCA
effects for GY, indicating, that these inbred lines and testers were not good
combiner within this group of inbred lines and may not be exploited for GY
improvement. In line with the current study, several authors reported either
positive or negative significant GCA effects of inbred lines for GY in other group
of inbred lines (Legesse et al., 2009, Tolera et al., 2017, Dufera et al., 2018,
Tesfaye et al., 2019b).
Table 5. Estimates of GCA effects for grain yield and other agronomic traits of 12 highland maize inbred lines and four
testers crossed using line x tester mating design and evaluated across site in 2018 main cropping season.
GY Across locations
Lines
Ambo Holeta GY PH EH EA EPP
L1 2.14** 0.31 1.23* 5.85 5.38* -0.52** -0.02
L2 0.09 -0.07 0.01 2.79 -0.87 0.26 0.03
L3 -0.51 -0.49 -0.5 0.79 -1.62 0.1 -0.01
L4 -0.62* -1.94** -1.28* -9.21 -9.62** 0.2 -0.11*
L5 -0.32 0.28 -0.02 6.73 0.19 0.1 -0.06
L6 -0.49 -2.22** -1.35** 4.73 -0.18 -0.11 -0.19**
L7 -0.55 0.02 -0.26 -5.65 4.01 0.14 -0.04
L8 -0.82** 0.13 -0.35 -14.21** -3.31 -0.08 -0.01
L9 0.21 1.58** 0.9 -8.15 -5.81** 0.01 0.06
L10 0.61* 0.83** 0.72 4.17 1.51 -0.02 0.04
L11 0.45 1.06** 0.76 6.67 7.38** -0.11 0.04
L12 -0.21 0.5 0.14 5.48 2.94 0.04 0.27**
SE(gi) 0.33 0.34 0.51 5.27 2.13 0.15 0.06
SE(gi-gj) 0.46 0.48 0.62 7.41 6.04 0.13 0.09
Testers
T1 -1.81** -2.01** -1.91** -3.35 0.03 0.31** -0.10**
T2 -1** -1.13** -1.07** -10.31** -3.66* 0.33** 0.14**
T3 0.43** 1.54** 0.99** -8.31** -13.06** -0.24** 0.05
T4 2.38** 1.6** 1.99** 21.98** 16.69** -0.41** -0.10**
SE(gi) 0.19 0.20 0.35 2.49 1.58 0.03 0.03
SE(gi-gj) 0.27 0.28 0.36 4.28 3.49 0.08 0.05
*=0.05 and **= 0.01 significant probability level respectively.
GY=grain yield, EH = ear height, PH = plant height, EA=Ear Aspect, EPP = number of ears per plant, SE(gi) = standard
error of general combining ability effects of lines and testers, SE (gi-gj)=standard error of the difference of general
combining ability effects of lines and testers.
[142]
Mean GCA effects of inbred lines for PH and EH ranged from -14.21 to 6.73 and -
9.62 to 7.38 respectively. Only L8 showed negative and highly significant mean
GCA effects for PH, while L4 and L9 showed negative and highly significant
GCA effects for EH, implying the tendency of these lines to reduce plant height,
which is important for the development of genotypes resistant to lodging. On the
other hand, L1 and L11 showed positive and significant mean GCA effects for EH
(Table 5), indicating that these inbred lines were poor combiner in making
genotypes with good ear position. Similarly, T4 showed positive and highly
significant mean GCA effects for both PH and EH, whereas T2 and T3 revealed
negative and highly significant mean GCA effects for these traits. In line with the
present study, Demissew et al. (2011) and Tolera et al. (2017) found significant
positive and negative GCA effects for PH and EH in inbred lines and testers they
studied. Among the inbred lines, only L1 was with significantly negative mean
GCA effects for EA. Similarly, among the four testers T3 and T4 were showed
highly significant negative mean GCA effects for this trait. On other hand T1 and
T2 showed positive and highly significant mean GCA effects for EA, indicating
that the testers with positive and significant GCA effects are poor combiner for
improving EA and the inbred lines and testers with negative GCA effects for both
traits were good combiners in improving these traits. In contrast to the current
study, Tolera et al. (2017) reported non-significant GCA effects of inbred lines
and testers for EA in other group of inbred lines they studied.
In case of EPP L4 and L6 showed negative and significant GCA effects, while
positive and significant GCA effects were observed for L12. The positive and
significant GCA effect for EPP indicates prolificacy, which is a desirable trait in
increasing maize productivity to some extent (Aminu and Izge, 2013, Alamerew
and Warsi, 2015). In addition, T2 had positive and highly significant GCA effects,
while T1 and T4 revealed negative and highly significant GCA effects for this
trait, indicating T2 is a desirable tester for improving this trait when crossed with
other inbred lines.
Specific Combining Ability Effects

Specific combining ability effects computed for grain yield and other agronomic
traits are presented in Table 6. L6 and L11 had significantly positive SCA effects
when crossed to T1 and T3 respectively at both locations and across location for
GY implying that there was significant positive interaction of genes between the
two parents for this trait. Such gene interactions lead to the expression of
heterosis, which can be exploited in the development of hybrid varieties. In
contrast, L1xT4, L2xT4, L6xT4, L8xT1, L11xT2 and L12xT2 had significantly
negative SCA effects for GY indicating that these crosses were poor specific
combiners for grain yield. Both crosses that showed the highest positive SCA
effects were resulted from inbred lines with poor GCA crossed to tester with good
GCA and inbred line with poor GCA crossed to tester with poor GCA for grain
[143]
yield. This showed that, the crosses performed better than what would be expected
from the GCA effects of their respective parents. Therefore, these crosses could be
selected for their specific combining ability for higher grain yield. In line with this
finding, Bullo and Dagne (2016) reported highly significant positive and negative
SCA effects for GY and they suggested that, when high yielding specific
combinations are desired, especially in hybrid maize development, SCA effects
could help in the selection of parental material for maximum exploitation of
heterosis. For DS, eight crosses showed significant and positive SCA effects,
while eleven crosses showed negative and significant SCA effects for this trait at
Ambo. The hybrids with low SCA for DS are desirable as they have earlier DS
than what is expected based on GCA of their parents. This finding is in agreement
with Dagne et al. (2011) and Aminu and Izge (2013).
[144]
Table 6. Estimates of specific combining ability (SCA) effects for grain yield and other agronomic traits of 48 line x tester
crosses evaluated in 2018
Ambo Holeta Across Locations
Crosses
GY DS EA GY EPP GY PH EH
L1xT1 0.14 -1.79* -0.04 2.46 0.16 0.65 8.48 5.35
L1xT2 0.78 -2.54** -0.52** -13.63 -0.02 0.88 -9.06 -11.21*
L1xT3 -0.11 -0.04 0.10 3.63 0.14 0.37 -9.06 0.43
L1xT4 -0.82 4.38** 0.46** 7.54 -0.28* -1.90** 9.65 5.43
L2xT1 -0.24 -0.29 -0.04 4.46 -0.09 -0.13 7.04 4.6
L2xT2 -0.77 1.46 -0.02 11.38 0.38** 0.41 2.5 5.04
L2xT3 0.97 -2.54** 0.10 -7.38 0.09 0.96 -17.50** -6.57
L2xT4 0.04 1.38 -0.04 -8.46 -0.37** -1.24* 7.96 -3.07
L3xT1 0.46 1.21 -0.29 -6.04 0.13 0.60 -0.96 -0.15
L3xT2 0.75 1.96* -0.02 17.88* -0.05 0.34 9.50 12.04*
L3xT3 -0.93 -1.04 0.35* 2.13 -0.01 -0.58 2.75 -2.82
L3xT4 -0.28 -2.13* -0.04 -13.96 -0.08 -0.36 -11.29 -9.07
L4xT1 -0.36 3.83** 0.21 15.21* 0.05 0.69 0.54 8.10
L4xT2 -0.29 -2.42** -0.02 -18.88** -0.07 -0.21 -23.50** -11.21*
L4xT3 0.36 -1.42 -0.15 18.38* 0.13 0.04 19.00** 7.68
L4xT4 0.28 0.00 -0.04 -14.71* -0.12 -0.52 3.96 -4.57
L5xT1 -0.03 -1.04 -0.04 -6.29 0.02 -0.66 -10.90 -7.46
L5xT2 0.56 0.21 -0.27 -2.38 -0.20 0.12 5.81 -4.78
L5xT3 -0.30 -0.79 -0.15 4.88 0.00 -0.25 7.81 13.62**
L5xT4 -0.24 1.63 0.46** 3.79 0.19 0.79 -2.73 -1.38
L6xT1 -1.49** 0.71 0.58** -11.29 -0.01 -0.58 -25.40** -13.34**
L6xT2 0.43 0.46 0.60** 2.63 0.12 0.86 12.81* 11.35*
L6xT3 1.02* -1.54 -0.52** -5.13 0.17 1.26* 8.56 -6.26
L6xT4 0.03 0.38 -0.67** 13.79 -0.28* -1.54* 4.02 8.24
L7xT1 -0.45 0.71 0.08 -3.54 -0.05 -0.84 -11.02 -0.03
L7xT2 0.53 -0.54 -0.15 5.38 -0.15 0.54 5.94 -0.34
L7xT3 -0.50 2.46** 0.23 2.63 -0.04 -0.25 6.19 2.56
L7xT4 0.42 -2.63** -0.17 -4.46 0.24* 0.54 -1.10 -2.19
L8xT1 -1.34** 3.21** 0.27 -18.29* -0.16 -1.66** -11.21 -12.96**
L8xT2 1.02* -2.54** 0.04 3.63 0.26* 0.89 9.50 7.22
L8xT3 0.56 0.96 -0.08 -7.13 -0.13 -0.03 5.75 -7.38
L8xT4 -0.24 -1.63 -0.23 21.79** 0.02 0.80 -4.04 13.12**
L9xT1 -0.44 -0.67 -0.10 0.96 -0.2 -1.11 -3.52 -3.96
L9xT2 0.05 -1.42 -0.08 1.88 0.25* 0.6 -3.06 2.72
L9xT3 -0.21 0.08 0.29 -3.88 -0.15 -0.29 0.69 -0.88
L9xT4 0.60 2.00* -0.10 1.04 0.09 0.80 5.90 2.12
L10xT1 1.04* -1.92* 0.21 7.46 -0.02 0.78 14.67* 5.22
L10xT2 -0.66 2.33** -0.02 -6.63 -0.07 -1.07 -3.88 -4.84
L10xT3 -0.38 0.33 -0.15 -4.38 -0.01 -0.23 2.88 -1.19
L10xT4 0.01 -0.75 -0.04 3.54 0.11 0.52 -13.67 0.81
L11xT1 1.84** -2.42** -0.17 17.96* -0.04 1.55* 24.42** 12.85**
L11xT2 -1.22* 0.33 0.35* 2.88 -0.25* -1.88** 2.88 1.54
L11xT3 -1.13* 4.33** -0.02 -8.88 0.01 -0.88 -22.88** -3.32
L11xT4 0.52 -2.25* -0.17 -11.96 0.28* 1.22 -4.42 -11.07*
L12xT1 0.87 -1.54 -0.67** -3.04 0.20 0.71 7.85 1.79
L12xT2 -1.19* 2.71** 0.10 -4.13 -0.20 -1.48* -9.44 -7.53
L12xT3 0.65 -0.79 -0.02 5.13 -0.20 -0.11 -4.19 4.12
L12xT4 -0.33 -0.38 0.58** 2.04 0.20 0.89 5.77 1.62
SE (sij) 0.65 1.25 0.19 0.69 0.12 0.62 6.26 4.76
SE (Sji-Skl) 0.92 1.77 0.26 0.97 0.17 1.25 14.81 12.08
*=0.05 and **= 0.01 significant probability level respectively.

GY=grain yield, DS = days to silking, EH = ear height, PH = plant height, EA=Ear Aspect, EPP = number of ears per
plant, SE = standard error, SE (sji-Skl) = standard error of the difference of specific combining ability effects of line by
testers.
[145]
Of the 48 test crosses, some of them showed significant SCA effects for PH and
EH in combined analysis of the two locations (Table 6). The crosses L2xT3,
L4xT2, L6xT1 and L11x T3 had significant negative SCA effects for PH and
could be considered the best cross combinations in view of having relative
potential of tolerating lodging. Likewise, L1xT2, L4xT2, L6xT1, L8xT1 and
L11xT4 had significant negative SCA effects for EH indicating that these cross
combinations may be exploited for tolerance to lodging. Seven crosses revealed
positive and significant SCA effects for EA, while four crosses showed negative
and significant SCA effects for this trait at Ambo. The crosses that had negative
values of SCA for EA were considered as desirable crosses, as the higher scores of
these traits indicates bad ear characteristics. The crosses L2 x T2, L7 x T4, L8 x
T2, L9 x T2 and L11 x T4 showed positive and significant SCA effects for EPP.
Thus, these crosses could be selected for their specific combining ability to
improve EPP. In contrast, L1xT4, L2xT4, L6 x T4 and L11xT2 showed negative
SCA effects, indicating that these cross combinations are in undesired direction
for prolificacy. Similar results were reported by Bello and Olawuyi, (2015) and
Zeleke et al. (2020).
Conclusion and Recommendations

This study identified one new inbred line and two tester inbred lines (L1, T3 and
T4) that were good combiners for improvement of GY for highland maize
breeding program. The three inbred lines and two inbred testers (L4, L8, L9, T2
and T3) having significant negative GCA effects for PH and EH identified in the
current study can also be used as parents for short stature to reduce the grain yield
loss caused by lodging. The tester T4 had the highest significant positive GCA
effect for grain yield besides its good per se performance. As a result, this tester
could be proposed for future use as potential tester in highland maize breeding
program. The selected inbred lines from this study could be crossed to more
testers and evaluated under more testing locations in order to get more information
on Genotype x environment interactions of the lines for further use in the highland
maize breeding program.
References
Alamerew S. & Warsi M. 2015. Hetrosis and combining ability of sub tropical maize
inbred lines. African Crop Science Journal, 23, 123-133.
Aminu D. & Izge A. 2013. Gene action and heterosis for yield and yield traits in maize
(Zea mays L.) under drought conditions in northern Guinea and Sudan savannas of
Borno State. Peak Journal of Agricultural Science, 1, 17-23.
Badu-apraku B., Oyekunle M., Akinwale R. & Lum A. F. 2011. Combining ability of
early‐maturing white maize inbreds under stress and nonstress environments.
Agronomy journal, 103, 544-557.
[146]
Banziger M, Vivek BS (2007). Fieldbook: Software for Managing a Maize Breeding
Program. CIMMYT.
Bello O. B. & Olawuyi O. J. 2015. Gene action, heterosis, correlation and regression
estimates in developing hybrid cultivars in maize. Tropical Agriculture, 92, 102-
117.
Bitew T., Girum A., Tolera K., Temesgen C., Belay G., Beyene A., Dufera T., Zelalem T.
& Desalegn C. 2019. Test cross performance and combining ability of newly
introduced quality protein maize (Zea mays) inbred lines for grain yield and
agronomic traits evaluated in mid-altitude agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. South
African Journal of Plant and Soil, 36, 173-180.
Bullo N. & Dagne, W. 2016. Combining ability of inbred lines in quality protein maize
(QPM) for varietal improvement. International journal of plant breeding and crop
Science, 3, 079-089.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2020). Agricultural Sample Survey 2019/2020: Report
on area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, 'Meher' season).
Statistical Bulletin. 1. CSA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Chawla HS, Gupta VP. 1984). Index India-Agriculture. Indian Calcutta Agriculture
28(4):261- 265.
Dabholkar, AR. 1992. Elements of Biometrical Genetics. Ashok Kumar Mittal Concept
Publishing Company, New Delhi, India.
Dabholkar AR, 1999. Elements of biometrical genetics. Revised and enlarged edition,
Concept Publishing Company. New Delhi, India
Dagne W., Labuschagne M. & Vivek B. 2011. The Influence of Water Stress on Yield
and Related Characteristics in Inbred Quality Protein Maize Lines and Their Hybrid
Progeny. Water Stress, 199.
Demissew A., Habtamu Z., Kanuajia, K. & Dagne, W. 2011. Combining ability in maize
lines for agronomic traits and resistance to weevil (Sithophilus zeamais
Motschulky). Ethiopian Journal of Crop Science, 2, 37-48.
Dufera T., Bulti T. & Girum A. 2018. Heterosis and combining ability analysis of quality
protein maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines adapted to mid-altitude sub-humid agro-
ecology of Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Science, 12, 47-57.
FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations), 2018. FAOSTAT
[Online]. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat., Accessed August , 2020.
Gudeta N., Dagne W. & Habtamu Z. 2015. Heterosis and combining ability of highland
quality protein maize inbred lines. Maydica, 60: 1-12.
Gudeta N., Dagne W., Wassu M., Habtamu Z. & Adefris T. 2017. Mean Performance and
Heterosis in Single Crosses of Selected Quality Protein Maize (QPM) Inbred Lines.
Journal of Science and Sustainable Development (JSSD), 5, 19-31.
Legesse W., Pixley K. & Botha A.M. 2009. Combining ability and heterotic grouping of
highland transition maize inbred lines. Maydica 64(3): p.10
Patterson HD, Williams ER (1976). A new class resolvable incomplete block designs.
Biometrika 63:83-92.
Singh RK, Chaudhary BD (1985). Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis.
Kalyani Publishers New Dehli, India.
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (2004). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA
[147]
Tesfaye D., Demissew A. & Habte E. 2019a. Combining Ability of Highland Adapted
Double Haploid Maize Inbred Lines using Line X Tester Mating Design. East
African Journal of Sciences, 13, 121-134.
Tesfaye S., Zeleke H. & Abakemal D. 2019b. Combining ability of highland adapted
maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines for grain yield and yield related traits under
optimum and low nitrogen conditions. African Journal of Plant Science, 13, 125-
137.
Tolera K., Mosissa R. & Habtamu Z. 2017. Combining ability and heterotic orientation of
mid-altitude sub-humid tropical maize inbred lines for grain yield and related traits.
African Journal of Plant Science.
Twumasi AS, Zelleke H, Yihun K, Assefa B, Tariku S (2002) Development and
Improvement of Highland Maize in Ethiopia. In: Nigusse M, Tanner D (eds)
Proceedings of the second national maize workshop of Ethiopia, EARO (Ethiopian
Agricultural Research Organization) and CIMMYT, 12–16 November 2001, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, pp 31–38
Zeleke K., Demissew A. & Gebreselassie W. 2020. Heterosis and combining ability of
highland adapted maize (Zea mays. L) DH lines for desirable agronomic traits.
African Journal of Plant Science, 14, 121-133.
[148]
Performance Evaluation of Introduced Advanced-
Stage Hybrids Trials Adapted to Moisture Stress
Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia
Alemeshet Lemma1, Lealem Tilahun1, Dereje Ayalneh1, Talef Wendosen1, Berhanu
Tadesse2, Bulo Dhabesa1, Estefanos Habtemariam1, Tefera Mitiku and Tesfaye Disasa 3
1
Melkassa Agricultural Research Center,Tel. (251-022) 2250210 / 2250214, P. O. Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia;
2
Bako National Maize Research Center. Tel. (251-057) 8611082/3, P.O.Box 03, Bako, Ethiopia; 3National
Agricultural Biotechnology Research Center Tel. (+251)112610053, Holetta, Ethiopia
E-mail: alelgc98@gmail.com
Abstract
Though maize is one of the most important food security crops in Ethiopia,
challenges of availing competent varieties have been a prominent problem in
drought or moisture stressed areas. This study was proposed with the objective of
evaluating and selecting introduced drought tolerant hybrids for lowland and
moisture stress agroecology of Ethiopia. Twenty-eight hybrids introduced from
CIMMYT-Kenya along with local checks were evaluated from 2017 to 2019. The
design was Alpha lattice with three replications. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
done using SAS and R-Software. ANOVA for across locations showed that there were
highly significant (p≤0.01) location and significant (p≤0.05) genotype mean squares
observed for most of the traits except CLR, RL and TLB in 2017 and 2019. The mean
squares of genotype-environment interactions (GEI) were significant for FW, AD,
PA, EPP, HC, ER and GLS in 2017 while it was only significant for EPP and HC in
2019. The genotypes depicted wide differences in yield performances ranging from
5.83 ton ha-1 to 8.77 ton ha-1 across all environments with the maximum yield
advantage of 23.43% (WE5202) followed by 18.89% (WE7210/Candidate1) and
17.65% (WE8216/Candidate2) over the check (MH140). Mean broad sense-
heritability for GY across locations was 66%. The candidates were better for
important traits like SL, RL and HC as compared to the check and the overall mean.
From the across years and locations evaluations, the hybrid WE7210 was found
superior over the checks and could be proposed for variety verification trial and
possible release for commercial production in the drought stress agroecology of
Ethiopia.
Introduction
Maize is one of the major crops in Ethiopia in terms of the proportion of crop area
it covers, its production and productivity and the number of house hold depends
on it for food (CSA, 2020). It is also the second most important crop produced
globally (Romy, 2020). According to CSA report; Maize covered an area of
2,274,305.93 hectares and managed to contribute 96,357,345 ton just in 2020
Meher season; supporting 11,475,499 households; the highest of any crop
cultivated in Ethiopia (CSA, 2020).
[149]
Maize productivity has been increasing exponentially from 1.7tonha-1 in the 1990s
to 4.237tonha-1 in 2020 (CSA, 2020). Many factors contributed for the noticeable
growth observed in productivity like: the use of improved maize varieties, use of
modern inputs, use of improved seed, fertilizers and increase in area of cultivation
are worth mentioning (Romy, 2020; Tsedeke et al., 2015). The role of research
and development was the key driving factor for the observed increase in maize
production and productivity (Musa et al., 2017; Tsedeke et al., 2015; Moti et al.,
2013).
Maize is well known for its elastic adaptation across ranges of altitude,
temperature, soil type, water regimes and agro-ecologies but has been constrained
by many biotic and abiotic factors (Mechael et al., 2020; Moti et al., 2013).
Among the major factors, drought is one of the most puzzling and complex abiotic
stress. According to Getachew (2018), drought exists when seasonal rainfall drops
below normal by almost 30% to 50%. Drought has been significantly affecting
crop productions and productivity. Viste et al. (2012) characterized the drought
pattern in Ethiopia and recorded fifteen different drought seasons occurred in
Ethiopia from 1971 to 2011 out of which three of them were the driest. Drought
causes a yield loss ranging from 30% to 90% depending on the growth stage of the
crop at which it happened (Sah et al., 2020). To overcome prominent problems
such as drought, research for drought tolerant maize was initiated in Ethiopia by
the then Hawassa Junior College of Agriculture in 1976 and continued at
Melkassa as a coordination centre since 1993 (Hussein and Kebede, 1992;
Mandefro et al., 1995b). The main objective of the project was to identify and
release adapted maize varieties for drought stress areas of the country. These areas
account up to 75% of Ethiopia’s landmass (scattered throughout southern, south
eastern and north eastern parts of Ethiopia) with moisture stress during most
months of the year, and having between 45 and 120 days of growing season per
year and inhabited by one third of the total populations (Kidane et al., 2010).
Different strategies of breeding have been followed by the low moisture stress
maize research project, of which fast tracking proven maize varieties from
different countries with similar climatic conditions to Ethiopian mid-altitude dry
agroecologies has been of major focus (Kebede et al., 1992). CIMMYT has been
the major contributor in these regards, especially its two African regional breeding
programs in Kenya and Zimbabwe. Since 2002, eleven varieties released from
Melkassa for adaptations under low moisture stress agro-ecologies were all
obtained by introductions from CIMMYT through product fast tracking. The last
hybrid variety released for this agro-ecology was in 2014, and hence the need of
replacing it with a better hybrid was mandatory in order to achieve better genetic
gain. The Current products were developed by one of the most prominent private
seed company in the world called Monsanto. The hybrids and their parental lines
were also provided royalty free to Ethiopia so that we can release the best hybrids
which outperformed our local check or use the lines to form different hybrids for
[150]
future release. Therefore, the objective of the current research was to evaluate the
adaptation and suitability of three-way cross hybrids identified through product
fast tracking for mid altitude moisture stress agro-ecologies of Ethiopia.

Genotypes
Table1. Description of genotypes used for the study
No. Name Pedigree Source Comments

WE3210 Monsanto
WE7210 CML539/WMB0001//WMA2002 Monsanto Candidate1
WE4208 Monsanto
WE8206 WMB3002/WMB4810//WMA2230 Monsanto
WE8203 WMB3002/WMB4810//WMA2502 Monsanto
WE7207 Monsanto
WE5202 WMA2101/WMC8801//CML539 Monsanto
WE1259 Monsanto
WE8214 Monsanto
WE7206 Monsanto
WE6205 WMA3104/WMA2001//CML539 Monsanto
WE6204 Monsanto
WE7202 Monsanto
WE8216 WMB4842/WMB4846//CML539 Monsanto Candidate2
WE8208 Monsanto
WE7209 Monsanto
WE7201 WMC5813/WMC8801//CML539 Monsanto
WE7212 Monsanto
MH140 CML444/CML547//CZL0814 Melkassa Local Check
MH138Q CML144/CML159//Pool15QPMSR538# Melkassa Local Check
MH130 CML440/CML445//ZimLineKat#24 Melkassa Local Check
BH546 Bako Commercial Check
BH547 Bako Commercial Check
Description of the Study Area

Table 2. Descriptions of the study Areas
No. Location Years of Test Altitude Rainfall longitude Latitude

Melkassa 2017 2018 2019 1550masl 710mm 8°24’985 N 39°19’529 E
Dhera 2017 2018 2019 1680masl 520mm 8° 20′ 0″ N 39° 19′ 0″ E
Miesso - - 2019 1394masl 560mm 9°14'0"N 40°45'0"E
Bako 2017 2018 - 1650masl 1210mm 09°06’N 37°09’E
Hawassa 2017 - - 1708masl 1100mm 7° 3′ 0″ N 38° 28′ 0″ E
Pawe 2017 - - 1120masl 1200mm 11°19’N 36°24'E
Kamashi 2017 - - 1550masl 700mm 9°44'59.99" N 35°49'59.99" E
[151]
The Experiment was conducted in three different years. In each year the numbers
of genotypes evaluated were different because some of the worst performing
hybrids were dropped from the experiment. The incomplete block design called
Alpha lattice designs (Patterson and Williams, 1976) of 4x21, 3x20 and 3x20 were
used in 2017, 2018 and 2019 main seasons with 28, 20 and 20 hybrids,
respectively. Each entry was planted on 2 row plot of 4m long with a spacing of
0.75cmx0.25cm between row and plant, respectively. Each entry was replicated
three times. Fertilizer and other agronomic managements were applied as per the
recommendation for each location.
Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Representative plants of two per plots were sampled for data collection of those
traits that needs to be measured on plant basis including Plant and ear heights. The
averages from individual plants were used as plot observations excluding border
plants. For traits like Grain yield, the whole plot records were taken as unit
observation. The collected data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
for individual sets of experiments in each location using CIMMYT field book.
Genotypes were considered as fixed effect while locations were considered as
random. Advanced special analysis was done using CIMMYT Software called
Spatial META_R Version 2.0 (2018-05-24) (Rodríguez et al., 2016) and SAS 9.0
(SAS 2008). Due to differences in the number and types of genotypes in each of
the three consecutive years, it was not possible to conduct combined analysis
across years for all significant environments. Therefore, the analysis was done for
across different locations within the same year which contained the same
genotypes in terms of number and type.

Analyses of Variances
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for 2017 across locations showed that mean
square for Location (E) were highly significant for all the studied traits which
showed that the environments used were sufficiently impacted the hybrids (Table
3). The result agreed with the basic strategy of maize breeding in Ethiopia which
is mainly agro ecology specific (Kebede et al., 1992). Two of the environments
were located within the mid altitude moisture stress ago ecology while four of
them were within the mid altitude high potential agro-ecology. At the same time,
significant mean square was observed for the genotypes (Entry) for all the studied
traits except for Root Lodging (RL) which showed that sufficient genetic
variability was exhibited among genotypes (Table 3). Conducting across location
evaluations of maize genotypes is very important to detect the degree of Genotype
by Environment (GxE) effect which determines the nature of their adaptations in
[152]
specific or wide range of Environments (Legesse et al., 1998; Masila and Langat,
2020; Zegeye et al., 2013). The interaction GxE mean squares were also
significant for most of the studied traits except for Anthesis Silking Interval (ASI),
Ear Aspect (EA), Ear Height (EH), Ear Position (EPO) and Plant Height (PH)
(Table 3). Significant GxE depicted that significant changes in the ranks of
genotypes were observed as the environment changed. Presence of significant
GxE effect is always a challenge against the breeding programs that are looking
for maize genotypes with wider adaptation. However GxE effect can be eliminated
through breeding for specific adaptation even though seed companies prefer
varieties with wider adaptation over (Legesse et al., 1998; Masila and Langat,
2020; Zegeye et al., 2013). The broad sense heritability (H2) of most of the traits
were good ranging from Plant Aspect (PA=55%) to Days to Anthesis (AD) =94%)
indicating that the traits are highly heritable which can be improved through
selection (Tolera et al., 2018; Matiello et al., 2012) (Table 3).
Table 3. ANOVA of 28 hybrids evaluated across six locations in 2017 for Yield and related traits
LSD
Soure Rep(Loc) Blk(Rep) Loc(E) Geno(G) GxE Er Mean CV (0.05) H2
DF 10 18 5 27 135 305 - - - -
GY 3.15* 2.39* 477.48** 4.49** 2.31** 1.47 6.13 20.86 1.12 0.63
AD 19.34** 4.45ns 7455.5** 55.83** 5.28** 3.31 72.50 2.51 3.93 0.94
ASI 1.08ns 1.3ns 141.9** 4.94** 2.02ns 1.63 1.83 69.82 1.17 NA
EA 0.28ns 0.28ns 20.25** 0.88** 0.32ns 0.35 2.46 23.93 0.49 0.70
EH 278.24** 142.74ns 9809.52** 760.7** 123.37ns 100.55 97.87 10.25 14.52 0.87
EPO 0ns 0ns 0.06** 0.01** 0.002ns 0.00 0.49 7.74 0.04 NA
EPP 0.05* 0.04* 1** 0.08** 0.04** 0.02 1.14 13.66 0.15 0.61
ER 68.41ns 49.88ns 4882.27** 86.17** 64.12** 44.4 5.95 112.08 4.89 0.56
MOI 9.63* 8.16* 347.16** 21.26** 8.17** 5.04 16.94 13.25 2.43 NA
NP 6.12ns 6.05* 615.4** 21.39** 9.16** 3.63 17.59 10.84 2.43 NA
PA 0.86** 0.3ns 12.25** 0.7** 0.41** 0.29 2.49 21.71 0.44 0.55
PH 487.83** 234.93ns 30168.2** 1849.36** 201.11ns 183 200.74 6.74 22.64 0.90
RL 111.17ns 156.16ns 20494.95** 294.6ns 289.41** 205.91 9.61 149.3 9.04 0.62
Loc= Locations; Rep= Replication; Blk= Block; Geno= Genotype; CV= Coefficient of Variation; DF= Degree of Freedom;
GY= Shelled Grain Yield (tonha-1) ; AD= Days to Anthesis (days), EA= Ear aspect (Scale 1-5, 1= Excellent, 5= Bad);
PA= Plant Aspect (Scale 1-5, 1= Excellent, 5= Bad); PH = Plant Height (cm); EH=Ear Height (Cm); RL= root Lodging (%),
EPP = number of Ears Per Plant (Ratio); ER= Ear Rot (%); MOI= Grain moisture content at harvest (%), ASI= Anthesis
Silking Interval (Days),
NP= Number of Plants per plot; H2 = Broad Sense Heritability (%) E= Environment; Er= Error, NA= Not Available.
[153]
Due to differences in the number and types of genotypes in each of the three
consecutive years, the analysis was done across different locations within the same
year which contained the same genotypes in terms of number and type. Across
locations combined Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of 2019 trials showed that the
mean squares for E were highly significant for all the studied traits except SL
which depicted that the environments were different impacting the genotypes.
Even though, all the three environments were within the mid altitude, they are
quite different in terms of their soil type, temperature, rainfall amount and
distribution which have contributed to the observed differences. Different
scientists reported similar circumstances (Legesse et al., 1998; Masila and Langat,
2020; Zegeye et al., 2013). The mean squares for G (Entry) were also significant
for most of the studied traits except for AD and PA. The results depicted that the
genotypes exhibited sufficient genetic variability for most of the traits. The mean
squares for the interaction effect of GxE were just significant for EPP and HC
while the rest of the traits were non-significant. Despite the observed significant
environmental differences, the genotypes were performing more or less similarly
across the three locations. This implied that the materials which were performing
better in one location were also performing the same in the other two or vice
versa. Similar reports were compiled by different scientist from tropical drought
stress environments (Legesse et al., 1998; Masila and Langat, 2020; Zegeye et al.,
2013). The broad sense heritability values of most of the traits were above average
(Table 4) except for PA (0.0%), EPP (36%) and AD (41%). Below average or zero
heritability observed were either as a result of data quality obtained or the drought
spells occurred in between the different growth stages of the crop or the terminal
moisture stress that occurs during flowering at Dhera and Mieso during the
experiment. The AD which usually had higher heritability like the case of this
study in 2017 (Table 3) were in agreement with many findings specially from
optimum environment; at the same time others reported low heritability for AD
specially from low nitrogen and drought stress environments (Li et al., 2016; Sher
et al., 2012)
Table 4. ANOVA for 20 hybrids evaluated across three locations in 2019 main season
Source Loc(E) Geno(G) GxE Er CV(%) LSD(0.05) H2 Mean
DF 2 19 19 109
GY 170.9** 7.51** 3.63ns 2.67 5.83 1.72 0.69 9.06
AD 6886** 5.35ns 5.05ns 4.07 0.748 1.45 0.41 71.76
PH 52600** 919** 173.5ns 135.15 1.946 18.98 0.81 194.19
EH 17963** 309.64** 86.82ns 121.41 4.322 11.02 0.74 90.19
RL 50.7** 14.89* 6.88ns 6.52 48.665 2.42 0.70 0.83
SL 12.13ns 9.87* 5.7ns 5.10 72.21 1.97 0.73 0.82
EPP 2.48** 0.07** 0.038** 0.02 2.937 0.17 0.36 1.13
HC 10792** 501.9** 236.5* 117.34 21.718 14.03 0.76 15.09
MOI 117.9** 3.34* 1.62ns 1.72 1.335 1.14 0.73 19.05
EA 7.13** 0.41* 0.21ns 0.18 4.657 0.40 0.53 2.29
PA 2.52** 0.14ns 0.13ns 0.12 3.253 0.23 0.00 2.34
Traits are explained under Table 3
[154]
Mean Performance of Genotypes
The mean GY of genotypes in 2017 was 6.13 ton ha-1 with a range of 4.50 ton ha-1
and 7.0 ton ha-1 while it was 7.81ton ha-1 in 2018 with a min and max value of
6.56 ton ha-1 and 8.62 ton ha-1. In 2019 the mean Yield performance of the genotypes
was 9.04 ton ha-1 and ranged between 6.42 ton ha-1 and 10.69 ton ha-1. The overall
mean performance of the genotypes for GY was 7.66 ton ha-1 whereas the minimum
and the maximum values were 5.83tonha-1 and 8.77ton-1 respectively. The Genotypes
were also evaluated under Low-nitrogen conditions at Melkassa in 2018; the mean
GY observed was 1.92tonha-1 while the range was between 1.01tonha-1 and 2.49tonha-
1
. Following 2017 trials’ results and visual observations, two hybrids were proposed
to be included in verification trials (WE7210 and WE8216) for possible release (Table
5). The yield advantages of all the hybrids were compared against the best check, as a
result of which hybrid like WE5202 showed outstanding yield performance showing
an average yield advantage of 23.43% followed by WE7210 and WE8216 varieties
with over all yield advantage of 18.89% and 17.65% respectively (Table 5). Even
though over ten hybrids had qualifying yield advantages over the best check, visual
observations showed that the above two selected hybrids had narrow leaves, semi-flint
kernel texture, longer and semi-cylindrical ear with very tight husk cover as compared
to the rest of the hybrids. Besides, the two hybrids depicted better yield performance
under low nitrogen input with 39.6% and 49.66% advantages for WE7210 and
WE8216, respectively, as compared to the best check (BH547) (Table 5), which
might be an advantage for small scale farmers who cannot afford to apply the
recommended N fertilizers (Tolera et al., 2018).
Table5. Mean performance of top ten genotypes across locations and years for grain yield and their yield advantage over
the checks
2017 2018 2019 Across Low N

Gen GY Adv GY AdV GY AdV GY AdV GY AdV
WE8216 6.87 41.14 7.83 -6.58 9.72 18.39 8.14 17.65 2.23 49.66
WE7206 6.86 40.96 7.25 -13.52 8.99 9.50 7.70 12.31 2.49 67.11
WE6205 6.84 40.46 7.39 -11.80 9.18 11.81 7.80 13.49 1.85 24.16
WE5202 6.78 39.26 8.62 2.89 10.52 28.14 8.64 23.43 2.46 65.10
WE7212 6.44 32.23 8.07 -3.70 10.14 23.51 8.22 17.35 1.79 20.13
WE7202 6.41 31.66 8.43 0.55 8.97 9.26 7.93 13.82 2.12 42.28
WE6204 6.27 28.86 7.99 -4.70 9.23 12.42 7.83 12.19 2.29 53.69
WE7210 6.27 28.75 8.19 -2.30 10.69 30.21 8.38 18.89 2.08 39.60
WE4208 6.17 26.68 7.12 -15.00 9.61 17.05 7.63 9.58 1.11 -25.50
WE7207 6.13 25.89 8.36 -0.31 8.93 8.77 7.80 11.45 2.35 57.72
MH140 4.87 - NA - 8.21 - 6.54 - NA -
BH547 4.79 - 7.48 - NA - 6.14 - 1.49 -
BH546 4.43 - 8.38 - NA - 6.40 - 1.01 -
MH130 3.53 - NA - NA - 3.53 - NA -
MH138Q NA - NA - 6.42 - 6.42 - NA -
Mean 6.13 7.81 9.04 7.66 1.92
Min 4.50 6.56 6.42 5.83 1.01
LSD 1.12 1.34 1.72 - 0.70
Max 7.00 8.62 10.69 8.77 2.49
Gen= Genotypes; Adv. = Yield Advantage Over the check (%); Min= Minimum, Max=Maximum; NA= the variety was not
in the trial in that specific Year.
[155]
The mean AD of genotypes across years and locations was 72 d while wide
variation in the range between 69.6 days to 72.8 days was observed. The mean
records for PH and EH were 197.4cm and 93.6cm while the genotypes varied
between 179.cm to 218.1cm and 79.6cm to 109.1cm, respectively. The mean RL
was 10.9% and ranged from 0.2% to 26.9% while the mean SL was 3.3% and
ranged from 0 to 11.4%. The means for EPP, HC and MOI were 1.1, 15.9% and
13.3% their ranges varied from 1 to 1.4, 3% to 31.8% as well as 10.7% to 18.9 %,
respectively (Table 6).
Table 6. Mean performance of top ten genotypes and checks across Locations and years for some Agronomic traits
Gen AD PH EH RL SL EPP HC MOI
WE4208 70.8 198.6 89.7 7.1 2.4 1.2 4.9 12.6
WE5202 72.0 196.9 96.4 11.4 4.5 1.1 21.0 16.3
WE6204 71.4 192.2 90.6 5.4 2.9 1.1 25.5 13.7
WE6205 70.8 187.6 85.3 6.5 3.3 1.1 20.3 14.5
WE7202 71.2 179.9 90.9 10.9 4.6 1.1 9.9 13.3
WE7206 71.2 207.6 90.0 11.0 3.6 1.0 28.4 13.0
WE7207 71.1 183.5 86.6 7.4 2.7 1.1 23.2 14.8
WE7210 72.2 184.9 88.8 3.5 1.7 1.1 13.1 11.7
WE7212 72.3 191.1 94.1 1.4 -0.1 1.1 11.6 12.1
WE8216 71.7 205.8 95.5 4.8 1.9 1.2 3.8 12.3
MH138Q 71.8 206.9 92.8 2.7 3.7 1.1 14.2 17.7
BH546 75.0 220.8 114.6 35.0 4.9 1.2 7.7 11.2
BH547 75.1 218.0 119.2 27.3 6.7 1.2 4.3 18.2
MH130 68.4 180.0 84.3 47.1 8.6 1.0 9.0 6.1
MH140 72.4 216.5 105.1 16.8 4.9 1.1 21.3 13.0
Mean 72.0 197.4 93.6 10.9 3.3 1.1 15.9 13.4
Min 69.6 179.2 79.6 0.2 -0.2 1.0 3.0 10.7
Max 72.8 218.1 109.1 26.9 11.4 1.4 31.8 18.9

The current study showed that two hybrids were consistently superior to the
checks throughout the evaluation period running from 2017 to 2019 which
indicated these varieties are well adapted to the drought stress agro-ecologies of
Ethiopia. Therefore, we recommend WE7210 and WE8216 for commercial
release for drought prone areas of Ethiopia.
[156]
References
CSA (Central Statistical Authority). 2020. Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Area and
Production of Major Crops. (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). Statistical
Bulletin. Volume I, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Getachew Alem Mera. 2018. Drought and its impacts in Ethiopia. Weather and Climate
Extremes 22 (2018) 24–35.
Hussein M. and Kebede Mulat. 1992. Maize Germplasm Development for Moisture
Stress Areas. Pp25-29. In: Proceedings of the First National Maize Workshop of
Ethiopia. 5-7 May 1992, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Kebede Mulatu, Gezahegn Bogale and Benit Tolesa. 1992. Maize production trend in
Ethiopia. Pp4-12 In:Benti Tolesa and J. K. Ranson (Eds). Proceedings of the first
National maize Workshop of Ethiopia. -7 May 1992, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
Kidane G., Alemneh D. and Meshack M. 2010. Agricultural based Livelihood Systems in
Drylands in the Context of Climate Change: Inventory of Adaptation Practices and
Technologies of Ethiopia.
Legesse Wolde, Keneni, G., Mosisa Worku and Benti Tolessa .1998. Genotype X
environment (G X E) interaction and stability of CIMMYT quality protein maize
(QPM) populations in Ethiopia. Maize Production Technology for the Future:
Challenges and Opportunities. Proceedings of the Eastern and Southern Africa
Regional Maize Conference, 6; Addis Ababa (Ethiopia); 21-25 Sep 1998.
Li, Yong-xiang, Chunhui Li , Peter J. Bradbury , Xiaolei Liu, Fei Lu , Cinta M. Romay ,
Jeffrey C. Glaubitz , Xun Wu , Bo Peng , Yunsu Shi , Yanchun Song , Dengfeng
Zhang , Edward S. Buckler, Zhiwu Zhang, Yu Li and Tianyu Wang. 2016.
Identification of genetic variants associated with maize flowering time using an
extremely large multi-genetic background population. The Plant Journal (2016) 86,
391–402.
Mandefero Nigusse, Gezahegn Bogale and Galana Sebokesa.1995b. Maize breeding for
drought stressed areas of Ethiopia. In habitu Asefa (ed.). Proceedings of the 25th
Anniversary of Nazret Agricultural Research Center 25 yeaars of experience in
lowland crop research, 20-23 September 1995. Nazret, Ethiopia.
Masila, Benard and Langat, Charles. 2020. Multilocation Evaluation for yield and Yield
Related Traits in Three- Way Cross Maize Hybrids in Kenya. 7. 72-78.
10.6084/m9.figshare.11994459.
Matiello, R.R., Brunelli, K.R., Lopes, M.T.G., Morello, R.M.S.C., Silva, H.P., and
Camargo, L.E.A.2012. Inheritance of resistance to anthracnose stalk rot
(Colletotrichum graminicola) in tropical maize inbred lines. Crop Breeding and
Applied Biotechnology, 12(3), 179-184. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-
70332012000300003.
Michael Kebede, Firew Mekbib, Demissew Abakemal and Gezahegne Bogale. 2020.
Genetic gain of maize (Zea mays L.) varieties in Ethiopia over 42 years (1973 -
2015). African Journal of Agricultural Research. Vol. 15(3), pp. 419-430, March,
2020 DOI: 10.5897/AJAR2019.14564.
Moti Jaleta, Chilot Yirga, Menale Kassie, Hugo de Groote and Bekele Shiferaw. 2013.
Knowledge, Adoption and Use Intensity of Improved Maize
Technologies in Ethiopia. Invited paper presented at the 4th International Conference
[157]
of the African Association of Agricultural Economists, September 22-25, 2013,
Hammamet, Tunisia.
Musa Hasen Ahmed, Kassahun Mamo Geleta, Aemro Tazeze and Eden Andualem. 2017.
The Impact of improved maize varieties on farm productivity and
wellbeing:evidence from the East Hararghe Zone of Ethiopia, Development Studies
Research, 4:1, 9-21, DOI:10.1080/21665095.2017.1400393
Patterson, H.D. and E. R. Williams. 1976. A new class of resolvable incomplete block
designs. Biometerica. 63:83-89.
Rodr´ıguez, Francisco, Gregorio Alvarado, Angela Pacheco Juan and Burgueño José
Crossa.2016. Spatial META-R (Spatial Multi-Environment Trial Analysis with R).
user’s guide manual.
Romy Santpoort. 2020. The Drivers of Maize Area Expansion in Sub-Saharan Africa.
How Policies to Boost Maize Production Overlook the Interests of Smallholder
Farmers. Land 2020, 9, 68; doi: 10.3390/land9030068. www.mdpi.com/journal/land.
Sah, R. p., M. chakraborty, K. prasad, M. pandit, V. K. tudu, M. K. chakravarty, S. c.
narayan, M. Rana & D. Moharana.2020. Impact of water defcit stress in maize:
Phenology and yield components. Scientific RepoRtS | (2020) 10:2944 |
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-59689-7.
SAS Institute, Inc., 2008. SAS proprietary Software, SAS Institute, Inc., CARY, NC,
Canada
Sher, Hassan, Muhammad Iqbal, Kiramat Khan, Muhammad yasir, Hameed-ur-Rahman.
2012. Genetic analysis of maturity and flowering characteristics in maize (Zea mays
L.). Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2012; 2(8): 621-626. doi:10.1016/S2221-
1691(12)60108-7.
Tolera K., Girum. A., Dagne W., Mosisa W., Berhanu T., Legesse W., Temesgen. D.,
Beyene A., Temesgen C. and L. M. Suresh. 2018. Major biotic maize production
stresses in Ethiopia and their management through host resistance. African Journal
of Agricultural Research. Vol. 13(21), pp. 1042-1052, 24 May, 2018 DOI:
10.5897/AJAR2018.13163.
Tsedeke Abate, Bekele Shiferaw, Abebe Menkir, Dagne Wegary, Yilma Kebede,
Kindie Tesfaye, Menale Kassie, Gezahegn Bogale, Berhanu Tadesse, Tolera Keno.
2015. Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia. Food Sec. (2015)
7:965–981.
Viste, E., D. Korecha and A. Sorteberg. 2012. Recent drought and precipitation
tendencies in Ethiopia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 112(3-4):535-551.
Workie Zegeye, Habtamu Zeleke, Yigzaw Dessalegn. 2013. Genotype X environment
interaction of maize (Zea mays L.) across North Western Ethiopia. Journal of plant
breeding and crop science. 5. 171-181. 10.5897/JPBCS2013.0406.
[158]
Performance of Diallel Crosses and Combining
Ability of Elite Highland Adapted Maize
(zea mays. L) Inbred Lines for
Desirable Agronomic Traits
Zeleke Keimeso1*, Demissew Abakemal1, Dufera Tulu1, Tefera Kumsa1,
Abiy Balcha2 and Shimelis Tesfaye2
1
EIAR- Ambo Agriculture Research Center, PO Box 37, Ambo, Ethiopia; 2 EIAR- Kulumsa Agricultural
Research Center, Ethiopia; E-mail: zeleke.keimiso@gmail.com
Abstract
knowledge of combining ability is a prerequisite to develop high yielding maize
hybrids. The objective of the present study was to estimate performance of diallel
crosses and combining ability of elite maize inbred lines for grain yield and yield
related agronomic traits. A total of 36 diallel crosses generated by crossing 9
elite maize inbred lines using half diallel mating scheme and four standard
checks were used for this study at Ambo and Kulumsa Agricultural Research
Centers in 2017. Alpha lattice design with two replications was used at both
locations. Analyses of variances showed significant mean squares due to crosses
for most traits in each locations. Among the crosses L4 x L8, L4 x L7 and L1 x L3
showed high grain yield at Ambo. At Kulumsa, L1 x L3 and L3 x L8 and L7 x L9
were crosses with high grain yield. GCA mean squares were significant for all
studied traits at both locations. At Ambo, SCA mean squares were significant for
days to anthesis, days to silking, anthesis-silking interval and ears per plant,
while at Kulumsa SCA mean squares were significant for grain yield, plant
height, ears per plant and 1000-kernel weight. Relatively larger GCA over SCA
variances were observed for most traits in the current study. Inbred lines L4 and
L8 at Ambo, and L3 at Kulumsa were the best general combiners for grain yield,
and hence are promising parents for hybrid development. Based on mean grain
yield and specific combining ability effects, L1 x L3, L3 x L8 and L7 x L9 at
Kulumsa and L4 x L8 at Ambo were found promising for further use in breeding.
Introduction
Maize is one of the most important field crops to fulfill food security in Ethiopia.
It contributes the greatest share of production and consumption along with other
major cereal crops, such as tef, wheat and sorghum (CSA, 2018). It has a
significant importance in the diets of rural Ethiopia and has gradually penetrated
into urban centers. This is particularly evidenced by green maize being sold at
road sides throughout the country as a hunger-breaking food (Twumasi et al.,
2012).
In Ethiopia, maize grows from moisture deficit semi-arid lowlands, mid-altitudes

and highlands to moisture surplus areas in the humid lowlands, mid-altitudes and
highlands (Legesse et al., 2012). In the highland areas, maize is the first crop
[159]
grown and is a popular hunger breaking crop when it is harvested and consumed
green (Twumasi et al., 2001). In this agro-ecology, maize production is
characterized by low yields owing to unimproved varieties coupled with biotic and
abiotic stresses (Demissew et al., 2011). Because of these constraints, the highland
areas have been facing great challenges in maize production which occasionally
lead to food insecurity, malnutrition, reduced income and widespread poverty.
Combining ability studies are primarily important in maize hybrid development

since it provide information for the selection of parents, identification of
promising hybrids and on the nature and magnitude of gene actions (Sprague and
Tatum, 1942). In Ethiopia, several studies on combining ability of maize inbred
lines for grain yield and yield related traits were conducted for different sets of
locally developed/introduced inbred lines. However, it is always mandatory for
any breeding program to generate such information for any new batch of inbred
lines generated or received outside of the program. In the current study, therefore,
an attempt was made to identify best inbred lines and cross combinations with
good general and specific combining ability effects, respectively, for yield and
yield related traits for further breeding and/or cultivar development.
Descriptions of Experimental Sites

The experiment was conducted at Ambo and Kulumsa Agricultural Research
Centers. The former is the main breeding station for highland maize germplasm
development (Dawit et al., 2014). This center is situated at 114 km west of Addis
Ababa and located at 8o57'N latitude, 38o7'E longitude with an altitude of
2225 meters above sea level. The center receives an average annual rainfall of
1050 mm with average minimum and maximum temperatures of 10.4°C and
26.3°C, respectively, and relative humidity of 64.4%. Kulumsa is located 165 km
south-east of Addis Ababa in the highlands of Arsi zone. Geographically,
Kulumsa lies at 805'N latitude, 39o10'E longitude with an altitude of 2200 m.a.s.l
and is located in a tepid to cool, moist plain agro-ecological zone. The average
annual rainfall at the research center is 830mm per annum.
Nine inbred lines obtained from Ambo highland maize breeding program were
crossed using diallel mating design during the main cropping season of 2016 and
thirty-six single cross hybrids were generated. The inbred lines used in the crosses
were originally obtained from CIMMYT-Zimbabwe and were locally selected
based on previous field performances of the inbred lines in testcross evaluations
for adaptation and disease reaction. The thirty-six F1 crosses together with four
commercial hybrid checks: Argane, Kolba, Jibat and Wenchi were used in the
hybrid trial evaluation in 2017.
[160]
Table 1. The list of inbred lines used to make the diallel crosses
Line Pedigree Seed Source

L1 (INTA-F2-192-2-1-1-1-B*9/CML505-B)DH-3060-B-B-# AHMBP*
L2 (LPSC7-C7-F64-2-6-2-1-B/CML488)DH-3033-B-B-# AHMBP*
L3 (CML444/CML539)DH-3091-B-B-# AHMBP*
L5 ([LZ956441/LZ966205]-B-3-4-4-B-5-B*7-B/DTPWC9-F109-2-6-1-1-B)DH-3001-B-B-# AHMBP*
L6 (CML545/CML505)DH-10-B-# AHMBP*
L7 (CML545/CML505)DH-44-B-# AHMBP*
([CML312/[TUXPSEQ]C1F2/P49-SR]F2-45-3-2-1-BB//INTA-F2-192-2-1-1-1-B*4]-1-5-1-2-1- AHMBP*
L8
B*6/CML505)DH-11-B-#
*AHMBP = Ambo Highland Maize Breeding Program
Experimental Design and Trial Management

The 36 F1 crosses and four hybrid commercial checks were planted using alpha
lattice design (Patterson and Williams, 1976) with two replications each of which
have eight blocks with five entries in each of the blocks. Design and
randomization of the trials were generated using CIMMYT’s Field book software
(Bindiganavile et al., 2007).
The trials were hand planted with two seeds per hill, which later thinned to one
plant per hill to get a total plant population of 53,333 per hectare. Pre-emergence
herbicide, Premagram Gold 660 at the rate of 5 lt ha-1, was applied at planting to
control weeds followed by hand weeding at a later stage of crop emergence. Each
entry was placed in a one-row plot of 5.25 m long and 0.75 m apart. Distance
between plants was 0.25 m. The recommended rate of inorganic fertilizers, i.e.,
150 and 200 kg ha-1 of DAP and urea, respectively, were used. Urea was applied
in two splits, viz., half of it was applied when plants had eight leaves or reached
knee height, and the rest was applied at flag leaf emergence before flowering.
Data Collected
The procedure of data collection followed CIMMYT’s manual for managing trials
and reporting data (CIMMYT, 1985). Data on grain yield and other important
agronomic traits were collected on a plot and sampled plants base. Data collected
on a plot basis include: days to 50% anthesis (DA), days to 50% silking (DS),
anthesis-silking interval (ASI), thousand kernel weight (TKW) (g). Data collected
on plant base include: ear height (EH) (cm), plant height (PH) (cm), ear length
(EL) (cm), ear diameter (ED) (cm), number of ears per plant (EPP), number of
rows per ear (RPE), number of kernels per row (KPR). Yield (GY) in t ha-1 was
calculated using CIMMYT fieldbook software (Banziger and Vivek, 2007).
[161]
Statistical Analyses
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for individual locations was carried out using
PROC MIXED method = type3 procedure in SAS (2013) by considering
genotypes as fixed effects and replications and blocks within replications as
random effects following Moore and Dixon (2015) procedure. Combined analyses
were not performed due to the non-homogeneity result of error variance based on
Bartlett’s test (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) and also there was negative correlation
between the two locations.
Combining ability analyses

Combining ability analyses was done for traits that showed significant differences
among genotypes using a modification of the DIALLEL-SAS program (Zhang et
al., 2005). The Griffing’s Method IV (crosses only) and Model I (fixed) of diallel
analyses (Griffing, 1956) was used to estimate combining ability effects. The
significance of GCA and SCA effects were tested against the respective standard
errors of GCA and SCA effects, respectively using t-test (Griffing, 1956; Singh,
1985).
Combining ability for individual location was analyzed using the mathematical
model:
 i , j  1 ,..., p ,
1 
X ij
   gi  g j
 s ij 
bc
 e ijkl  k  1 ,..., b ,
k l  l  1 ,..., c .

Where, Xij = the value of a character measured on cross of ith and jth parents; µ =
Population mean; gi (gj) = the general combing ability effects of the ith and jth
parents, sij = the specific combing ability effects of the crosses, eijkl = is the error
effect, p, b and c = number of parents, blocks and sampled plants, respectively.

Analyses of Variance
Analyses of variances were conducted separately for the two individual locations;
namely, Ambo and Kulumsa (Table 2). Analyses of variance (ANOVA)
conducted for individual location for the hybrid trial (including 36 hybrids and
four standard checks) showed significant differences among genotypes for most of
the traits, except for number of kernel rows per ear and number of kernels per row
at both locations, Ear length at Ambo and Ear height at Kulumsa, indicating the
presence of inherent variation among the materials, which makes selection
possible. Similar results were reported by other authors in their study on
[162]
combining ability for yield and yield related traits in maize (Demissew, 2014,
Tolera et al., 2017, Dufera et al., 2018 and Keimeso et al., 2020).
Performances of Genotypes
Mean values of all genotypes evaluated for grain yield and related traits in each
location are presented in Tables 3. At ambo, the overall-mean grain yield was 7.1
t/ha ranging from 4.6 t/ha to 11.24 t/ha. Cross combination L4 x L8 (9.57 t/ha)
showed higher grain yield than the three hybrid checks except Kolba, while the
other cross combinations such as L4 x L7, L1 x L3, L6 x L8 and L3 x L4 showed
higher grain yield than the other check (Argane). Based on the analyses carried out
for all traits at the second site (Kulumsa) showed that the mean grain yield ranged
from 7.60 t/ha to 13.1 t/ha with overall mean of 9.53 t/ha (Table 3). At this site,
Kolba showed the highest value of grain yield (13.1 t/ha). Cross combination L1 x
L3 showed the second highest grain yield of 11.93 t/ha next to Kolba. The other
cross combinations such as L3 x L8 and L7 x L9 showed higher grain yield than
Jibat which showed grain yield value of 10.89 t/ha. Crosses having comparable
yield as the best commercial check, will be used in future hybrid development
programs due to their promising breeding values.
Results of individual locations indicated that mean grain yield at Kulumsa (9.53
t/ha) was higher than that of at Ambo (7.1 t/ha) (Table 3). Some cross
combinations at both individual locations showed better grain yield than some of
the commercial checks, suggesting that these hybrids could be used in the
breeding program to improve the grain yield and other traits of interest. On
average, the genotypes evaluated were late in anthesis and silking at Ambo as
compared to Kulumsa (data not displayed). Higher mean for ear diameter were
recorded at Kulumsa; while the overall mean of plant height and ear height were
maximum at Ambo than Kulumsa.
[163]
Table 2. Analyses of variance for grain yield and other agronomic traits of the diallel crosses and four hybrid checks evaluated at Ambo and Kulumsa in 2017.
Analysis of variance at Ambo Analysis of variance at Kulumsa

Genotype Replication Block(Rep) Error Genotype Replication Block(Rep) Error
Trait (DF = 39) (DF = 1) (DF =14) (DF =25) CV(%) (DF = 39) (DF = 1) (DF =14) (DF =25) CV(%)
GY 3.37** 0.0005 1.33* 0.61 10.92 3.55** 1.16 1.08 0.64 8.40
DA 19.75** 0.20 2.25* 0.97 1.07 27.36** 7.20 4.02 4.26 2.34
DS 26.74** 0.45 4.23* 1.73 1.41 28.10** 12.01 4.96 3.68 2.11
ASI 0.0074** 0.00001 0.002 0.003 4.32 0.0007* 0.00098 0.0003 0.00035 1.47
PH 596.44* 1304.10 328.70 315.90 7.67 618.10** 84.05 123.90* 51.30 3.64
EH 281.47** 27.61 124.10 107.80 8.42 162.60 485.10 105.40 132.40 11.56
EPP 0.07** 0.00001 0.035* 0.02 9.30 0.08** 0.02 0.02 0.03 12.01
EL 2.89 4.05 2.22 2.16 9.29 1.80** 2.81* 0.59 0.62 5.02
ED 0.08** 0.35** 0.04 0.03 3.62 0.07** 0.001 0.02 0.03 3.47
RPE 0.92 2.18 0.93 0.86 7.17 0.96 0.00 0.61 0.82 7.07
KPR 12.42 33.80 7.19 11.42 10.58 9.21 14.45 6.96 7.85 7.78
TKW 3288.40* 325.22 1197 1581 12.97 3392.30** 1332 1090 1292 9.45
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, * = significant at 0.05 level of probability, DF = degrees of freedom, Rep= replication, GY= grain yield, DA= number of days to anthesis, DS=
number of days to silking, ASI= anthesis silking interval, PH= plant height, EH= ear height, EPP= number of ears per plant, EL= ear length, ED= ear diameter, RPE= number of kernel
rows per ear, KPR= number of kernels per row and TKWT =1000-kernel weight.
[164]
Table 3. Mean grain yield and yield related traits of diallel crosses and four commercial hybrid checks evaluated at Ambo and Kulumsa in 2017
At Ambo At Kulumsa
Genotypes GY PH EH EPP ED GY PH EPP EL ED
L1*L2 7.49 223.50 113.00 1.50 4.35 10.11 176.00 1.24 18.00 4.70
L1*L3 8.37 230.00 110.50 1.71 4.40 11.93 191.50 1.76 17.50 4.60
L1*L4 6.88 216.50 107.00 1.26 4.80 8.85 179.50 1.17 14.50 4.95
L1*L5 7.38 239.00 116.50 1.28 4.50 10.67 218.50 1.48 16.50 4.65
L1*L6 5.82 205.00 108.00 1.10 4.45 8.36 170.00 1.29 16.00 4.60
L1*L7 5.88 198.50 108.00 1.03 4.25 8.19 185.50 1.34 15.00 4.60
L1*L8 7.80 219.00 104.50 1.33 4.70 8.69 196.50 1.24 15.50 4.95
L1*L9 6.58 233.00 126.50 1.23 4.75 8.41 204.50 1.38 15.50 4.65
L2*L3 7.91 233.50 122.00 1.66 4.15 10.01 205.00 1.57 16.00 4.55
L2*L4 7.11 227.50 112.50 1.45 4.40 10.57 183.50 1.43 15.50 4.80
L2*L5 6.10 230.50 111.00 1.12 4.30 8.86 203.00 1.34 15.50 4.60
L2*L6 6.18 203.00 106.00 1.45 4.20 8.69 167.50 1.50 15.50 4.50
L2*L7 7.24 227.50 114.00 1.40 4.15 10.87 190.50 1.67 15.50 4.65
L2*L8 7.91 219.00 114.00 1.33 4.45 8.23 185.50 1.22 15.50 4.85
L2*L9 5.49 215.50 119.00 1.29 4.50 7.98 210.00 1.53 15.50 4.30
L3*L4 8.00 251.50 134.00 1.31 4.50 9.11 213.50 1.48 16.00 4.45
L3*L5 5.65 255.00 145.00 1.28 4.40 10.35 220.00 1.60 16.00 4.40
L3*L6 7.42 219.50 123.00 1.66 4.15 10.08 178.50 1.65 17.00 4.50
L3*L7 5.95 228.00 129.50 1.31 4.15 8.88 211.00 1.62 16.00 4.35
L3*L8 7.77 228.50 135.50 1.55 4.35 11.59 220.00 1.88 15.00 4.50
L3*L9 6.53 242.50 140.00 1.62 4.00 8.14 209.50 1.64 15.00 4.10
L4*L5 6.15 204.50 123.50 1.19 4.15 9.91 204.50 1.55 15.00 4.70
L4*L6 6.21 223.50 115.50 1.22 4.45 8.87 165.50 1.24 15.50 4.70
L4*L7 8.67 227.00 125.50 1.46 4.55 8.88 187.00 1.26 15.00 4.95
L4*L8 9.57 258.00 131.50 1.41 5.00 9.24 199.00 1.19 13.50 5.15
L4*L9 6.99 248.50 122.50 1.38 4.40 8.18 178.00 1.43 14.50 4.75
L5*L6 4.71 229.00 125.00 1.05 4.35 9.86 188.50 1.67 16.50 4.60
L5*L7 6.44 241.00 126.00 1.29 4.65 8.63 223.50 1.29 16.00 4.60
L5*L8 6.97 266.00 107.00 1.43 4.65 9.28 214.50 1.55 14.00 4.80
L5*L9 4.60 249.00 128.00 1.10 4.55 7.73 199.00 1.50 15.50 4.60
L6*L7 6.77 214.00 108.00 1.31 4.35 7.59 162.50 1.19 15.00 4.55
L6*L8 8.27 220.00 126.00 1.62 4.50 7.75 163.50 1.22 15.00 4.75
L6*L9 6.51 213.00 118.50 1.65 4.30 8.73 188.50 1.53 13.50 4.55
[165]
L7*L8 7.75 212.50 125.50 1.34 4.70 8.70 184.00 1.19 15.50 4.60
L7*L9 5.93 247.00 141.00 1.24 4.30 10.91 205.00 1.86 15.50 4.50
L8*L9 7.64 254.00 139.00 1.55 4.50 10.87 217.00 1.71 15.00 4.90
Argane 7.96 225.00 135.00 1.36 4.45 11.85 220.00 1.59 18.00 4.55
Kolba 11.24 278.00 160.50 1.60 4.40 13.06 219.00 1.76 16.50 4.65
Jibat 8.76 260.50 135.00 1.33 4.45 10.89 224.50 1.55 16.50 4.70
Wenchi 9.05 255.00 140.00 1.27 4.60 11.80 215.00 1.81 17.00 4.40
Mean 7.10 231.8 123.30 1.37 4.43 9.53 197.00 1.48 15.60 4.63
LSD(0.05) 1.61 36.60 21.38 0.26 0.30 1.65 14.80 0.37 1.62 0.33
CV (%) 11.00 7.67 9.29 9.30 3.60 8.40 3.64 12.00 5.02 3.47
Min 4.60 198.50 104.50 1.03 4.00 7.60 162.50 1.17 13.50 4.10
Max 11.24 278.00 160.50 1.70 5.00 13.10 224.50 1.88 18.00 5.15
GY= grain yield, PH= plant height, EH= ear height, EPP= number of ears per plant, EL= ear length, ED= ear diameter.
[166]
Hybrids that were earlier in anthesis and silking, shorter in ear and plant heights
could be used as sources of genes for development of early maturing and shorter
statured varieties respectively. In line with the present results, several researchers
identified genotypes performing better than the checks for most yield and yield
related traits Zerihun (2011), Shushay (2014), Amare et al. (2016), Ziggiju and
Legesse (2016), Tolera et al. (2017), Dufera et al. (2018) Tesfaye et al. (2019) and
Keimeso et al. (2020).
Combining Ability Analyses

Diallel analyses for grain yield and related agronomic traits were computed and
are presented in Tables 4 and 5 for Ambo and Kulumsa, respectively. The analysis
of variance showed that both GCA and SCA mean squares were significant for
days to anthesis, days to silking, anthesis-silking interval and number of ears per
plant at Ambo (Table 4). At Kulumsa GCA and SCA mean squares were
significant for grain yield, plant height, number of ears per plant and thousand
kernel weight (Table 5). This indicates that both additive and non-additive gene
actions are important in the inheritance of these traits. Reports on similar studies
by Tesfaye et al. (2019) showed that both GCA and SCA mean squares were
significant for Grain yield and yield related traits. Similarly, Yoseph et al. (2011)
observed significant GCA and SCA for anthesis date, anthesis silking interval, ear
height and plant height in elite maize inbred lines developed by CIMMYT for
insect resistance.
The contribution of GCA variances were much greater than that of SCA variances
for days to anthesis, days to silking, plant height, ear height, ear diameter and
thousand kernel weight at both locations, which implies predominant role of
additive gene action over non-additive gene action in the inheritance of the traits.
The breeding implication is that genotypes having target traits controlled by
additive gene action can be easily used to develop hybrid and/synthetic varieties.
Similar results were reported by other authors in their study on combining ability
for yield and yield related traits in maize (Amare et al. (2016), Beyene (2016),
Bitew et al. (2017). They reported predominance of additive gene action over non-
additive for most of the traits they studied. Grain yield at Kulumsa, number of ears
per plant at Ambo and anthesis silking interval at both Ambo and Kulumsa,
showed higher contribution of SCA variance for these traits at these particular
locations. This higher percentage relative contribution of SCA over GCA showed
the predominant role of non-additive gene action over additive gene action in the
inheritance of the traits. Genotypes whose traits predominantly controlled by non-
additive gene action can be used to develop hybrid varieties. In line with this
result, Dagne et al. (2008) studied the combining ability of eight elite maize
inbred lines for grain yield and reaction to grey leaf spot (GLS) disease and
reported the preponderance of SCA effects for grain yield than GCA.
[167]
General Combining Ability Effects
General combining ability effects of grain yield and related agronomic traits for
Ambo and kulumsa are separately presented in Table 6. At Ambo, estimates of
GCA effects for grain yield ranged between -1.04 t/ha (L5) to 1.2 t/ha (L8). Even
though a total of 5 lines showed positive GCA effects for grain yield, only two
inbred lines L4 and L8 had positive and significant GCA effects. Whereas at
kulumsa, GCA effects for grain yield ranged between -0.60 t/ ha (L6) to 0.85 t/ ha
(L3) (Table 6). Five out of the nine inbred lines showed positive GCA effects. L3
(0.85 t/ha) expressed positive and highly significant (p<0.01) GCA effect for grain
yield, showing that, these inbred lines are desirable parents for hybrid
development as well as for inclusion in other breeding programs, as the lines can
contribute desirable alleles in the synthesis of new varieties. At Ambo, inbred
lines with negative and significant GCA effects were L5, L6 and L9, whereas L6
and L9 showed negative and significant GCA effect at Kulumsa indicating that
these lines were poor combiners for grain yield. Results of the current study are
similar to the findings of several authors Dagne et al. (2010), Demissew et al.
(2011), Dufera et al. (2018), Keimeso et al. (2020) who reported significant
positive and negative GCA effects for grain yield in maize germplasm.
Lines L1, L2, L4, L6, L7 and L8 showed negative and highly significant GCA
effects for days to anthesis at Ambo while highly significantly positive GCA
effects were observed for L3, L5 and L9. Similarly, L1, L2, L4, L6, L7 and L8
showed significant negative GCA. Similarly, L1 L2, L4, L6, L7 and L8 showed
significant negative GCA effects for days to silking, while L3, L5 and L9 showed
positive and significant GCA effects for days to silking (Table 6).
[168]
Table 4. Combining ability analyses for grain yield and other agronomic traits of 36 diallel crosses evaluated at Ambo in 2017.
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, * = significant at 0.05 level of probability, GY= grain yield, DA= number of days to anthesis, DS= number of days to silking, ASI= anthesis silking
interval, PH= plant height, EH= ear height, EPP= number of ears per plant, ED= ear diameter and TKWT =1000-kernel weight.
Mean squares
Source of
variation DF GY DA DS ASI PH EH EPP ED TKW
Replication
1 0.023 0.89 4.01 0.0018 1334.72* 53.39 0.00017 0.33** 347.16
Crosses
35 2.40** 25.41** 31.73** 0.0079** 565.76* 247.00** 0.067** 0.09** 4058.61**
GCA 8 6.63** 93.15** 124.21** 0.017** 1325.64** 719.93** 0.14** 0.22** 12744.32**
SCA 27 1.15 5.34** 4.32* 0.0052** 340.61 106.87 0.05** 0.05 1485.07
Error
35 0.83 1.46 2.36 0.0022 302.78 99.19 0.02 0.03 1583.45
% GCA
63.15 83.8 89.5 48.57 53.55 66.62 47.35 58 71.77
% SCA
36.85 16.2 10.5 50.42 46.44 33.38 52.65 42 28.23
Table 5. Combing ability analyses for grain yield and other agronomic traits of 36 diallel crosses evaluated at Kulumsa in 2017
Source of Mean squares

variation DF
GY DA DS ASI PH EPP EL ED TKW
Replication 1 1.40 9.39 12.50 0.00036 125.35 0.0082 1.68 0.011 2440.68
Crosses 35 2.61** 37.29** 37.74** 0.00059* 631.80** 0.081** 1.73** 0.082** 4041.63**
GCA 8 2.48** 150.07** 153.89** 0.00083* 2126.97** 0.18** 3.99** 0.27** 11027.02**
SCA 27 2.65** 3.878 3.33 0.00052 188.79** 0.05* 1.056 0.03 1971.89*
Error 35 0.79 4.27 4.30 0.00031 76.89 0.03 0.62 0.018 1079.30
% GCA 21.72 92 93.19 31.86 76.94 51.55 52.85 75.87 62.36
% SCA 78.28 8 6.81 68.14 53.06 48.45 47.15 24.13 37.64
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, * = significant at 0.05 level of probability, GY= grain yield, DA= number of days to anthesis, DS= number of days to silking, ASI= anthesis silking
interval, PH= plant height, EPP= number of ears per plant, EL= ear length, ED= ear diameter and TKWT =1000-kernel weight.
[169]
At kulumsa, among six inbred lines those showed negative GCA effects, 5 inbred
lines (L2, L4, L6, L7 and L8) had significantly negative GCA effects for days to
anthesis. Three inbred lines (L3, L5 and L9) exhibited significantly positive GCA
effects for both days to anthesis and silking. L9 had higher and positive GCA
effect and L6 had lower negative GCA effect for days to silking. Five inbred lines
L2, L4, L6, L7 and L8 exhibited significant and negative GCA values for days to
silking (Table 6). Lines with negative and significant GCA effects for days to
anthesis and silking are desirable when the objective is to develop early maturing
hybrids, as hybrids generated using these lines tend to flower earlier. Similarly,
lines with positive and significant GCA effects for days to flowering are desirable
when the objective is to develop late maturing hybrids. In line with this finding,
desirability of negative GCA for days to anthesis and silking was suggested by
various authors such as Dagne et al. (2010), Girma et al. (2015), Beyene (2016),
Bullo and Dagne (2016) and Abiy (2017).
At Ambo, a total of 5 inbred lines showed positive GCA effects for plant height,
from which only two inbred lines L5 and L9 showed significant GCA effects.
While from a total of four inbred lines that showed negative GCA for plant height,
two inbred lines L1 (-9.98) and L6 (-15.3) showed significant GCA effects,
indicating that these inbred lines were good general combiners for shorter plant
stature (Table 6). Among a total of six inbred lines that showed positive GCA
effects for ear height, only two inbred lines L3 and L9 showed significant GCA
effects. On the other hand, inbred lines L1 (-10.02), L2 (-8.26) and L6 (-5.62) had
significant GCA effects for ear height. At Kulumsa, three inbred lines L3, L5 and
L9 showed significant GCA effects for plant height. However, four inbred lines
L1, L2, L4 and L6 showed significant negative GCA effects for plant height.
Negative GCA effects for ear height and plant height indicates shorter plant height
and lower ear placement, respectively, which is very important for development of
genotypes resistant to lodging. Therefore, inbred lines with significant and
negative GCA effects for both traits are good for the development of hybrids
resistant to lodging. In line with the present study, Demissew et al. (2011), Dufera
et al. (2018) and Tesfaye et al. (2019) found significant positive and negative
GCA effects for plant and ear height. For number of ears per plant, five inbred
lines at Ambo showed positive GCA effects, of which only two inbred lines L3
(0.17) and L8 (0.09) had significant GCA effects.
[170]
Table 6. Estimates of general combining ability effects (GCA) of nine inbred lines for grain yield and other traits at Ambo and Kulumsa (2017).
GCA at Ambo GCA at Kulumsa

Line GY DA DS PH EPP
GY DA DS PH EH EPP
L1 0.14 -1.71** -1.17** -9.93* -10.8** -0.07 0.15 -0.74 -0.64 -4.78* -0.11**
L2 0.027 -1.35** -2.31** -7.71 -8.26** 0.04 0.17 -1.17* -1.43** -4.92* -0.02
L3 0.33 2.65** 3.48** 7.79 10.02** 0.17** 0.85** 3.19** 3.36** 13.37** 0.22**
L4 0.62** -2.35** -2.24** 3.29 0.38 -0.03 -0.08 -3.02** -2.79** -6.42* -0.13**
L5 -1.04** 3.65** 3.98** 11.43** 1.81 -0.17** 0.16 4.05** 4.29** 16.58** 0.05
L6 -0.48* -1.85** -2.74** -15.3** -5.62* 0.02 -0.60** -3.95** -4.14** -24.42** -0.05
L7 -0.09 -1.56** -0.81* -5.50 1.17 -0.08* -0.21 -1.38** -1.43** -0.92 -0.03
L8 1.20** -1.35** -2.38** 6.14 1.95 0.09* 0.03 -2.09** -2.14** 3.51 -0.06
L9 -0.71** 3.87** 4.19** 9.78* 9.31** 0.02 -0.46* 5.12** 4.93** 8.00** 0.13**
SE(gi) 0.23 0.30 0.39 4.38 2.51 0.036 0.22 0.52 0.52 2.21 0.043
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, * = significant at 0.05 level of probability, SE(gi)= standard error of general combining ability effects, GY= grain yield, DA= number of days to
anthesis, DS= number of days to silking, ASI= anthesis silking interval, PH= plant height, EH= ear height, EPP= number of ears per plant, ED= ear diameter and TKWT =1000-kernel
weight.
[171]
L3 had higher positive and significant GCA effect for number of ears per plant,
hence, it was the best general combiner for prolificacy. At Kulumsa, three inbred
lines showed positive GCA effects for EPP among them two inbred lines L3 and
L9 had significant GCA effects hence are best general combiners for high number
of EPP. Similar to the present findings, Tesfaye et al. (2019) reported significant
positive and negative GCA effects for EPP.
Specific Combining Ability Effects

Estimates of the specific combining ability effects at individual locations were
computed for traits that showed significant SCA mean squares in combining
ability analysis. Specific combining ability effects for each test locations are
presented in Tables 7. At Kulumsa, 41.7 % (15) of the crosses showed positive
SCA effects for grain yield out of them seven crosses, namely; L1 x L3, L1 x L5,
L2 x L4, L2 x L7, L3 x L8, L7 x L9 and L8 x L9 showed positive and significant
SCA. Thus, these crosses are good specific combinations for grain yield. Crosses
with higher value of SCA effects also showed higher values of mean grain yield,
indicating good correspondence between SCA effects and mean grain yield.
Hence such cross combinations could effectively be exploited in hybrid maize
breeding program. The current finding is in line with the findings of Girma et al.
(2015) Ram et al. (2015) and Tesfaye et al. (2019). They suggested that, when
high yielding specific combinations are desired, especially in hybrid maize
development, SCA effects could help in the selection of parental material for
higher heterosis.
At Ambo, for days to anthesis and silking, few crosses showed significant SCA
effects in both directions. L3 x L8 and L5 x L9 showed significant and positive
SCA estimate for days to anthesis, while L4 x L5, L1 x L9, L2 x L3, L5 x L6 and
L8 x L9 showed significant and negative SCA estimate for days to anthesis. For
days to silking, L1 x L6, L3 x L8 and L5 x L9 showed significant and positive
SCA estimate, while L4 x L8 and L5 x L6 showed significant and negative SCA
estimate (Table 7). The hybrids with negative SCA for days to anthesis and days
to silking are desirable as they have earlier anthesis and silking days. In agreement
with this finding (Dagne et al.,2011, Aminu and Izge (2013), Aminu et al.,2014
and Tesfaye et al. (2019) reported significant positive and negative SCA effects
for days to anthesis and silking.
At Kulumsa, the estimates of SCA effects were significant and positive for L1 x L5,
L2 x L9, L3 x L4, L5 x L7, L6 x L9 and L8 x L9. In contrast, estimates of SCA
effects were significant and negative for L1 x L3, L4 x L9, L5 xL9 and L7 x L8
(Table 7). Since negative SCA effects in this trait is expected to shorten plant stature,
those crosses with significant negative SCA effects were desirable combinations.
Similar results were reported by Dagne et al. (2010), Kamara et al. (2014) and Umar
et al. (2014). For number of ears per plant at Ambo, three crosses; namely L1 x L3,
L4 x L7 and L6 x L9 had significant and positive SCA estimates and they were
[172]
considered as good single cross hybrids to have more number of ears per plant. On the
other hand, three crosses L3 x L4, L1 x L6 and L1 x L7 showed significantly negative
SCA effects for the same trait. Indicates that these hybrid combinations are poor for
number of ears per plant. At Kulumsa, crosses L2 x L7, L3 x L8, L5 x L6 and L7 x
L9 had significant SCA effects. L7 x L9 had higher positive and highly significant
SCA effect for number of ears per plant hence it was the best specific combination for
number of ears per plant. Similar results were reported by Keimeso et al. (2020).
They indicated the capacity of the crosses to produce hybrids having increased
number of ears per plant.
Table 7. Estimates of specific combining ability effects (SCA) of 36 diallel crosses for four traits at Ambo (2017).
SCA at Ambo SCA at Kulumsa

Crosses DA DS EPP GY PH EPP TKW
L1*L2 -0.75 -1.48 0.16 0.52 -8.73 -0.07 10.26
L1*L3 0.25 0.23 0.24** 1.67** -11.52* 0.19 1.59
L1*L4 1.25 0.45 0.00018 -0.49 -3.73 -0.05 3.87
L1*L5 -0.75 -0.77 0.15 1.09* 12.27* 0.08 16.67
L1*L6 -0.25 1.95* -0.22** -0.45 4.77 -0.0062 0.29
L1*L7 0.96 0.02 -0.19* -1.018 -3.23 0.02 -50.57**
L1*L8 1.25 0.59 -0.05 -0.76 3.34 -0.044 -8.55
L1*L9 -1.96** -0.98 -0.08 -0.55 6.84 0.10 26.43
L2*L3 -1.61* -1.13 0.09 -0.27 2.13 -0.08 2.49
L2*L4 -0.11 0.59 0.08 1.22* 0.41 0.13 -3.33
L2*L5 -0.11 0.88 -0.12 -0.74 -3.09 -0.14 -3.33
L2*L6 0.39 0.58 0.02 -0.14 2.41 0.12 11.55
L2*L7 0.61 0.16 0.08 1.65** 1.91 0.27** -1.62
L2*L8 0.89 -0.27 -0.17 -1.23* -7.52 -0.15 24.20
L2*L9 0.68 0.66 -0.14 -1.00 12.48* -0.04 -40.23*
L3*L4 0.89 0.80 -0.19* -0.93 12.13* -0.07 -18.30
L3*L5 -0.61 -1.41 -0.08 0.07 -4.38 -0.13 25.40
L3*L6 0.89 -0.19 0.11 0.56 -4.88 0.02 27.93
L3*L7 -0.89 -0.13 -0.15 -1.02 4.13 -0.02 -0.74
L3*L8 1.89** 3.45** -0.08 1.44** 8.69 0.27** 3.43
L3*L9 -0.82 -1.63 0.07 -1.52** -6.30 -0.17 -41.79*
L4*L5 -2.61** -0.69 0.03 0.55 -0.09 0.17 -12.76
L4*L6 1.39 0.52 -0.13 0.28 1.91 -0.04 -76.39**
L4*L7 0.11 1.09 0.20* -0.10 -0.09 -0.03 39.74*
L4*L8 -0.61 -2.34** -0.01 0.03 7.48 -0.07 31.46
L4*L9 -0.32 -0.41 0.03 -0.55 -18.02** -0.03 35.73
L5*L6 -1.61* -2.20* -0.17 1.04 1.91 0.22* 38.76
L5*L7 0.11 -0.13 0.17 -0.58 13.41** -0.18 -26.85
L5*L8 -0.11 0.45 0.14 -0.18 -0.02 0.11 -49.58**
L5*L9 5.68** 3.88** -0.12 -1.24* -20.02** -0.13 11.69
L6*L7 0.61 -0.41 0.0038 -0.86 -6.59 -0.18 2.37
L6*L8 -0.11 -0.34 0.14 -0.95 -10.02 -0.12 23.41
L6*L9 -1.32 0.09 0.24** 0.53 10.48* -0.01 18.91
L7*L8 -1.39 -0.27 -0.04 -0.38 -13.02* -0.17 35.43
L7*L9 -0.11 -0.34 -0.07 2.31** 3.48 0.30** 2.25
L8*L9 -1.82* -1.27 0.07 2.03** 11.05* 0.19 -12.98
SE(sij) 0.74 0.94 0.087 0.54 5.37 0.10 20.12
** Significant at 0.01 level of probability, * = significant at 0.05 level of probability, SE(gi)= standard error of general
combining ability effects, GY= grain yield, DA= number of days to anthesis, DS= number of days to silking,TKW=
thousand kernel weight and EPP= number of ears per plant.
[173]
Promising inbred lines that had good performance in cross combinations were
successfully identified for grain yield and other important agronomic traits. The
promising inbred lines could be used in future breeding works in the development
of maize cultivars with desirable traits composition for highland sub-humid agro-
ecology of Ethiopia.
References
Abiy, B., 2017. combining ability of highland maize (zea mays l.) inbred lines using line
x tester analysis (doctoral dissertation, Hawassa University). 134p.
Amare, S., Dagne, W. and Sentayehu A., 2016. Combining ability of elite highland maize
(Zea mays L.) inbred lines at Jimma Dedo, South West Ethiopia. Advances in Crop
Science and Technology, 1-9.
Aminu, D. and Izge, A., 2013. Gene action and heterosis for yield and yield traits in
maize (ZeamaysL.), under drought conditions in Northern Guinea and Sudan
Savannas of Borno State. Peak J. Agric. Sci, 1(1):17-23.
Aminu, D., Mohammed, S. and Kabir, B., 2014. Estimates of combining ability and
heterosis for yield and yield traits in maize population (Zea mays L.), under drought
conditions in the northern Guinea and Sudan savanna zones of Borno State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 2: 824-830.
Banziger M, Vivek BS (2007). Fieldbook: Software for Managing a Maize Breeding
Program. CIMMYT.
Beyene, A., 2016. Heterosis and Combining Ability of Mid Altitude Quality Protein
Maize (Zea mays L.) Inbred Lines at Bako, Western Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation,
Haramaya University). 172p.
Bindiganavile, S., Vivek, Joseph Kasango, Simbarashe Chisoro, Cosmos Magorokosho
(2007). Fieldbook: Software For Managing A Maize Breeding Program: A
Cookbook For Handling Field Experiments, Data, Stocks and Pedigree Information.
CIMMYT.
Bitew, T., Midekisa, D., Temesgen, D., Belay, G., Girma, D., Dejene, K., Dagne, W. and
Adefiris, T., 2017. Combining ability analyses of quality protein maize (QPM)
inbred lines for grain yield, agronomic traits and reaction to grey leaf spot in mid-
altitude areas of Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 12(20):1727-
1737.
Bullo, T. and Dagne W., 2016. Combining ability of inbred lines in quality protein maize
(QPM) for varietal improvement. International journal of plant breeding and crop
science, 3(1): 79-89.
CIMMYT, 1985. Managing Trials and Reporting Data for CIMMYT's International
Maize Testing Program. Mexico, D.F.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2018. Agricultural sample survey report on area and
production of major crops. Private peasant holdings, Meherseason. Statistical
Bulletin. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[174]
Dagne, W., Habtamu Z., Demissiew A., Hussien, T. and Singh, H., 2008. The combining
ability of maize inbred lines for grain yield and reaction to grey leaf spot disease.
East African Journal of Science, 2(2): 135-145.
Dagne, W., Vivek, B., Birhanu, T., Koste, A., Mosisa W. and Legesse, W., 2010.
Combining ability and heterotic relationships between CIMMYT and Ethiopan
inbred lines. Ethiop J. Agric. Sci. 20: 82-93.
Dagne, W., Vivek, B., Berhanu, T., Koste A., Mosisa, W. and Legesse, W., 2011.
Combining ability and heterotic relationships between CIMMYT and Ethiopian
maize inbred lines. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21: 82-93.
Dawit, A., Chilot, Y., Adam, B. and Agajie, T., 2014. Situation and Outlook of Maize in
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research. 97p.
Demissew, A., Habtamu, Z., Kanuajia, K. and Dagne, W., 2011. Combining ability in
maize lines for agronomic traits and resistance to weevil. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences, 2(1):40-47.
Demissew, A., 2014. Genetic Diversity and Combining Ability of Selected Quality
Protein Maize (QPM) Inbred Lines Adapted to the Highland Agro-ecology of
Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg).
Dufera. T, Bulti. T and Grum. A., 2018. Heterosis and combining ability analyses of
quality protein maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines adapted to mid-altitude sub-humid
agro-ecology of Ethiopia. African Journal of Plant Science, 12(3):47-57.
Girma, C., Sentayehu, A., Berhanu, T. and Temesgen, M., 2015. Test cross performance
and combining ability of maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines at Bako, Western
Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 15(4):1-24
Griffing, B. 1956. Concept of general and specific combining ability in relation to diallel
crossing system. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 9:463-493.
Keimeso, Z., Abakemal, D. and Gebreselassie, W., 2020. Heterosis and combining ability
of highland adapted maize (Zea mays. L) DH lines for desirable agronomic traits.
African Journal of Plant Science, 14(3), pp.121-133.
Legesse, W., Mosisa, W., Berhanu, T., Girum, A., Wande, A., Solomon A., Tolera, K.,
Dagne, W., Girma, D., Temesgen, C., Leta, T., Habtamu, Z., Habte, J., Alemu, T.,
Fitsum, S., Andualem, W. and Belayneh, A.2012. Genetic improvement of maize
for mid-altitude and lowland sub-humid agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. P. 24-34: In:
Worku, M., Twumasi-Afriyie, S., Wolde, L., Tadesse, B., Demisie G., Bogale, G.,
Wegary, D. and Prasanna, B.M. (eds.), 18-20 April 2012. Proceedings of the Third
National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Moore, K.J. and Dixon, P.M., 2015. Analysis of combined experiments
revisited. Agronomy Journal, 107(2): 763-771.
Patterson, H. and Williams, E., 1976. A new class of resolvable incomplete block
designs. Biometrika, 63(1): 83-92.
Ram, L., Singh, R., Singh, S. and Srivastava, R., 2015. Heterosis and combining ability
studies for quality protein maize. Journal of Crop Breeding and Genetics, 1-2: 8-
25.
SAS Institute, Inc, 2013. SAS proprietary Software. SAS Institute, Inc, CARY, NC, USA.
Shushay W (2014). Standard Heterosis of Maize (Zea mays L.) Inbred Lines for Grain
Yield and Yield Related Traits in Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Journal of
Biology,Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(23):31-37
[175]
Singh, R., 1985. Biometrical methods in Quantitative Genetic Analyses. Kalyani Pub.
Ludhiana. New Delhi. 318p.
Sprague, G. and Tatum, L., 1942. General vs. specific combining ability in single crosses
of corn. Agronomy Journal, 34(10): 923-932.
Tesfaye, D., Abakemal, D. and Habte, E., 2019. Combining Ability of Highland Adapted
Double Haploid Maize Inbred Lines using Line X Tester Mating Design. East
African Journal of Sciences, 13(2), pp.121-134.
Tolera, K., Mosisa, W. and Keimeso, H., 2017. Combining ability and heterotic
orientation of mid-altitude sub-humid tropical maize inbred lines for grain yield and
related traits. African Journal of Plant Science, 11(6): 229-239.
Twumasi-Afriyie, S., Habatmu, Z., Kass, Y., Bayisa, Y. and Sewagegn, T., 2001.
Development and improvement of highland maize in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the
Second National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, 12-16 November 2001,Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Twumasi, A., Demissew A., Gezahegn B., Wende A., Gudeta N., Demoz N., Friesen D.,
Kassa Y., Bayisa A., Girum A. and Wondimu F. 2012. A Decade of Quality Protein
Maize Research Progress in Ethiopia (2001–2011). p. 47-57. In: Mosisa W.,
Twumasi, A. S. Leggese W., Berhanu T., Girma D., Gezahegn B., Dagne W. and
Prasanna, B. M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Third National Maize Workshop of
Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 18-20 April 2011.
Umar, U., Ado, S., Aba, D. and Bugaje, S., 2014. Estimates of combining ability and gene
action in maize (Zea mays L.) under water stress and non-stress conditions. Journal
of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 4(25): 247-253.
Yoseph, B., Stephen, M., John, G., Haron, K., Charles, M., Stephen. N., Dorcas, C.,
Jackson, M. and Regina, T., 2011. Combining ability of Maize (Zea mays L.) inbred
lines resistant to Stem Borers. African Journl of Biotechnoloty, 10(23): 4759-66.
Zhang, Y., Kang, M.S. and Lamkey, K., 2005. DIALLEL-SAS05: A comprehensive
program for Griffing’s and Gardner-Eberhart analyses. Agron J, 97(4): 1097-1106.
Zerihun T. 2011. Genotype x environment interaction and yield stability analyses of
maize (Zea mays L.) in Ethiopia. M.Sc.thesis. School of Graduate Studies, Jimma
University, College of Agriculture and Veternary Medicine, Ethiopia.
Ziggiju, M. and Legesse, W., 2016. Standard Heterosis, Path Coefficient Analyses and
Association of Yield and Yield Related Traits of Pipeline Maize (Zea mays L.)
Hybrids at Pawe, Northwestern Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya
University).
[176]
Adaptation and Performance Evaluation of Upland
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Varieties in Ethiopia
Zelalem Zewdu1, Tefera Abebe2, Altaye Tiruneh3, Tesfaye Mitiku4, Fisseha Worede1,
Abebaw Dessie1, Assaye Berie1, Geleta Girma5, Mequanent Aklilu2, Mulugeta Atnaf1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center, Woreta,
Ethiopia; 2Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Tepi Agricultural Research Center, Tepi, Ethiopia;
3
Southern Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Bonga Agricultural Research Center, Bonga, Ethiopia;
4
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Assosa, Ethiopia;
5
Oromia Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Bako Agricultural Research Center, Bako, Ethiopia
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted in the rain-fed upland rice producing areas of
Assosa, Tepi in 2017 and 2019 while at Guraferda and Chewaka in 2018 cropping
seasons. Thirteen upland rice varieties were evaluated in a randomized complete
block design replicated three times to evaluate the agronomic performance and
adaptability of the varieties. A plot size of 7.5 m2was used. The combined analysis of
variance at Tepi revealed a significant difference (P≤ 0.01) only for grain yield
while non-significant for number of days to heading, number of days to maturity,
panicle length, plant height, number of filled grains per panicle, thousand seed
weight. On the other hand, at Assosa the genotype by year interaction showed a non-
significant difference for the number of filled grains per panicle and thousand seed
weight, while other traits revealed significant differences (P≤ 0.01). Performance
evaluation of the varieties across years differs in each testing location. As a result,
variety NERICA-4 with earlier heading (88 days), with high number of filled grains
(137.4) and high grain yield (5025.8 kg ha-1) followed by Chewaka with high
thousand seed weight (30.8 g) and grain yield of (4700.2 kg ha-1) and Pawe-1
(4624.4 kg ha-1) were recommended for Tepi and similar areas. In Assosa, variety
Hidassie with a high number of filled grains (157.8 g) and grain yield of (4814.5 kg
ha-1) followed by NERICA-4 (4551.3 kg ha-1) is the good performing variety for
production. In the Guraferda area, variety Chewaka (5924.2 kg ha-1) followed by
Adet (5126.8 kg ha-1) and Hidassie (4685.0 kg ha-1) showed better performance. On
the other hand, variety Pawe-1 (3094.0kg ha-1), Tana (2920.1 kg ha-1) and NERICA-
4 (2721.5 kg ha-1) perform well among the tested varieties in Chewaka.
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is the most commonly produced crop in Asia, Africa and
Australia (Dogara and Jumare, 2014). It is the third most cultivated cereal in the
world, after wheat and maize (FAO, 2014). It is the most common staple food for
more than half of the world’s population and provides up to 50 % of the dietary
caloric supply and a substantial part of the protein intake in Asia (Muthayya et al.,
2014).
Rice is a recently introduced crop in Ethiopia after the wild rice (O.
longistaminata) was observed in the swampy and waterlogged areas of Fogera and
Gambella plains (Gebeyet al., 2012). Even though it is recently introduced, the
[177]
government of Ethiopia has given due emphasis as a millennium crop for assuring
food security and as an income source (Astewl, 2010). After its introduction, the
production and productivity of the commodity are increasing from year to year.
Currently rice is produced in Amhara, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples
(SNNPR), Oromiya, Somali, Gambella, Benishangul Gumuz, and Tigray regions
(MoARD, 2010; CSA, 2011; Gebey et al., 2012).
Even though both production and productivity have been increasing from year to
year, the national average yield is low as compared to other rice producing
countries. This could be due to lack of adapted and high yielding varieties, lack of
extension services to the new technologies, terminal drought, diseases like sheath
rot and rice blast, termite attack, cold problem and lack of awareness about the
technologies and its packages (Abebaw, 2018).
The response of the crops to varying environments will depend on the phenology,
crop variety and growth stage of the crop species. Different response of varieties
across environments is the main challenge facing plant breeders. This is termed
genotype-environment interaction (Comstock and Moll, 1963). Significant G x
Einteraction indicated that the phenotypic responses of varieties to varying agro-
ecologicalconditions are not consistent. These would be due to rank change of the
varieties from location to location and/or from year to year. GxE interactions has
greater importance in plant breeding as they reduce the stability of genotypic
values under diverse environments. Therefore, the present study was planned to
evaluate the agronomic performance and adaptability of different upland rice
varieties in upland rice producing areas of Tepi, Assosa, Guraferda and Chewaka.

A field experiment was conducted at Assosa and Tepi in 2017 and 2019 while at
Guraferda and Chewaka in 2018 cropping season only. The descriptions of the
trial sites and list of materials used for the study are indicated in Table 1 and Table
2 respectively. Thirteen upland rice varieties released by national and regional
research centers in Ethiopia were evaluated in a randomized complete block
design replicated three times, on a plot size of 5 m long × 1.5 m width. A spacing
of 0. 25, 0.5 and 1.5 m were used between rows, plots and blocks respectively. A
seed rate of 60 kg ha-1 was used. Fertilizer application and weeding were carried
out following recommendations.
Data were recorded on five randomly selected plants from the middle four rows
for panicle length, plant height, number of filled grains per panicle while number
of days to heading and number of days maturity were recorded on a plot basis.
Grain yield and thousand seed weight were taken on a plot basis from four
harvestable rows. The data for each location were used for computing analysis of
[178]
variance (ANOVA) using GenStat version 18 edition software package (Payne et
al., 2009) with the following linear model;
;
where, = observed value from each experimental unit, u = mean, = effect of
the i season, = effect of kth genotype,
th
= interaction effect of kth
genotype and the ith season and eijk= the experimental error.
For Chewaka and Guraferda data analysis was conducted using one year data.
Mean comparisons among treatment means were conducted by Least Significance
Difference (LSD) methods at 5% levels of significance.
Table 1. Description of experimental locations
Elevation Annual rain Mean temperature

Location Latitude Longitude (o C) Soil type
(m) fall (mm)
Min Max
Assosa 1668 9°45’N 34°44’E 1100 10.0 °C 26.9°C Vertisols
Tepi 1200 7°3 ’N 35°18'E 1522 15 °C 30 °C Nitisols
Chewaka NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Guraferda 1138 6050’N 35017’E 1332 25.0 39.0 Vertisols
NA= Not available
Table 2. List of varieties used for the experiment
S/N Name of varieties Code Released year
1 Fogera 1 V1 2016
2 Adet V2 2014
3 Nerica 4 V3 2006
4 Hiddassie V4 2012
5 Andassa V5 2007
6 Chewaka V6 2013
7 Superica 1 V7 2006
8 Nerica 12 V8 2013
9 Nerica 13 V9 2014
10 Getachew V10 2007
11 Pawe 1 V11 1998
12 Tana V12 2007
13 Kokit V13 1999
Analysis of variance for Agronomic Traits

The analysis of variance over two years at Tepi showed that a highly significant
difference (p≤0.01) among the tested varieties for number of days to heading,
plant height, number of filled grains per panicle, thousand seed weight and grain
yield while anon significant difference was detected among varieties for number
of days to maturity and panicle length (Table 3). The effect of year was non-
significant for number of days to heading, thousand seed weight and grain yield
[179]
and a significant (p≤0.01) for days to maturity, panicle length, plant height and
number of filled grains per panicle. The interaction effect of year by variety was
only significant for grain yield while anon-significant difference was detected for
number of days to heading, number of days to maturity, panicle length, plant
height, number of filled grains and thousand seed weight. This indicates that the
varieties perform uniformly to the growing season or the year effect was uniform
on the varieties performance. On the other hand, Tadesse et al., (2017) and
Sewagegne, (2017) stated that rice varieties respond differently for the variation in
both edaphic and metrological conditions of the environments.
Table 3. Combined analysis of variance of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Tepi in 2017 and 2019 cropping
seasons
SOV DH DM PL PH NFG TSWT GY
Replication 120.81*** 647.81*** 7.579 ns 81.9ns 1391* 8.5ns 1260893*
Variety (V) 283.91*** 40.49ns 4.871ns 104.05*** 1410.7*** 47.23*** 2748543***
Year (Y) 10.05ns 997.96*** 212.025*** 1422.44*** 72889.3*** 1.68ns 1205619ns
VxY 19.75ns 8.91ns 1.694ns 57.93ns 547.9 ns 23.61 ns 1713521***
Residual 34.54 45.50 3.14 41.35 383.10 16.53 473942
Total 73.02 67.03 6.01 72.69 1536.76 22.0166 1051549.104
Note: **, *** Significant at 1% and 0.1% respectively, NS= Non- significant, DH= number of days to heading,
DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length, PH= Plant height, NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand
seed weight, and GY= Grain yield
The combined agronomic mean performance of the varieties at Tepi is presented

in Table 4. Varieties showed a range of days to heading from 88 to 113 days;
variety NERICA-4 was the earlier heading while Pawe-1 took long to head. This
variety had also more number of filled grains per panicle (137.4). The average
plant height was ranged from 102.3 cm to 113.4 cm; Pawe-1 has the shortest plant
height and Chewaka had the longest height among the tested varieties. A
maximum number of filled grains per panicle was recorded on variety NERICA-4
(137.4) while a small number of filled grains were obtained from variety Andassa
(83.9). thousand seed weight of varieties were also ranged from 30.1 to 39.7 for
variety Getachew and Pawe-1 respectively. Among the tested varieties the
maximum grain yield was recorded on variety NERICA-4 (5025.8 Kg ha-1)
followed by variety Chewaka (4700.2 Kg ha-1) and Pawe-1 (4624.4 Kg ha-1). On
the other hand, variety Tana (3071.2 Kg ha-1) was the least yielding variety.
[180]
Table 4. Combined mean grain yield and yield components of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Tepi in 2017
and 2019 cropping season
Varieties DH DM PL PH NFG TSWT GY

Fogera-1 96 131 21.5 102.8 129.6 31.6 3996.6
Adet 92 128 22.4 103.8 124.6 31.0 4564.3
NERICA-4 88 130 21.0 108.3 137.4 31.1 5025.8
Hiddassie 90 128 21.7 109.2 104.3 33.3 4313.6
Andassa 100 127 21.8 111.8 83.9 30.7 3853.0
Chewaka 101 133 22.0 113.4 111.2 30.8 4700.2
Superica-1 93 129 20.9 113.1 127.9 35.1 4219.5
NERICA-12 91 128 23.0 112.4 112.8 31.2 3646.3
NERICA-13 94 130 21.9 105.3 109.7 31.8 2982.5
Getachew 101 129 21.4 108.8 97.6 30.1 3460.5
Pawe-1 113 136 19.8 102.3 97.8 39.7 4624.4
Tana 97 131 23.2 111.2 102.1 30.7 3071.2
Kokit 89 127 21.2 103.2 101.1 36.0 3118.1
Mean 96 130 21.7 108.1 110.8 32.6 3967.4
CV(%) 6.1 5.2 8.2 5.9 17.7 12.5 17.4
LSD(0.05) 7 8 2.1 7.5 22.7 4.7 798.3
Note:-DH= number of days to heading, DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length, PH= Plant height,
NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand seed weight, and GY= Grain yield (Kg ha-1)
The combined analysis of variance across years at Assosa (Table 5) showed highly
significant difference (p=0.01) among the tested varieties for all measured traits;
number of days to heading, number of days to maturity, panicle length, plant
height, number of filled grains, thousand seed weight, and grain yield. The year
effect was also showed highly significant difference for all the above mentioned
traits. This could be the rank change of the varieties across years. The interaction
effect was non-significant for number of filled grains per panicle and thousand
seed weight, while a highly significant difference (p≤0.01) was detected for
number of days to heading, number of days to maturity, panicle length, and grain
yield.
Table 5. Combined analysis of variance of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Assosa in 2017 and 2019 cropping season
Replication 32.24ns 0.013 ns 1.6085ns 55.38ns 3009.4*** 14.55ns 60610.0 ns
Variety (V) 524.96*** 160.816*** 16.4752*** 597.51*** 2499.4*** 38.06*** 2054984.0***
Year (Y) 1930.86*** 1288.646*** 83.8286*** 3876.28*** 10313.1*** 1755.49*** 292956872.0***
VxY 74.36** 14.66*** 4.3534*** 134.11*** 464ns 6.143 ns 1532533.0***
Residual 29.39 2.19 0.78 23.18 354.80 6.439 294735.0
Total 128.41 40.01 4.13 171.72 882.00 34.76288 4556688.9
Note:- **, *** Significant at 1% and 0.1% respectively, NS= Non- significant, DH= number of days to heading, DM=number of
days to maturity, PL=Panicle length, PH= Plant height, NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand seed weight, and
GY= Grain yield
The combined years agronomic performance of the varieties is presented in Table

6. Days to heading were ranged from 71 to 99 days; variety Adet head earlier (71
[181]
days) than the others, whereas Pawe-1(99 days) was the late heading variety.
Variety Fogera-1, Adet, Hiddassie, Andassa and Tana took similar days to mature
and they were the earlier maturing varieties with a total of 120 days to mature. On
the other side variety Pawe-1 mature late (138 days). The average panicle length
was ranged from 17.2 cm to 24.2 cm, the shortest panicle length was recorded on
variety Pawe-1 and longest panicle length was NERICA-13. The highest plant
height was recorded for variety Getachew (116.3 cm) followed by variety
Chewaka (115.8 cm). Variety Hidassie (157.8) followed by NERICA-4 (137.8)
gave the high number of filled grains per panicle and also high grain yield 4814.5
Kg ha-1 and 4551.3 Kg ha-1 respectively. NERICA-12 was also high yielding
following variety Hidassie and NERICA-4. Hailegebrial et al. (2019) also reported
that variety Hidassie was the earlier maturing, high yielding variety in North-
Western and Western Tigray, North.Zinawet al. (2019) had also stated that variety
NERICA-12 was the leading variety among the tested varieties in Salamago
District South Omo Zone, SNNPR state.
Table 6. Combined mean grain yield and yield components of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Assosa in
2017 and 2019 cropping season

Fogera-1 74 120 21.7 95.7 135.1 28.3 3729.0
Adet 71 120 21.0 92.8 131.8 27.1 3252.5
NERICA-4 78 119 21.8 96.9 137.8 29.2 4551.3
Hiddassie 73 120 22.3 100.1 157.8 28.1 4814.5
Andassa 89 120 21.8 110.9 104.6 27.7 3585.6
Chewaka 94 127 21.0 115.8 121.7 29.0 3959.1
Superica-1 81 121 19.6 96.6 124.8 31.8 3246.9
NERICA-12 74 121 22.7 107.5 123.8 31.4 4333.3
NERICA-13 73 119 24.2 106.1 132.5 30.4 4046.4
Getachew 92 121 21.9 116.3 110.8 28.3 4010.7
Pawe-1 99 138 17.2 87.1 81.5 36.6 3159.1
Tana 90 120 22.4 114.3 105.3 28.4 3672.5
Kokit 81 121 21.1 91.1 94.2 31.0 2788.8
Mean 82 122 21.4 102.4 120.1 29.8 3780.8
CV(%) 6.6 1.2 4.1 4.7 15.7 8.5 14.4
LSD(0.05) 9 3 1.5 7.9 30.9 4.2 890.3
DH= number of days to heading, DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length (cm), PH= Plant height (cm),
NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand seed weight (g), and GY= Grain yield (Kg ha-1)
The analysis of variance of agronomic traits of thirteen upland rice varieties

evaluated at Guraferda is presented in Table 7. The varieties showed a highly
significant difference (p≤0.01) for number of days to maturity, thousand seed
weight and grain yield, number of days to heading and panicle length were
significant (p≤0.01). varieties showed a no significant difference for plant height
and number of filled grains per panicle.
[182]
Table 7. Analysis of variance of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Guraferda in 2018

Replication 382.20ns 4.85 ns 3.79* 401.80ns 738.90 ns 4.85ns 1920259.0**
Variety 491.50** 44.42*** 4.90** 938.10 ns 722.50 ns 86.47*** 5008871.0***
Residual 134.70 10.21 0.9314 832.90 513.30 3.57 445736.0
Total 260.40 20.72 2.34 843.40 591.20 29.81 1964332.1
Note: *,**, *** Significant at 5%, 1% and 0.1% respectively, NS= Non- significant, DH= number of days to heading,
DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length, PH= Plant height, NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand
seed weight, and GY= yield
The one-year agronomic performance of the tested varieties at Guraferda is

presented in Tabel 8. The mean days to heading was ranged from 77 (NERICA-
13) to 114 (Getachew) days. Variety NERICA-13 was also the earlier heading
(127 days) variety followed by Tana and Getachew (130 days) whereas Pawe-1
was the late maturing variety (141 days) and had a short panicle length (20.7 cm).
The tall panicle length was recorded on a variety NERICA-13 (25.1 cm). The
mean grain yield was ranged from 113.1 (Superica-1) to 172.7 (Andassa). Even
though Pawe-1 was the late maturing variety, this variety gave the highest
thousand seed weight (34 g). The mean grain yield of the tested varieties was
ranged from 1315.7 Kg ha-1 (Getachew) to 5924.2 Kg ha-1 (Chewaka). Variety
Adet (5126.8), Hidassie (4685.0 Kg ha-1) and Fogera-1 (4582.1 Kg ha-1) were also
high yielding varieties.
Table 8. Mean grain yield and yield components of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Guraferda in 2018
cropping season

Fogera-1 88 135 24.5 101.5 151.6 29.3 4582.1
Adet 84 134 22.8 93.5 139.7 28.3 5126.8
NERICA-4 80 136 21.9 94.7 145.1 27.7 3225.3
Hiddassie 86 131 23.5 158.7 166.7 28.3 4685.0
Andassa 107 133 24.3 118.0 172.7 20.0 2875.0
Chewaka 110 139 24.7 124.5 161.3 28.3 5924.2
Superica-1 96 131 22.9 110.2 113.1 33.7 3812.6
NERICA-12 89 135 24.3 101.6 146.3 31.0 2737.1
NERICA-13 77 127 25.1 104.5 153.7 30.0 2516.5
Getachew 114 130 24.3 112.6 133.2 16.7 1315.7
Pawe-1 108 141 20.7 98.4 136.8 34.0 3162.7
Tana 107 130 23.9 109.7 141.9 21.0 2108.5
Kokit 87 135 22.3 92.9 140.2 32.7 3444.1
Mean 95 134 23.5 109.3 146.3 27.8 3501.2
CV(%) 12.2 2.4 4.1 26.4 15.5 6.8 19.1
LSD(0.05) 20 5 1.6 48.6 38.2 3.2 1125.1
DH= number of days to heading, DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length (cm), PH= Plant
height (cm), NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand seed weight (g), and GY= Grain yield (Kg ha -
1)
[183]
Even if the materials were tested in two growing seasons, lack of consistency on
data leads to use only the one-year data. As a result, the mean performance of
thirteen upland rice varieties evaluated in one season at Chewaka is presented in
Table 9.The mean grain yield ranged from 1562.9 (Chewaka) Kg ha-1 to 3094.0
Kg ha-1 (Pawe-1). Pawe-1 was the late maturing and the leading variety in grain
yield. Following Pawe-1, variety Tana (2920.1 Kg ha-1) and NERICA-4 (2721.5
Kg ha-1) gave good yield even if it was one season and one location data. In
addition to grain yield, Tana gave a high number of filled grain per panicle among
the tested varieties while the highest panicle length (25.7 cm) was recorded on
Fogera-1.
Table 9. Mean grain yield and yield components of 13 upland rice varieties evaluated at Chewaka in
2018 cropping season

Fogera-1 81 140 25.7 95.3 40.4 26.5 2589.3
Adet 82 139 21.1 89.9 30.1 25.4 2139.7
NERICA-4 83 141 20.7 94.7 35.3 26.9 2721.5
Hiddassie 81 139 21.0 93.3 33.2 26.8 2491.1
Andassa 80 139 24.6 92.5 37.7 25.9 2325.8
Chewaka 83 140 20.6 84.9 21.6 25.9 1562.9
Superica-1 81 140 21.3 96.3 33.4 27.6 2179.6
NERICA-12 82 138 22.1 87.5 37.7 26.1 2319.3
NERICA-13 81 141 20.3 92.3 43.3 25.2 2537.8
Getachew 81 140 21.7 94.7 33.7 27.0 2428.1
Pawe-1 82 140 21.1 91.9 31.3 27.3 3093.9
Tana 82 140 19.1 95.9 44.7 25.8 2920.1
Kokit 82 141 21.7 92.0 36.4 25.6 2593.6
Mean 82 139 21.6 92.4 35.3 26.3 2454.1
CV(%) 1.9 1.2 15 6.7 27.8 5.8 19.7
LSD(0.05) 2.692 2.938 5.55 10.5 16.82 2.63 812.71
DH= number of days to heading, DM=number of days to maturity, PL=Panicle length (cm), PH= Plant
height (cm), NFG=Number of filled grains, TSWT= Thousand seed weight (g), and GY= Grain yield (Kg
ha-1)

The combined analysis of variance over years at Tepi showed that there were high
interactions ofvariety by year for grain yield only, while other agronomic traits did
not show a significant difference. The variety NERICA-4 was the earlier heading,
had high number of filled grains per panicle and high grain yield. In addition to
this variety Chewaka was the late maturing, tall plant height and high grain yield
following NERICA-4. As a result, these two varietiesare recommended for
production in the Tepi area. In Assosa, the variety Hidassie was the early
maturing, had a greater number of filled grains per panicle and high grain yield
followed by NERICA-4 and Superica-12. Therefore, these varieties are
[184]
recommended for production in the Assosa area. Varieties Chewaka (5924.2 kg
ha-1) followed by Adet (5126.8 kg ha-1), Hidassie (4685.0 kg ha-1) and Fogera-1
(4582.1 kg ha-1) showed better yield and other agronomic performance in
Guraferda area. In line with this in Chewaka, variety Pawe-1 (3094.0kg ha-1),
Tana (2920.1 kg ha-1) and NERICA-4 (2721.5 kg ha-1) showed better performance
among the tested varieties.
References
Abebaw D. (2018). Cereal crops research achievements and challenges in Ethiopia.
International journal of research studies in agricultural sciences. 4(6): 23-29.
Astewl T. (2010). Analysis of rice profitability and marketing chain: The case of Fogera
woreda, South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State, Ethiopia. MSc
Thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, Haramaya University.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). (2011). Report on area and production of major crops
(Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season) The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey. ADDIS
ABABA, Ethiopia.
Dogara, A.M., Jumare, A.I. (2014). Origin, distribution and heading date in cultivated
rice. Int.J. plant Biol. Res. 2, 2–6.
FAO (2014). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Statistics division.
Gebey, T., Berhe, K., Hoekstra, D. and Bogale, A. (2012). Rice value chain
development in Fogera woreda based on the IPMS experience. Nairobi, Kenya:
ILRI. 23pp.
Hailegebrial K., Yirgalem T., Weledegerima G., Mekonen A., Alem R., Redae W., Eyasu
A. and Husien S. (2019).Yield performance and adaptability of released upland
rice varieties in North Western and Western Tigray, North Ethiopia
MoARD (2010). National rice research and development strategy of Ethiopia. The
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 48 pp.
Muthayya, S., Sugimoto, J.D., Montgomery, S., Maberly, G.F. (2014). An overview of
global rice production, supply, trade, and consumption. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.
1324, 7–14.
Payne RW, Murray DA, Harding SA, Baird DB, Soutar DM. (2009). An introduction to
GenStat for Windows (18th edition). VSN International, the Waterhouse
Street, HemelHemstead, UK.
Sewagegne Tariku (2017). Evaluation of upland rice varieties and mega environment
investigation based on GGE-Biplot analysis.
Tadesse L. Abebaw D. Sewagegne T. Desta A. (2017). Evaluation of performance and
yield stability analysis based on AMMI and GGE models in introduced upland
rice varieties tested across northwest Ethiopia.
Zinaw D., Mohamd E., Belete G., Fikadu F., Fikadu D., Yohanisse M.,Hadush H., Getinet
A., Abiwa A., Tadesse N.and Abiy G. (2019). Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativaL.)
variety adaptation performance at OmoKuraz sugar development project Salamago
District South Omo Zone, SNNPR state, Ethiopia.
[185]
[186]
Registration of “Selam” Green Super Rice
(Oryza sativa L.) Variety in Ethiopia
Abebaw Dessie1*, Mulugeta Atnaf1, Fisseha Worede1, Zelalem Zewdu1,
Assaye Berie1, Taddess Lakew1, Hailegebriel Kinfe2, Solomon
Admasu3, Zeynu Tahir4, and Betleham Asrat1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center, Woreta,
Ethiopia; 2Tigray Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Shire-Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center,
Shier, Ethiopia;3Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Jimma,
Ethiopia;4Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Gonder Agricultural Research Center, Gondar,
Ethiopia
Abstract
Selam is the common name given to the rice (Oryza Sativa L.) genotype-Yungeng 31
after it’s officially released in 2020. It was introduced from China through Green
Super Rice (GSR) project in 2014; and its performance evaluation (2014-2018) and
verification (2019) trials were conducted. The mean grain yield performance across
locations over years of Selam was 4840 kgha -1 with a yield advantage of 35.8% and
37.5 % compared to Ediget and Fogera 2, respectively. During the verification
trial, Selam gave a mean grain yield of 5200 kg ha -1 from three on-stations and
4700 kg ha-1 from four on-farm sites and had a 17.6% yield advantage over Shaga.
Moreover, it was cold-tolerant, resistant to major diseases, and has white caryopsis
color. Selam was recommended for commercial production for Fogera, Dembia,
Jimma, Shire-Maitsebri and similar agro-ecologies in Ethiopia.
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) which was originated from the tropics and subtropics is
widely cultivated in diverse environments. The tremendous growth of the human
population worldwide has increased the demand for rice production (Khush,
2001), requiring an improvement of 50% by the year 2025 (Liang et al., 2010). In
Africa, rice also constantly increasing as a staple food and its demand increased in
the past three decades from 1999-2018 (Zhang et al., 2014); however, these
demands have not been commensurate with the total production and most of the
African countries are a net importer of milled rice, which costs 6.4 billion USD
annually (Zhang et al., 2014 ).
Due to its origin in tropics and subtropical regions, rice is more sensitive to cold
stress than other cereal crops (Africa Rice, 2018). Low temperatures comprise a
major climatic problem for rice growing in 25 countries (Cruz et al., 2013). Cold
damage can occur at different developmental growth stages in rice. Chilling injury
at the seedling stage can lead to leaf discoloration or yellowing, leaf rolling or
wilting, slowed growth, delayed crop maturation, poor establishment, and
subsequently, decrease in yield (Junliang et al., 2017; Moraes et al., 2016).
Production of rice is affected primarily due to its vulnerability to cold stress at the
[187]
seedling stage, as well as the reproductive stage leading to spikelet sterility
(Moraes et al., 2016). The development and use of cold-tolerant varieties have
been considered as the most economical and effective way to avoid low-
temperature damage in rice. However, rice breeding for cold tolerance is difficult
due to its polygenic nature and inadequate knowledge on the genetic basis of cold
tolerance (Junliang et al., 2017).
Rice has become a major contemporary food crop in Ethiopia. In a span of 7 years
(2006-2013), the area under rice cultivation has increased by 9-fold and the
production has increased by 16-fold with an average on-farm productivity level of
2.73 tha-1 (MoANR, 2017). Although crops such as tef, maize, wheat, and barley
have been dominated cereal production in Ethiopia, rice production has begun to
gain significance increase in recent years. The demand shift towards rice in the
markets however has far outpaced the local production entailing a modest self-
sufficiency rate of only about 20 % (milled rice) and the remaining defecit filled
thourhg import from other rice-growing countries (MoANR, 2017).
Ethiopia’s geography is noticeable by enormous depressions and hills ranges due

to the rift valley that cuts across the country results in vast arable lands which are
located at high altitudes more than 2000 meters above sea level. Even if rice can
be grown in a wide agro-climatic zone, low-temperature stress is a major
constraint for its production. Lack of cold-tolerant rice varieties in the high lands
of Ethiopia is the main constraint for the promotion of rice (Zena et al., 2009,
Abebaw et al., 2020) and farmers faced a big challenge to boost productivity.
Green Super Rice (GSR) is rice variety that can produce high and stable yields
under fewer inputs (nutrients, water, and pesticide) and adverse conditions (Qifa
Zhang, 2007). Such varieties may play a significant role to boost rice production
in Ethiopia. Therefore, the main objectives of these studies were to evaluate the
performance and stability of cold-tolerant lowland green super rice varieties and
recommended in North-west Ethiopia and similar agro-ecologies.
Origin and Pedigree

The variety Selam (Yungeng 31) which is cold-tolerant was introduced from China-
CAAS (Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science) through Green Super Rice (GSR)
project in 2014 and had gone through different variety evaluation stages in
Northwestern and Western parts of Ethiopia.
Variety Evaluation
Observation and preliminary variety trial consisting of 18 genotypes including two
checks were conducted in 2014 and 2015 in Andassa and Fogera; respectively.
The best genotypes from the observation trial were advanced and evaluated at a
[188]
national variety trial in wider range of locations over years to evaluate their
overall performance. A total of 15 genotypes including two checks (Ediget and
Fogera 2(KOMBOKA)) was evaluated at four locations (Fogera, Dembia, Shire-
maitsebri, and Jimma) from 2016-2018 cropping season. The trial was laid out in a
randomized complete block design with three replications with a plot size of 7.5
m2 (5 m row length with 6 rows of 0.25 m row spacing). Direct seeding with a
seed rate of 60 kgha-1 was applied in a row. Two better performing genotypes,
Yungeng31 and KB-2, were advanced to verification trial. The verification trial
was conducted at three locations where at each location one on-station and four in
farmers’ fields. All other management practices were applied following research
recommendations specific to each location.
Table 1: Mean grain yield and other yield-related parameters of 15 lowland green super rice genotypes for cold-tolerant at
Fogera and Shire-Maitsebri over three years (2016-2018)
Genotype DTH DTM PL PH FTP FGP Phacc GY
Yungeng 44 95.3 132.7 17.6 81.4 10.5 114.2 1.2 4233.1
Yungeng 31 91.3 127.4 19.2 87.4 10.6 123.4 1.0 4840.3
Yungeng 45 94.3 134.3 18.5 78.7 11.5 116.4 1.3 3830.6
Yungeng 38 91.8 127.9 19.6 85.5 10.2 124.2 1.2 4464.7
Fengdao 23 92.4 151.1 16.7 74.5 16.6 91.7 1.7 3981.7
KB-2 90.4 127.2 17.4 78.2 11.0 104.3 1.2 4667.8
Songgeng9 84.7 123.8 17.7 75.7 11.7 95.6 2.2 3272.8
P-28 89.4 127.9 16.7 74.6 11.8 99.1 1.5 3898.7
P-37 87.4 122.7 16.7 73.6 12.8 101.7 1.0 3863.8
P-38 100.4 137.4 19.0 80.9 12.4 101.7 2.0 3734.3
P-39 88.1 121.3 17.2 77.4 13.0 96.3 1.7 3309.2
Li Jing 9 86.1 122.8 19.7 86.6 10.8 119.0 1.0 4079.5
Li jing 11 103.6 138.8 16.9 63.0 12.7 89.3 3.0 3108.4
Ediget (Check) 89.1 120.2 18.8 85.1 10.9 96.1 1.3 3649.5
Fogera 2/Komboka (Check) 104.6 116.6 16.8 60.4 13.4 104.3 1.7 3373.2
Mean 92.6 128.9 17.9 77.5 12.0 105.1 1.5 3883.0
CV (%) 5.7 14.3 7.2 5.9 22.9 10.8 34 23.1
Genotype (G) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Environment (E) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Year (Y) *** NS *** *** *** *** ***
G*E *** *** *** *** *** NS ***
G*E*Y *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Note: *, **, and *** refers to significant at 5%, 1% and 0.1% level, NS=non -significant, CV= coefficient of variation, G*E=
genotype by environment, G*E*Y= genotype by environment by year, DH= days to 50% heading, DM= days to 85%
maturity, FGP= filled grains/panicle, PH= plant height (cm), PL= panicle length (cm), Phacc=Phenotypic acceptability and
GY= grain yield (kg/ha)
Selam consistently out-yielded than checks over the three years. In addition to
high yield, it is cold-tolerant which other released varieties lack. The combined
analysis of variance revealed significant differences in grain yield, days to
maturity, days to heading, panicle length, filled grain per panicle, plant height, and
thousand grains weight (P≤0.01) (Table 1). Selam showed a significant difference
over the standard checks on grain yield with yield advantage of 32.6 %. Among
[189]
the tested genotypes, Selam was found cold-tolerant (high grain-fertility), high
yielding, major disease resistance, and white caryopsis color. The candidate
provides consistent performance across locations, and gave an average grain yield
of 5169.1kg ha-1 at on-station and 4770.5kgha-1 on farmer’s field. These better
candidate varieties were evaluated by the national variety releasing committee and
the formers, breeders, national variety release technical committee, and
stakeholders selected Selam over the standard check and recommended for
release. Finally, the variety is registered in June 2020.
Table 2: Mean data combined across three on-station and four on-farm sites in variety verification trial in 2019
1000 Grain
Days to Days to Panicle Plant Number of Filled
Genotypes Seed wt yield
heading maturity length (cm) height (cm) grains/panicle
(g) kgha-1
Yungeng31 96 137 21.2 94.5 135.3 28.8 5498.7
Shaga (Check) 92 130 20.0 105.8 108.6 29.4 4677.0
KB-2 92 139 19.3 86.6 114.3 29.3 4282.5
Ediget (Check) 89 130 18.9 86.2 83.7 32.3 3448.7
Agronomic and Morphological Characteristics

Selam is a white seeded variety with a round seed shape and medium seed size
(1000 grain weight of 28.8 gram). It has erected flag leaf and good phenotypic
acceptability which can fit the good character of the high yielding variety. Based
on the national variety trial analysis and VVT result, Selam has more grains per
panicle (123.4) than the two checks (Ediget and Fogera 2 (KOMBOKA) which has
96 and 104, respectively. It has also a longer panicle length (21.2 cm) than the
checks (Shaga and Ediget); 20 cm and 18.9 cm, respectively. It has strong culm,
implying it is better tolerance to lodging. Summary of major agronomic and
morphological traits of Selam and other tested genotypes are presented (Table 1
and 3). Selam is tolerate to cold and can be suitable for cultivating rice in the
highlands of Ethiopia.
Disease Reaction
In the Northwestern part of Ethiopia particularly in the Fogera plan, rice
production is highly hampered by sheath rot. However, Selam was resistant to
major diseases such as sheath rot over locations and years.
Yield Performance and Stability

Selam gave the highest mean grain yield of 4840 kgha-1 in NVT across six
environments and significantly (P<0.01) out yielded Ediget and Fogera 2
(KOMBOKA) with yield advantage of 35.8 % and 37.3 %, respectively. This
variety consistently performed better than the checks over three years. Upon
verification trial across three locations (Fogera, Jimma, and Shire-Maitsebri),
Selam gave a mean grain yield of 5200 kgha-1 on-stations and 4700 kgha-1 on four
[190]
on-farm sites with a yield advantage of 17.6 % and 59.4 % over Shaga and Ediget,
respectively (Table 2). Selam was moderately stable with a higher mean grain
yield than other tested genotypes (Figure 1, represented by 2)
Figure 1. The average-environment coordination (AEC) view of ranking rice genotypes relative to an ideal genotype
(center of the concentric circle). Selam (represented by 2) which is closer to the ideal genotype (designated by
the arrow) are desirable (stable and high yielder).
[191]
Table 3: Agronomical and morphological characteristics of Selam
Characters Value/description
Variety name Selam (Yungeng31)
Adaptation Fogera, Jimma, Dembiya, Shire-maitsebri
Altitude (masl) 1350-1810
Rain fall (mm) 1296-1561
Seed rate (kgha-1) 60
Fertilize rate (kgha-1)
-Phosphors as P2 O5 23
-Nitrogen as N 69
Planting date Early June to Late June: depending on the onset of rainfall
Spacing (cm) 25 cm between rows for row drill planting
Days to heading 93
Days to maturity 132
Panicle length (cm) 20
Plant height (cm) 91
Number of grains/panicles 129
Cold tolerance Very good
Lodging tolerance Good
Pest resistance Good
Thereshability Fair
Shattering Fair
Seed size Medium
Growth habit Erect
1000 grain weight (gram) 25
Caryopsis color White
Grain yield (tonha-1)
Research field 5.2
Farmers field 4.8
Year of release 2020
Breeder/ maintainer Fogera national Rice Research and Training Center/EIAR

Selam is a high yielder and more stable than Ediget and Fogera 2 (KOMBOKA)
across the testing locations and years. It is tolerant to cold (no spikelet sterility and
no cold damage symptoms), resistant to major rice diseases in the growing areas.
Selam possesses a high number of grains per panicle, long panicle length, and
white caryopsis color. Farmers also prefer Selam for its superior performance over
the checks. Hence Selam is verified and officially released for large-scale
production in major rice-growing areas of Ethiopia.
References
Africa Rice Center (Africa Rice). 2018. Continental Investment Plan for accelerating Rice
Self-Sufficiency in Africa (CIPRiSSA). Abidjan, Cote dIvoire: 204pp
Dessie A., Zewdu Z., Berie A., Atinaf M. 2020. GGE biplot analysis of genotype x
environment interaction of cold tolerant Green Super Rice genotypes in Ethiopia.
International Journal of Research and Review. 7(1): 300-305
[192]
Junliang Zhao, Shaohong Zhang, Jingfang Dong, Tifeng Yang, Xingxue Mao, Xiaofei
Wang, Bin Liu. 2017. A novel functional gene associated with cold tolerance at the
seedling stage in rice. Plant Biotechnology Journal, pp.1-7.
http://dx.doi:10.1111/pbi.12704
Khush, G. S. 2001. Green revolution: the way forward. Nat. Rev. 2: 815–22.
Liang, J, Lu Y, Xiao P, Sun M, Corke, H. and Bao, J. 2010. Genetic diversity and
population structure of a diverse set of rice germplasm for association mapping.
Theor. Appl. Genet. 121:475–87
MoANR. 2017. Rice Seed Sector Development Strategy. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Moraes de Freitas, GP., S. Basu, V. Ramegowda, E. B. Braga and A. Pereira. 2016.
Comparative analysis of gene expression in response to cold stress in diverse rice
genotypes, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2016.02.004
Zenna N, Berhe T. 2009. Cold tolerant rice evaluation in Ethiopian highlands, African
Crop Sc. Conf. Proc.; 9:309-311.
Zhang Q., Chen Q., Wang S., Hong Y. Wang Z. 2014. Rice and cold stress: methods for its
evaluation and summary of cold tolerance-related quantitative trait loci. Rice, 7(1): 24.
Zhang Q. 2007. Strategies for developing green super rice. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104: 16402–9.
[193]
[194]
Registration of ‘Pawe-2’ Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Variety Targeted for Typical Upland Rice
Ecosystems in Ethiopia
Desta Abebe1, Mulugeta Atnaf2, Gedifew Gebrie1, Abebaw Dessie2, Desalegn
Wondifraw1, Mulugeta Bitew4, Atsedemariyam Tewachew2, Yeshiwas Sendekie1,
Desalegn Teshale1 Tesfaye Gudisa1 and Zeynu Tahir3
1
Pawe Agricultural Research Center / Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia; 2Fogera
National Rice Research & Training Center/Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia;
3
Gondar Agricultural Research Center/ Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia;
4
Debre-Markos Agricultural Research Center/ Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia
E-mail: desta.ab12@gmail.com
Abstract
Pawe-2 is a name given to the rice (Oryza Sativa L.) variety after its official
registration. It is a commercial cultivar mainly in Brazil. The material has been
introduced by the Ethiopian mission from the Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture to
Brazil in 2012. Since 2013, it has been evaluated in the typical upland rice
ecosystems such as in Pawe and Metema and found promising. It was verified in
2019 and approved by the National Variety Release Committee in 2020. The mean
grain yield performance across years and over locations of ‘Pawe-2’ was 5058.93 kg
ha-1. It has a yield advantage of 15.68% over Fogera-1 during the verification and
13.52% over Nerica-4 during performance evaluations. Moreover, Pawe-2 had a
high biomass yield, larger grain size, white caryopsis color, early maturing, and
resistance to disease and pest compared to those checks. Pawe-2 is recommended for
production in the mid-altitude (750-1800 meters above sea level) and similar agro-
ecologies of Ethiopia.
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is commonly used cereal as a staple food after wheat for a
significant part of the human population. Rice, wheat, and maize are the world’s
three most important food crops. Of these, rice is the most consumed by more than
half of the world’s population. It provides 27% of the calories in the world’s low
and middle-income countries (Dawe et al., 2010). About 900 million of the
world's poor depend on rice as consumers or producers (Pandey et al., 2010). Rice
cultivation in upland areas worldwide accounts for about 15 million hectares and
contributes about 4% of the total rice production in the world (GRiSP, 2013).
Rice production systems can be simply classified into lowland and upland rice. In
lowland rice, fields are usually flooded during part or all of the growing season;
lowland rice includes rain-fed lowland, irrigated lowland, deep-water, and
mangrove swamp (Saito et al., 2013). Upland rice is generally grown on level or
sloping, unbounded fields. Flooding is rare in this system. In some cases,
[195]
especially in Latin America, supplemental irrigation may be used. Upland rice is
grown under crop rotation systems with other crops or slash-and-burn systems
(Atlin et al., 2006; Pinheiro et al., 2006; Saito et al., 2006). Recent statistics from
71 countries from Asia, Latin America, and sub-Saharan Africa show that lowland
and upland rice account for 92 and 8% of the total rice cultivation area,
respectively.
Rice is one of the most strategic crops in Africa, and particularly in Ethiopia
(Meron, 2016). Ethiopia has immense potentials for growing rice crops. Rice is
grown under widely varying conditions of altitude and climate. It grows from sea
level to as high as 3000 meters and it needs a hot and humid climate. The area of
production of rice in the country has been increasing over the past few years. In
Ethiopia, in 2021, about 85,288.87 ha of land was cultivated with a total
production of 2,686,599.405 Quintals (CSA, 2021). The rice production trend also
showed increasable time to time. However, both biotic and abiotic stress is still the
neck blast of rice production in Ethiopia. From the major abiotic stresses, drought,
cold, low temperature and salinity stresses are serious challenges for rice farmers.
Among them, the leaf and stem blast, panicle blast, brown spot, sheath blight,
sheath rot, termites and lack of early to medium maturing upland rice varieties are
demanding for a rain-fed rice production system. To alleviate these constraints
confronting rice production, rice breeding program at typical upland rainfed
environments especially Pawe and Metema has been working on the development
of upland rice varieties with high yield potential, early mature and resistance to
major rice diseases (blast, brown spot, sheath blight, bacterial panicle blight, and
sheath spot) and pests (Taye et al. 2019). Therefore, the national rice research
program works to develop rice varieties that withstand these major production
constraints and producing high yield. So, this paper presents the overall
performances of the recently released upland rice variety (Pawe-2) and its unique
features.
Varietal Evaluation
Three genotypes were introduced from Brazil (EMBRAPA) in 2012. Genotypes
from Brazil (EMBRAPA) were widely commercially produced at Brazil up to
now. The genotypes had unique characters like high grain yield, long grain size,
early maturity, disease, and pest resistance. Due to these important traits had,
those genotypes were advanced and evaluated with two standard checks NERICA-
3 and NERICA-4 during 2013 up to 2015 main cropping season in northwestern
Ethiopia specifically at PARC (Pawe Agricultural Research Center). However,
Candidate-2 (Pawe-2) outshined through different observation and preliminary
yield trials than the standard checks, then it was advanced to national variety trial
to be tested across wide locations for two years to further test its overall
performances. The national variety trials consisting of 17 genotypes the standard
check (NERICA-4) was conducted at major upland rice-growing regions Fogera
[196]
(Woreta), Gondar (Metema), Pawe, Assosa (Kamashi), and Shire (Mai-tsebri) for
two years (2016/2017 to 2017/2018). The genotypes were tested across five
locations in the RCB design with three replications. Plot size was six rows 20 cm
apart and 5 m long. After extensive evaluation across five locations, two
promising candidate rice genotypes (PARC.DAT.V-1.2013/candidate-1) and
(PAWE-2/candidate-2) were identified based on their field performance and
promoted to the variety verification trial in 2018/2019 cropping season. The
variety verification trial was conducted at seven test sites (three on-farm test sites
per an experimental location and one on-station test site at PARC) using a
standard plot size of 100m2 (50 rows of 10 m row length and 0.2m spacing
between rows) without replications in northwestern parts of Ethiopia at
Benishangul Gumuze regional state (Metekel zone at Pawe district) and Amhara
national regional state (Awi zone at Jawi district) including two standard checks
(NERICA-4 and Fogera-1). When the testing genotypes were reaching their 85%
maturity stage, an application letter was sent to the national variety releasing
committee of the country. For all types of trials, sowing was done every year
during the main cropping season (mid-June to early July) by hand drilling with a
seed rate of 60 kgha-1. UREA and DAP fertilizers were applied at the rate of 100
and 100 kgha-1, respectively. UREA fertilizer was applied in three splits (one-third
at planting, one-third at tillering, and the remaining one-third at panicle initiation)
while the whole DAP was applied at sowing time. All other agronomic practices
were done based on the recommendations of each location.
Pawe-2 consistently out-yielded other tested rice genotypes over three years. The
average yield of Pawe-2 5033.01kg ha-1 was recorded from 2013 up to the 2015
main cropping seasons (Table 2). From 2016 -2017 cropping season, an average
yield of 4984.50kg ha-1 was recorded (Table 3). Based on the result Pawe-2
showed better performance compare to the standard check (NERICA-4) and
promote to variety verification trial. Thus, Pawe-2 was verified at seven sites (at
on-station and six on-farms) in 2018/2019 for official release. Consequently,
Pawe-2 showed superior overall agronomic performances over the standard check
(Fogera-1) and the local check (NERICA-4) under verification trial too. Likewise,
it proved to be more resistant for leaf blast, panicle blast, and brown spot; and also
scored less damage by different insects like termite and stalk eye fly than the
checks.
Agronomic and Morphological Characters

Pawe-2 has a longer plant height, a higher number of tillers per plant, a large
number of field grain per panicle, larger seed size, higher grain yield, and better
resistance to diseases and pests than the standard check (Fogera-1) during variety
verification trial. Its distinguishing features are white seed color, long seed size,
and thousand-grain weight of 12.34 grams. It attains 50% days of heading, 50%
days of flowering, and 85% days of maturity within 80, 84, and 118 days,
[197]
respectively, after emergence. Its panicle length and plant heights are 21.09 and
97.51 cm, respectively (Table 4) with a number of fertile tillers per plant of 6.4.
Table 1. Combined mean grain yield and other agronomic traits for upland rice genotypes at Pawe 2013-2015
PH PL GY
Cultivar/variety DH DM (cm) (cm) FTP FGP (kg/ha) TSW(g)
PARC DAT-V1-2013
78.21 113.11 90.54 22.16 9.52 145.58 4838.16 26.15
PARC DAT-V2-2013
81.5 111.15 91.50 23.26 8.51 139.65 4715.56 26.01
PARC DAT-V-3-2013
82.5 114.20 87.08 23.05 8.05 143.48 5033.01 25.90
NERICA-3
73.5 112.5 82.5 21.25 7.15 135.8 4305.5 24.8
NERICA-4 (Check)
71.23 109.00 84.30 21.15 8.45 137.78 4405.02 25.00
Mean
77.388 111.992 87.184 22.174 8.336 140.458 4659.45 25.572
Maximum
82.5 114.2 91.5 23.26 9.52 145.58 5033.01 26.15
Minimum
71.23 109 82.5 21.15 7.15 135.8 4305.5 24.8
Note: DH= days to 50% heading, DM= days to 85% maturity, PL= panicle length (cm), PH= plant height (cm), FTP=
fertile tillers/plant, FGP= filled grains/panicle, GY (kg/ha) = grain yield (kg/ha), TSW (g) = Thousand seed weight.
Table 2. Means of different diseases reaction scores (0-9) of the genotypes in Pawe 2013-2015 (2 locations over
3years)
Leaf rust Panicle blast Brown spot Termite

Milk Sheat damage
No. Cultivar/variety Seedling Tillering Dough Maturity Tillering stage h rot (%)
1 PARC DAT-V1-2013 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2.0
2 PARC DAT-V2-2013 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1.6
3 PARC DAT-V-3-2013 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1.5
4 NERICA-3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4.5
5 NERICA-4 (Check) 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.5

Note: 0= highly resistance, 1= resistance
[198]
Table 3. The combined mean grain yield and other yield related parameters of 17 upland rice genotypes during 2016-
2017
No. Genotypes (G) Code DH DM PH PL FTP FGP GY(kg/ha)

1 NM1-29-4-B-P-80-8 G1 73 101 93.04 21.38 5.85 130.14 4845.50
2 ART16-9-29-12-1-1-2-B-1-1 G2 73 101 102.77 20.91 6.78 120.79 3965.60
3 ART16-9-14-16-2-2-1-B-1-2 G3 69 98 93.96 22.24 5.98 117.46 4745.80
4 ART16-9-33-2-1-1-1-B-1-2 G4 77 104 98.87 21.13 6.23 127.92 4834.30
5 ART16-9-122-33-2-1-1-B-1-1 G5 75 102 97.90 20.73 6.74 117.33 4885.80
6 ART15-19-5-4-1-1-1-B-1-1 G6 75 102 96.28 21.34 6.10 110.43 4658.00
7 ART16-5-9-22-2-1-1-B-1-2 G7 76 102 95.27 19.99 6.20 126.85 5027.20
8 ART16-21-4-7-2-2-2-B-2-2 G8 73 101 94.46 20.95 6.14 125.79 4717.90
9 ART16-9-16-21-1-2-1-B-1-1 G9 76 101 102.07 21.64 5.87 114.26 4902.50
10 ART15-13-2-2-2-1-1-B-1-2 G10 73 99 92.54 21.61 6.49 114.47 3762.10
11 ART15-16-45-1-B-1-1-B-1-2 G11 74 101 96.56 21.53 5.86 189.89 4398.60
12 ART16-5-10-2-3-B-1-B-1-1 G12 75 101 102.30 21.98 6.19 122.80 4603.20
13 ART16-4-1-21-2-B-2-B-1-2 G13 76 103 97.12 21.23 6.19 130.41 4516.80
14 PARC.DAT.V-1.2013 G14 78 104 97.64 21.37 7.12 131.74 4528.00
15 PARC.DAT.V-2.2013 G15 79 104 99.68 22.14 7.00 125.19 4207.40
16 PARC.DAT.V-3.2013 G16 79 106 99.29 21.92 6.02 129.73 4984.50
17 NERICA-4(Check) G17 72 101 93.09 20.56 6.99 124.67 4712.70
Mean 74.80 101.85 97.26 21.32 6.36 126.42 4617.88
CV (%) 3.76 2.19 7.93 7.92 23.63 27.21 16.67
LSD (5 %) 1.97 1.57 5.41 1.18 1.05 24.12 539.91
Genotype (G) *** *** *** ** NS NS ***
Environment (E) *** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Genotype x Environment (G X E) NS NS NS NS NS NS **
Note: **, *** significant at 1% and 0.1% respectively, NS= not significant, DH= days to 50% heading, DM= days to 85%
heading, PL= panicle length (cm), PH= plant height (cm), FTP = number of fertile tillers per plant, FGP= number of filled
grains per panicle, GY= grain yield (kg/ha).
[199]
Yield Performance
The three years (2013-2015) average mean yield of Pawe-2 (5033.01 kg/ha) was
better than NERICA-4 (4405.02) and NERICA-3(4305) kgha-1 (Table 1). Pawe-2
had a higher yield advantage over the two checks (14.26% from NERICA-4 and
16.89% from NERICA-3). It also produced better grain yield than the standard
check (Fogera-1) and local check (NERICA-4) during the variety verification
trial in 2018/2019 main cropping season tested at seven sites (Table 4). Pawe-2
gave a 15.68% and 13.25% yield advantage over the standard check (Fogera-1)
and the local check (NERICA-4), respectively. Likewise, it had a better
biological yield (55414.29kgha-1) than the two checks Fogera-1 (44214.29 kgha-
1
) and NERICA-4 (43996.67kgha-1) (Table 4). It was taller than checks, implying
its better competence with weeds and nutrients.
Table 4. Mean grain yield, other agronomic traits and diseases reaction of PARC.DAT.V-1.2013(candidate-1), Pawe-2
(candidate-2) and the checks in multi-location test during 2019/2020
Traits
Candidate-1 Candidate-2 NERICA-4 Fogera-1
Days to 50% heading 81.57 80.43 71.86 72.00
Days to 50% flowering 85.43 84.14 75.14 75.14
Days to 85% maturity 121.57 117.86 106.14 105.00
Plant height (cm) 94.84 97.51 87.00 89.66
Panicle length (cm) 20.31 21.09 19.66 19.57
Number of fertile tillers/plant 6.03 6.40 4.83 4.71
Number of unfertile tillers/plant 0.06 0.11 0.20 0.14
Number of filled grain/panicle 147.53 152.17 137.06 140.80
Number of unfilled grain/panicle 4.60 4.59 4.11 3.91
Grain yield (kg/ha) 4727.50 5058.93 4456.24 4372.90
1000 seed weight 12.07 12.34 11.36 11.53
Moisture content 27.79 28.04 26.79 26.86
Stand count 670571.43 731714.29 600857.14 624857.14
Biological yield (kg/ha) 51885.71 55414.29 43996.67 44214.29
Termite damage (%) 0.21 0.21 0.50 0.43
Leaf blast at seedling 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Leaf blast at tillering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Panicle blast at dough stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Panicle blast at maturity stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brown spot at tillering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brown spot at milk stage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sheath rot 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
[200]
Pest and Disease Reactions
Pawe-2 is tolerance to diseases (leaf blast, panicle blast and brown spot) and
recorded less termite and shoot fly damage as compared to the standard check
(Fogera-1) and the local check (NERICA-4). Significantly lower termite damage
of 21% was recorded than the standard check (Fogera-1) 43% and local check
(NERICA-4) 50% (Table 4), and in 2018/2019 cropping season all the four
genotypes did not show any symptoms of the disease.
Other Quality Traits

In the major rice-consuming countries, grain quality characteristics dictate the
market value of the commodity and play an important role in the development and
adoption of new varieties. Grain quality includes such traits as physical
appearance and nutritional values. The required grain quality is not adequately
available in rice breeding programs, and rice varieties are being developed mainly
based on yield and environmental tolerance. However, this situation can be
remedied to ensure the future development of rice varieties that are high-yielding,
environmentally tolerant, and good marketable qualities. So, the quality trait
pawe-2 variety had a good opportunity for the future rice breeding program.
Pawe-2 contains good nutritional value like protein, fat, and ash, and better
market-oriented variety than the tested genotypes. It had good physical quality like
the average kernel length (6.47mm), kernel width (2.45mm), kernel thickness
(1.85 mm), and length width ratio (2.64mm) compare to the tested genotypes. The
average kernel length was greater than other tested varieties with higher protein
content (4.79%) (Atsedemariyam et al., 2018).

Pawe-2 is a good yielding and stable variety. It is also resistant to major rice
diseases such as blast and brown spot. Moreover, Pawe-2 had a greater number of
tillers per plant, more number of filled grains per plant, long-grain seed size, and
white caryopsis color. It has also relatively good protein content, ash, and fat.
Generally, the variety is profiled with most traits preferred by farmers as was
confirmed by their positive feedback during the evaluation and verification.
Hence, it is recommended to promote the variety in typical upland rice-growing
areas of Ethiopia.
[201]
Agronomical and morphological characteristics
Variety type: Upland

Variety name: Pawe-2
Agronomic and morphological characteristics:
 Adaptation area:, Pawe, Fogera, Assosa, Gondar, Maitsebri
 Altitude (masl): 750-1860
 Rain fall (mm): 1100-1457
 Seed rate(kg/ha): 60
 Planting date: Mid-June to early July depending on the onset of rainfall
 Spacing(cm): 25 cm between rows for row drill planting
 Fertilizer rate(kg/ha) and time of application:
 N= 69 (1/3 at planting, 1/3 at tillering and 1/3 at panicle initiation)
 P2O5 = 23 (all at planting)
 Days to heading: 80
 Days to maturity: 118
 Panicle length(cm): 21.1
 Plant height(cm): 97.5
 Thresh ability: Easy
 Lodging incidence: None
 Shattering: Moderately Resistant
o Seed size(mm): Slender shape [length (9.2): width (2.5) =7.14]
 Growth habit: Erect
 No. of grains per panicle: 152
 1000 seed weight (g): 12.34
 Caryopsis color: White
 Crop pest reaction: Resistant to major rice diseases
 Grain yield(kg/ha):
o Research field: 5059
o Farmers field 4847
Year of release: 2020
Breeder/maintainer: Pawe Agricultural Research Center /EIAR
References
Atlin, G.N., Lafitte, H.R., Tao, D., Laza, M., Amante, M., Courtois, B., 2006.
Developing rice cultivars for high-fertility upland systems in the Asian
tropics. F. Crop. Res. 97: 43–52.
Atsedemariyam, T., Wassu, M., Alemayehu, A., 2018. Genetic Variability ,
Heritability and Genetic Advance Analysis in Upland Rice ( Oryza sativa L .)
Genotypes for Yield and Yield Related Traits in Benishangul Gumuz ,
Ethiopia. Int. J. Plant Breed. Crop Sci. 5, 437–443.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2021. Agricultura sample survey Report on area
and Production of major crops. Central Statistical Agency of Ethiopia, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, Statistical Bulletin 590.
Dawe, D., Pandey, S., Nelson, A., 2010. Emerging Trends and Spatial Patterns of
Rice Production. In: Pandey, S., Byerlee, D., Dawe, D., Dobermann, A.,
Mohanty, S., Rozelle, S. and Hardy, B., Eds., Rice in the Global Economy:
Strategic Research and Policy Issues for Food Security, IRRI, Los Baño 15-
[202]
35.
GRiSP, 2013. Rice almanac, Rice almanac. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcg189
Meron Abebe, 2016. The Contributions and Challenges of Rice Value Chain
Development on the Livelihood of Small Holder Rice.
Pandey, S., Byerlee, D., Dawe, D., Dobermann, A., Mohanty, S., Rozelle, S.,
2010. Overview. In S. Pandey, D. Byerlee, D. Dawe, A. Dobermann, S.
Mohanty, S. Rozelle, B. Hardy (Eds.), Rice in the global economy: Strategic
research and policy issues for food security. IRRI 1–12.
Pinheiro, B.S., Castro, E.M. De, Guimara, C.M., 2006. Sustainability and
profitability of aerobic rice production in Brazil. F. Crop. Res. 97, 34–42.
Saito, K., Linquist, B., Keobualapha, B., Phanthaboon, K., Shiraiwa, T., Horie, T.,
2006. Cropping intensity and rainfall effects on upland rice yields in northern
Laos. Plant Soil 284, 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-006-0049-5
Saito, K., Nelson, A., Zwart, S.J., Niang, A., Sow, A., Yoshida, H., Wopereis,
M.C.Ss., 2013. Towards a better understanding of biophysical determinants
of yield gaps and the potential for expansion of the rice area in AfricaIn M.
C. S. Wopereis, D. E. Johnson, N. Ahmadi, E. Tollens, & A. Jalloh (Eds.),
Realizing Africa’s rice promise (pp. 188–203. CAB Int. 188–203.
[203]
[204]
Multi-Environment Evaluation of High-Elevation
Rice Genotypes under Rain-fed Condition
of Ethiopia
Fisseha Worede1, Mulugeta Atnaf1, Abebaw Dessie1, Zelalem Zewdu1, Assaye Berie1,
Zeynu Tahir2, Hailegebrial Kinfe3 and Solomon Admasu4
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia;
2
Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Gonder Agricultural Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia; 3Tigray
Regional Agricultural Research Institute, Shire-Maitsebri Agricultural Research Center, Shier, Ethiopia; 4Ethiopian
Institute of Agricultural Research, Jimma Agricultural Research Center, Jimma, Ethiopia
Abstract
The cultivation of rice in Ethiopia has a history of fewer than fifty years. However,
its production and consumption have been increasing from year to year
progressively. Genotype evaluation should be conducted in multiple locations for
multiple years to fully sample the target environments. In light of that, an
investigation was underway to evaluate high-elevation rice genotypes and identify
desirable genotypes. The study was conducted across seven environments using a
randomized complete block design with three replications. The result showed that
spikelet fertility ranged from 74.72% for G5 to 95.05% for G1. Genotypes G1, G12,
G13, G16, Ediget and Shaga are highly fertile (≥90% fertility) implying that these
genotypes are better in terms of cold tolerance; G1 had the highest thousand-seed
weight followed by G12 and G6. Grain yield varied from 1.578 t ha-1 for G4 to 4.023
t ha-1 for G12. The AMMI analysis of variance showed that genotypes, environments
and their interaction were highly significant (p<0.01) and explained 28.29%,
24.16% and 47.56% of the treatment variation, respectively; signifying that GxE was
the predominant contributor of the variation. The first four significant IPCAs
captured about 96.63% of the total GE variance. The environment Jimma19
followed Fogera19 contributed higher to the GxE variance, indicating that these
environments were important in discriminating the genotypes. The GGE biplot
identified G12 and G13 as stable and high-yielding genotypes for the environments
under study. These genotypes are cold tolerant and had acceptable yield
improvements over the checks. On top of that, the white caryopsis color of the two
genotypes is also an additional advantage over the latest check.
Introduction
Rice is the world’s most important food crop for more than half of the world’s
population. More than 90% of the global rice is grown and consumed in Asia
(Khush, 2005). Rice belongs to the genus Oryza; the genus is composed of 25
species, of which only Oryza sativa (Asian rice) and O. glaberrima (African rice)
are cultivated (Onwueme and Sinha, 1991; Thakur, 1975). In the year 2018, the
area harvested, yield and production of rice in the world and Africa were
167132623 and 14243094 ha; 4.679 and 2.329 tons ha-1; and 782000147 and
33174017 tons, respectively. In Ethiopia, it was 47434 ha, 3.04 tons ha-1 and
[205]
144200 tons, respectively (FAOSTAT, 2020). Despite its lower area coverage, the
productivity of the crop is higher than the African average. This shows, among
other things, the potential of the land allotted to rice production and the use of
adaptable varieties in the country. The cultivation of rice in Ethiopia has a history
of less than fifty years; it was believed to have been introduced in the mid-1980s.
However, its cultivation and consumption have been increasing from year to year
progressively (MoARD, 2010). Since its introduction, several farmers are
producing rice of different types under different ecosystems for household
consumption and for the market.
Cold stress is one of the major bottlenecks affecting rice production in Ethiopia.
At the reproductive stage, especially during the young microspore stage, rice is
susceptible to cold and the damage can lead to spikelet sterility (Farrell et al.,
2001; 2006). Spikelet sterility appears to be affected by both night and day
temperatures (Yoshida, 1981). Poor spikelet fertility under low temperature during
anthesis leads to reduced grain yield (Zeng et al., 2017).
Multi-environment evaluation of genotypes was advocated by many workers.

Cultivar evaluation must be conducted in multiple locations for multiple years to
fully sample the target environment (Cooper et al., 1997), and select for both
average yield and stability (Lin and Binns, 1994; Kang, 1997). Recommending a
cultivar over wide agro-ecological zones is difficult due to the apparent genotype-
environment interaction (GxE). G×E commonly refers to yield variation that
cannot be explained by the genotype and the environmental main effects. For
cultivar evaluation, however, both G and GxE must be considered simultaneously
(Gauch and Zobel, 1997; Yan and Hunt, 2001). The objectives of the present
investigation were to evaluate high-elevation rice genotypes on a multi-
environment and identify desirable genotypes for areas where cold is a problem.

The experiment was conducted at Dembia, Fogera, Jimma and Shire with the rain-
fed conditions. At Jimma the trial was on the field only in 2019; however, it was
tested in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons at the other three locations. The
descriptions of the locations are listed in Table 1. The test materials were
consisted of 20 rice genotypes; 18 of them were pure lines developed for cold
tolerance by AfricaRice and the other two (Edgit and Shaga) were cold-tolerant
varieties released in Ethiopia and other African countries.
[206]
Table 1. The geographic and climatic descriptions of the study areas
Temperature 0C
Location Altitude (m) Latitude Longitude Annual rain-fall (mm)
Max Min
Dembia 1856 12°18'30''N 37°17'30''E 1067 29 13
Fogera 1810 11058’N 37041’ E 1300 27.9 11.5
Jimma 1753 7°40'9"N 36°47'6"E 1561 26.8 18.9
Shire 1350 13005’ N 38008’ E 1296 36.0 15.0
The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three
replications. Inter-plot and between block distances were 0.5 m and 1 m,
respectively. Plot size was 7.5 m2 (1.5 m × 5 m) with six rows each 0.25 m apart.
Planting was done by drilling 45 g (60 kg ha-1) of rice seed on the six rows in each
plot. Fertilizers, Urea and NPS (compound fertilizer), were applied at the rate of
100 and 124.3 kg ha-1, respectively. Urea was applied at three splits: one-third of
the total dose each at planting, tillering and panicle initiation. Plots were kept
weed-free throughout the growth period.
Data were collected from the central four rows to avoid the boarder effect as per
the standard evaluation system (SES) for rice (IRRI, 2013). Three-way ANOVA
was initially run to see the statistical difference among genotypes as per Cochran
and Cox (1992):
Yijk= µ + Gi + Lj + Sk + GLij + GSik + LSjk + GLSijk + eijk
Where Yijk is response of ith genotype in the jth location and kth year; µ is the
overall mean; Gi is the effect of the ith genotype; Lj is the effect of the jth location;
Sk is the effect of kth year; GLij is the effect of interaction of the ith genotype with
the jth location; GSik is the interaction effect of the ith genotype with the kth year;
LSjk is the interaction effect of the jth location with kth year; GLSijk is the
interaction effect of ith genotype with the jth location and kth year; eijk is the effect
of random error. The AMMI analysis was done according to Zobel et al. (1988)
and GGE analysis was done as per Yan et al. (2000). Analyses of variance,
AMMI, and GGE were computed by using GenStat (16th edition) computer
program.

Performance of Genotypes
Trait means of genotypes are presented in Table 1. Days to maturity, spikelet
fertility (%) and thousand-seed weight (g) are based on six environments while the
rest are estimated based on seven environments.
Days to maturity had a mean of 140.0 days which varied from 127.2 for HS 379
(G4) to 154.9 for Makaloika 34 (G15). Panicle length was ranged from 14.9 cm
for Osmanlik-97 (G3) to 26.9 cm for Silewah (G14) with a mean value of 19.6 cm.
Plant height was varied from 67.08 cm for Demir (G7) to 127.74 cm for Silewah
[207]
(G14) having a mean of 87.74 cm. Silewah (G14) was the tallest genotype
followed by Zong-Eng (G13), Chomrong (G1) and 4181-Soamova (G9).
Table 1. Performance of the rice genotypes combined across locations and over years
Genotype Panicle Plant Spikelet Thousand

Days to
length height fertility seed weight Yield (t ha-1)
Identification Code maturity@
(cm) (cm) (%)@ (g) @
Chomrong G1 128.4 20.8 98.96 95.05 31.20 3.656
Machapachuri G2 129.2 19.4 90.39 89.64 29.06 1.633
Osmanlik-97 G3 134.8 14.9 69.27 75.19 27.79 1.747
HS 379 G4 127.2 17.3 77.68 81.09 27.41 1.578
Merig G5 130.1 17.3 79.87 74.72 28.12 1.928
Duragan G6 137.6 15.2 71.18 82.86 29.68 1.798
Demir G7 135.3 15.3 67.08 88.04 26.09 2.919
4182-Manjanove G8 138.9 23.1 89.42 78.88 22.94 3.221
4181-Soamova G9 141.8 20.5 95.07 84.94 28.94 3.338
NERICA L-19 G10 145.9 19.8 81.77 80.69 23.38 2.857
SCRID 164-2-1-2-4 G11 136.6 18.9 86.36 89.91 29.18 3.499
Yun-Keng G12 149.1 20.7 86.97 91.15 31.12 4.023
Zong-Eng G13 147.3 22.0 99.72 90.21 29.23 3.991
Silewah G14 150.2 26.9 127.74 89.55 28.77 3.294
Makaloika 34 G15 154.9 20.8 89.60 85.25 24.04 3.135
X-265 G16 148.4 19.8 89.36 90.05 25.43 3.401
X-243 G17 148.4 20.6 88.78 87.96 27.38 3.066
FOFIFA 160 G18 144.7 20.8 90.55 84.59 25.27 3.411
Ediget G19 135.7 18.1 83.07 91.55 29.08 3.099
Shaga G20 135.3 19.0 91.96 91.32 26.76 3.560
Grand mean 140.0 19.6 87.74 86.13 27.54 2.958
LSD 8.7 2.8 10.40 11.90 3.41 1.163
CV (%) 5.18 14.21 8.32 8.73 11.72 20.07
Genotype ** ** ** * ** **
Genotype × Environment ** ** ** ** ** **
@= mean over six environments, LSD = least significant difference, CV= coefficient of variation, **= significant at 1%
probability level
A mean value of 86.13% was recorded for spikelet fertility which ranged from
74.72% for Merig (G5) to 95.05% for Chomrong (G1). The result is in conformity
with Worede et al. (2014) who reported maximum fertility of 95.18%. Chomrong
(G1), Yun-Keng (G12), Zong-Eng (G13), X-265 (G16), Ediget and Shaga are
highly fertile (≥90% fertility) implying that these genotypes are better in terms of
[208]
cold tolerance. Merig (G5) was partially sterile (%) and the rest are fertile (%).
Thousand-seed weight was varied from 22.94 g for 4182-Manjanove (G8) to 31.2
g for Chomrong (G1) with a mean of 27.54. The genotype Chomrong (G1) had the
highest thousand-seed weight followed by Yun-Keng (G12) and Duragan (G6).
The mean grain yield was 2.958 t ha-1 which varied from 1.578 t ha-1 for HS 379
(G4) to 4.023 t ha-1 for Yun-Keng (G12). Yun-Keng (G12) was the highest
yielding genotype followed by Zong-Eng (G13), Chomrong (G1) and Shaga. Only
three genotypes out yielded the recent cold-tolerant standard check, Shaga.
AMMI Analysis
The result of the AMMI analysis of variance showed that genotypes (G),
environments (E) and their interaction (GxE) were highly significant (p<0.01)
implying that genotypes responded differently to the diverse environments (Table
2). The result is in agreement with that of Lakew et al. (2014) and Sitaresmi et al.
(2019).
The genotypes, E and GxE explained 28.29%, 24.16% and 47.56% of the
treatment variation, respectively; signifying that GxE was the predominant
contributor of the variation. The result agrees with the findings of Cantila et al.
(2020) who reported that E, G and GxE explained 26.8%, 15.5% and 52.3% of the
total variation. The magnitude of GxE variance was almost twice larger than that
of genotypes, indicating considerable differences in genotypic response across
environments.
Table 2. ANOVA table for AMMI model

Variance
Source df SS MS GxE explained (%)
explained (%)
Treatments 139 867.2 6.239**
Genotypes 19 245.3 12.909** 28.29
Environments 6 209.5 34.919** 24.16
Interactions 114 412.4 3.618** 47.56
IPCA 1 24 207.3 8.638** 50.27
IPCA 2 22 116.1 5.277** 28.15
IPCA 3 20 62.9 3.145** 15.25
IPCA 4 18 12.2 0.676* 2.96
Residuals 30 14.0 0.465
Error 266 93.7 0.352
**, *= significant at 5% and 1% probability levels
From the total GE variance, 50.27%, 28.15%, 15.25% and 2.96% of variance
were explained by the first four significant IPCAs (Table 2). Sivapalan et al.
(2000) recommended a predictive AMMI model with the first four IPCAs. Also,
Cantila et al. (2020) reported 35.8%, 26.9%, 16.9% and 13.4% of the GxE
variance to be captured by the first four highly significant IPCAs. Lakew et al.
[209]
(2014) reported that 57.42% and 22.5% of the total interaction SS were captured
by the first and the second highly significant (P<0.001) IPCAs, respectively.
When the grand mean values of the seven environments were compared, Fogera19
and Fogera18 were high yielding environments while Shire18 was the low
yielding environment (Table 3). The highest yield was recorded by Chomrong
(6.816 tons h-1) at Jimma19 whereas G16 (6.193 tons h-1) and G7 (2.889 tons h-1)
were the highest yielding genotypes in the highest- and lowest-yielding
environments, respectively. The apparent rank difference of genotypes over the
test environments shows the presence of crossover GxE.
[210]
Table 3. Mean grain yield (t ha-1) of 20 high-elevation rice genotypes across seven environments
Genotype Environment
Genotype mean
Identification Code Dembia18 Dembia19 Fogera18 Fogera19 Jimma19 Shire18 Shire19
Chomrong G1 3.050 3.050 4.374 3.491 6.816 2.629 2.181 3.656
Machapachuri G2 1.408 0.720 3.397 2.198 0.942 1.052 1.717 1.633
Osmanlik-97 G3 2.025 0.800 3.666 2.262 0.105 1.871 1.497 1.746
HS 379 G4 2.142 1.018 2.211 2.591 0.561 1.440 1.080 1.578
Merig G5 2.390 0.937 3.555 2.460 0.362 2.042 1.752 1.928
Duragan G6 2.425 1.052 3.169 2.466 0.210 2.155 1.111 1.798
Demir G7 3.380 2.357 3.634 3.532 2.781 2.889 1.857 2.919
4182-Manjanove G8 2.784 2.944 5.356 4.652 0.909 2.880 3.023 3.221
4181-Soamova G9 2.619 3.259 5.522 5.164 0.703 2.706 3.396 3.338
NERICA L-19 G10 4.213 2.012 2.160 4.490 1.052 2.281 3.791 2.857
SCRID 164-2-1-2-4 G11 3.228 3.279 4.100 4.323 4.471 2.760 2.333 3.499
Yun-Keng G12 3.711 4.294 3.572 5.946 4.605 2.593 3.439 4.023
Zong-Eng G13 4.214 4.346 2.463 6.012 5.145 2.599 3.159 3.991
Silewah G14 4.071 2.819 1.767 4.221 5.333 2.215 2.632 3.294
Makaloika 34 G15 2.845 2.997 3.401 6.125 0.151 1.240 5.189 3.135
X-265 G16 2.678 3.949 3.535 6.193 2.137 1.714 3.598 3.401
X-243 G17 1.825 3.801 3.891 5.993 1.455 1.303 3.194 3.066
FOFIFA 160 G18 1.791 4.030 4.641 6.077 2.284 1.430 3.621 3.411
Ediget G19 3.299 2.182 4.203 3.203 3.656 2.846 2.307 3.099
Shaga G20 2.252 4.133 4.480 5.102 4.711 2.248 1.996 3.560
Environment
2.817 2.699 3.655 4.325 2.419 2.145 2.644
mean
[211]
The AMMI1 biplot (Figure 1) revealed that G1 followed by G14 and G15 had
higher interaction; G4, G2, G6 and G7 contributed minimum to the G×E, which is
an indication of their adaptability (stability) to the seven environments regardless
of the environmental effect, although their grain yield was not above average. A
near zero interaction scores of genotypes were reported previously in rice
(Waghmode et al., 2020; Cantila et al., 2020).
Likewise, environment Jimma19 contributed very high interaction to the G×E.
Dembia19 and Dembia18 contributed minimum interaction while the contribution
of Shire18 was almost nil, although their grain yield was below average (Figure
1).
Figure 1. AMMI biplot of main effects of rice genotypes and environments, and IPCA1 using symmetrical scaling.
Abbreviations of genotypes are given in Table 2.
Interaction between genotype and environment can be shown by the AMMI2

biplot. The length of the environmental vectors from the origin indicates the
magnitude of interaction exerted by the environments on the genotypes (Voltas et
al., 2002). Likewise, the distance of the genotypes from the origin shows the
responsiveness of the genotypes to different environmental conditions. Genotypes
adjacent to the center of the plot had a small contribution to the GxE and were
identified as widely adapted genotypes. When the two interaction components are
considered, the environment Jimma19 followed Fogera19 contributed higher to
the GxE variance (Figure 2). Dessie et al. (2018) reported three environments
[212]
while Cantila et al. (2020) and Waghmode et al. (2020) reported two
environments with higher GxE. Environments Shire18, Dembia19, and Dembia18
contributed minimum interaction to the GxE indicating that these environments
are suitable for all genotypes.
Figure 2. AMMI biplot of rice genotypes and environments plotted against PCA1 and PCA2 using symmetrical scaling.
Similarly, G2, G4 and G10 were least affected by environmental changes, hence
they are wide adapted genotypes. In agreement with the present finding, Dessie et
al. (2018), Waghmode et al. (2020) and Sitaresmi et al. (2019) reported four, three
and a single genotype with minimum interaction, respectively. However, G1 is
highly affected by environmental fluctuation (it was far from the origin) followed
by G15 and G14 signifying that these three genotypes are specifically adapted
(Figure 2). The result agrees with the findings of Dessie et al. (2018) who reported
six more sensitive genotypes.
GGE Analysis
GGE biplot identifies GxE pattern of the multi-environment data set and shows
which genotype performs best in which environments. In the present study, the
first and the second PCAs (Figure 3) explained 53.08 and 28.02% (81.1% in total)
of the GGE variation for grain yield, respectively; which is greater than the one
[213]
reported by Lakew et al. (2014) who reported 59.76% of the total variation for
grain yield to be explained by PCA1 (33.93%) and PCA2 (25.83%). This finding
is in harmony with Dessie et al. (2018) who reported 78.95 % (PCA1= 51.63%
and PCA2= 27.31%) of the total GGE variance to be explained by the first two
IPCAs for grain yield.
The mean performance and stability of the genotypes are depicted in Figure 3. The
line passing through the biplot origin is called the average environment coordinate
(AEC), which is defined by the average PC1 and PC2 scores for all environments
(Yan and Kang, 2003). The AEC abscissa (the arrowed line) points to higher mean
yield across environments, and the AEC ordinate (the line perpendicular to the
arrowed line) points to greater variability (poorer stability) in either direction (Yan
and Tinker, 2006). Given that, G13, G12 and G20 were high-yielding genotypes.
G2, G3, G4, G5 and G6 were better in terms of stability per se; however, they
were poor in terms of grain yield. G1 and G15 were unstable genotypes. G12 and
G13 were better in terms of both grain yield and stability. In line with this finding,
Akter et al. (2015) and Dessie et al. (2018) identified three and two high-yielding
and stable genotypes in Bangladesh and Ethiopia, respectively.
Figure 3. The average-environment coordination view showing the mean performance and stability of the 20 rice
genotypes. Abbreviations of genotypes are given in Table 1.
The rank of genotypes relative to an ideal genotype is depicted in Figure 4. The

ideal genotype is a reference used to identify suitable genotypes in comparison to
it. The ideal genotype should have both large PC1 and small absolute PC2 across
environments (Yan et al., 2000; Yan and Rajcan, 2002), and it is pointed by the
arrow at the center of the concentric circles (Yan and Tinker, 2006). Hence, G12
and G13 are desirable genotypes in the test locations as they are closer to the
[214]
virtual ideal genotype. The result is in agreement with previous workers who
identified two (Lakew et al., 2014; Dessie et al., 2018) desirable rice genotypes in
Ethiopia.
Figure 4. The average-environment coordination view of ranking the 20 rice genotypes relative to an ideal genotype.

The study was conducted at four locations situated in different parts of the country
with varying climatic conditions for two years (seven environments). This gives
the chance to expose the genotypes to different environmental conditions and to
identify adaptable genotypes. The AMMI analysis showed that most of the
treatment variance was captured by the GxE (47.56%) followed by the genotypes
(28.29%). The GGE identified G12 and G13 as stable and high-yielding genotypes
for the locations (environments) under study. The genotypes tolerate cold better
than the others (and comparable with the cold-tolerant checks) and had an
acceptable yield advantage over the checks. The white caryopsis color of the two
genotypes is also an additional advantage over the latest check. Genotype
Chomrong (G1) could be utilized as a parent in future rice crossing programs.
[215]
References
Akter, A., M.J. Hasan, U. Kulsum, M.H. Rahman, M. Khatun and M.R. Islam. 2015.
GGE biplot analysis for yield stability in multi-environment trials of promising
hybrid rice (Oryza sativa L.). Bangladesh Rice J. 19(1):1-8.
Cantila, A.Y., S.E. Abdula, J.B. Imbat and A.J.R. Quitel. 2020. Additive main effect and
multiplicative interaction (AMMI) stability analysis for grain yield of 27 rice
genotypes tested in six environments. Philippine Science Letters 13 (1): 6-12.
Cochran W.G. and Cox G.M. 1992. Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons.
New York. 640pp.
Cooper, M., R.E. Stucker, I.H. DeLacy and B.D. Harch. 1997. Wheat breeding nurseries,
target environments, and indirect selection for grain yield. Crop Sci. 37:1168–1176.
Dessie, A., Z. Zewdu, F. Worede and M. Bitew. 2018. Yield stability and agronomic
performance of rain fed upland rice genotypes by using GGE bi-plot and AMMI in
North West Ethiopia. Int. J. Res. Rev. 5(9): 123-129.
Farrell, T.C., K.M. Fox, R.L. Williams and S. Fukai. 2006. Genotypic variation for cold
tolerance during reproductive development in rice: screening with cold air and cold
water. Field Crops Res. 98, 178–194. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2006.01.003
Farrell, T. C., R. L. Williams and S. Fukai. 2001. The cost of low temperature to the
NSW rice industry, in Proceeding of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference
(Hobart, TAS: Australian Society of Agronomy).
Gauch, H.G. and R.W. Zobel. 1997. Identifying mega-environments and targeting
genotypes. Crop Sci. 37: 311-326.
IRRI (International Rice Research Institute). 2013. Standard Evaluation System for rice.
5th ed. IRRI, Manila, Philippines.
Kang, M.S. 1997. Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar
development. Adv. Agron. 62: 199-252.
Khush, G.S. 2005. What it will take to feed 5.0 billion rice consumers in 2030. Plant
Mol. Boil. 59: 1-6.
Lakew, T., S. Tariku, T. Alem and M. Bitew. 2014. Agronomic performance and stability
analysis of upland rice genotypes in North West Ethiopia. Int. J. Sci. Res. Publ. 4
(4): 1-9.
Lin, C.S. and M.R. Binns 1994. Concepts and methods for analysis regional trial data for
cultivar and location selection. Plant Breed. Rev. 11: 271-297.
MoARD. 2010. National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia. MoARD.
Onwueme, I.C. and T.D. Sinha. 1991. Field Crop Production in Tropical Africa. CTA.
Wageningen, The Netherlands. 545pp.
Sitaresmi, T., W.B. Suwarno, C. Gunarsih, Nafisah, Y. Nugraha, P. Sasmita and A.A.
Daradjat. 2019. Comprehensive stability analysis of rice genotypes through multi-
location yield trials using PBSTAT-GE. SABRAO Journal of Breeding and
Genetics 51(4): 355-372.
Sivapalan, S., L.O. Brien, G.O. Ferrana, G.L. Hollamby, I. Barelay and P.J. Martin. 2000.
An adaptation analysis of Australian and CIMMYT/ICARDA wheat germplasm in
Australian production environments. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 51: 903-915.
[216]
Thakur, C. 1975. Scientific Crop Production. Metropolitan Book Company. PVT
Limited. New Delhi. 637pp.
Voltas, J., Van, E.F., Igartua, E., del Moral, L.F.G., Molina-Cano, J.L., Romagosa, I.
2002. Genotype by environment interaction and adaptation in barley breeding:
Basic concepts and methods of analysis, pp. 205-241. In G.A. Slafer, J.L. Molina-
Cano, R. Savin, J.L. Araus, I. Romagosa (eds). Barley Science: Recent advances
from molecular biology to agronomy of yield and quality. The Harworth Press Inc.,
New York.
Waghmode, B.D., M. R. Chavan, N.G. Sonone and S.G. Bhave. 2020. AMMI biplot
analysis for stability of grain yield and yield contributing traits in promising bio-
fortified red kernel genotypes of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol.
App. Sci. 9(03): 1820-1832.
Worede, F., T. Sreewongchai, C. Phumichai and P. Sripichitt. 2014. Multivariate analysis
of genetic diversity among some rice genotypes using morpho-agronomic traits.
Journal of plant sciences 9: 14-24.
Yan, W. and Rajcan I. 2002. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in
Ontario. Crop Science 42: 11-20.
Yan, W., L.A. Hunt, Q. Sheng and Z. Szlavnics. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega-
environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop Science 40:597-605.
Yan, W. and L.A. Hunt. 2001. Interpretation of genotype × environment interaction for
winter wheat yield in Ontario. Crop Sci. 41: 19-25.
Yan, W. and N.A. Tinker. 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data:
Principles and applications. Can. J. Plant Sci. 86: 623-645.
Yan, W., and M.S. Kang. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders,
geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Yoshida, S. 1981. Fundamentals of rice crop science. IRRI, Manila, Phillippines.
Zeng, Y., Y. Zhang, J. Xiang, N.T. Uphoff, X. Pan and D. Zhu. 2017. Effects of low
temperature stress on spikelet-related parameters during anthesis in indica–japonica
hybrid rice. Frontiers in Plant Science 8: 1350.
Zobel, R.W., M.J. Wright and H.G. Gauch. 1988. Statistical analysis of a yield trial.
Agron. J. 80: 388-393.
[217]
[218]
Genetic Diversity in Upland Rice Genotypes at Pawe,
Northwestern Ethiopia
Gedifew Gebrie 1, Desta Abebe 1, Mulugeta Atnaf 2,
Abebaw Dessie 2 and Desalegn Wondiferaw 1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Pawe Agricultural Research Center, Pawe, Ethiopia;
2
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center,
Fogera, Ethiopia
Abstract
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is becoming one of the important commodities in the
Ethiopian agriculture. Though it is imported recently, its production and
consumption are increasing upwards. However, the national average yield is low
compared to the world average. This could be associated with limited availability of
genetic variation, high yielding and disease tolerant upland rice varieties. The
objectives of the experiment, therefore, were to assess and determine the extent
and pattern of genetic diversity vested on the pool of introduced rice
germplasms for rain-fed upland ecosystems. For this experiment, ninety-seven
upland rice genotypes were introduced and evaluated for genetic diversity
among genotypes using augmented RCBD experimental design with a plot size
of 1.5m 2 with 3 rows per plot. Analysis of variance revealed the presence of
considerable amount of variability among the germplasms. Based on cluster
analysis, the germplasms were grouped into 12 clusters of which clusters VI was
the largest consisting of 20 germplasms followed by cluster X containing 17. While,
clusters IV and XII were the smallest with only a single germplasm each. The most
divergent clusters observed were among clusters II and XII (6239.47), while the
smallest inter cluster distance (53.06) was found among Clusters VI and VII.
Germplasms which fell-in into distant clusters and with high mean for grain yield
and other quantitative characters can be utilized for hybridization programme to
obtain elite segregants in the future rain-fed upland rice improvement.
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is a cereal commonly used as a staple food crop for a
significant part of human population. It provides 27% of the calories in the
world’s low and middle-income countries (Fukagawa and Ziska, 2019). The rice
production system is classified into lowland and upland rice. In lowland rice,
fields are usually flooded during part or all of the growing season; lowland rice
includes rain-fed lowland, irrigated lowland, deep-water and mangrove swamp
(Saito et al., 2013). Upland rice grows on level or sloping, unbunded fields and
flooding is rare in this system.
Rice is one of the most strategic crops in Africa, and particularly in Ethiopia
(Meron Abebe, 2016). Ethiopia is endowed with huge potential for both rain-
fed and irrigated rice production, there is a rapid increase in consumer demand
[219]
and low levels of domestic production (Dawit & John, 2020). Therefore,
systematic selection of appropriate rice technologies from other rice -
producing countries of the world and adapting them to Ethiopia conditions is
one means of solving such a problem which could be attributed to various
constraints in the rice production, processing and marketing subsectors. Thus,
appropriate interventions are necessary to tackle the expected constraints and
bring forward the rice commodity as one of the most important crops in the
Ethiopian farming system and economy. In line with this, the national rice
research program is developing and releasing significant number of improved
rice technologies such as improved varieties. However, still the current
national rice productivity of 3.15 tons per hectare (CSA, 2021) is low when
compared to both elsewhere in the world current rice productivity of 4.64 tons
per hectare (USDA/FAS, 2021) and the crop’s genetic potential. In an effort to
improve the productivity of rice, the national rice breeding program
introduced collections rice germplasms from external sources targeting for
high yield, tolerant for abiotic stresses, resistant to major diseases and for
other quality traits such as white seed color, long grain size and acceptable
amylose content. Furthermore, biotic production constraints such as sheath rot
and blast are significantly impacting rice productivity in the north western
parts of Ethiopia (Taye et al, 2019) including the area where this experiment
was conducted. Hence, variety development considering those attributes
related with consumer preference and different production constraints is
critical in the area.
Measuring the available genetic diversity is of utmost importance for effective

evaluation and utilization of germplasm (Syafii et al., 2015) to explore the
variability present in rice germplasms for identification of desirable
agronomic attributes (Bhattarai & Subudhi, 2019). Agronomic value of rice
variety depends on many characteristics (Regmi et al. 2002). The most important
features include high yielding ability, resistance to diseases and pests, resistance to
undesirable environmental factors, and high quality of the products. Genetic
diversity studies occupy an important position in breeding and improvement
program as they ensure efficient utilization of germplasm resources and effective
breeding system for the improvement of closely related crop species. Genetic
variation analysis helps breeders in observing germplasm as well as predicting
possible genetic potentials (Chakravarthi and Naravaneni, 2006). The
improvement of rice breeding plummeted progressively during the last ten years
due to the poor basis of the parent materials (Zhao et al., 2007). The research of
the rice genetic variety is essential for cultivars rating, identification, conservation,
and purity as well as breeding (Saini et al., 2004). Therefore, this research
activity was designed to assess and determine the extent and pattern of genetic
diversity vested on the pool of introduced rice germplasms in Pawe.
[220]
Description of Experimental Site

The experiment was conducted at Pawe under the upland-rain-fed ecosystem
during 2019/2020 main cropping season. Pawe Agricultural Research Center
(PARC) is found in Pawe district, Metekel zone, northwestern part of
Ethiopia, and about 575 km far away from the capital city of Addis Ababa.
The center is located at a 11°19’N latitude, 36°24'E longitude and at elevation
of 1120 meter above sea level. The area is characterized by hot to warm
moist conditions. The annual rainfall, mean annual minimum and maximum
temperatures are 1587mm, 16.3°C and 32.6°C, respectively (Gedifew & Tsige,
2019; Wasihun, 2007). The major soil type of the study site is well drained
Nitisol with the pH value ranging from 5.3 to 5.5.
Plant Materials
The experiment comprised of 100 upland rice genotypes with 3 standard
checks. The genotypes were introduced from IRRI and Africa Rice.
Descriptions of the materials are provided in Table 1.

The experiment was carried out under upland rain-fed conditions using
Augmented Randomized complete block design with a spacing between plots
and blocks of 0.5m and
[221]
Table 1: List of the upland rice genotypes used for the study
Genotype number Pedigree name Seed source
1 ART34-82-1-7N-1 FNRRTC
2 ART34-76-2-8D-2 FNRRTC
3 ART35-100-1-7D-1 FNRRTC
4 ART35-200-2-2-B-1 FNRRTC
5 ART34-86-2-1-B-1 FNRRTC
6 ART34-88-2-1-B-1 FNRRTC
7 ART34-113-3-2-B-1 FNRRTC
8 ART34-256-3-1-B-2 FNRRTC
9 ART35-159-1-2-B-1 FNRRTC
10 ART35-272-1-2-B-1 FNRRTC
11 ART27-58-7-1-2-2-2-2 FNRRTC
12 ART27-190-6-4-2-1-1 FNRRTC
13 ART27-58-7-2-2-3 FNRRTC
14 ART3-7L9P8-3-B-B-2-1 FNRRTC
15 ART27-58-8-1-2-3 FNRRTC
16 ART27-122-19-3-1-2-1-1 FNRRTC
17 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>181-9-13-2-M FNRRTC
18 ART27-122-19-3-1-2-1-1-M FNRRTC
19 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>181-9-1-3-2-M FNRRTC
20 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>46-M-3-4-3-2-M FNRRTC
21 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>487-1-6-2-3-3-M FNRRTC
22 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>82-3-1-1-3-1-M FNRRTC
23 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\2\1>94-1-1-2-1-3-M FNRRTC
24 PCT-11\0\0\2, Bo\3\1>1-M-3-1-2-M FNRRTC
25 PCT-4\0\0\1>295-2-3-1-2-4-M FNRRTC
26 PCT-4\0\0\1>295-2-6-1-3-2-M FNRRTC
27 PCT-4\SA\1\1, Bo\3\1>161-3-2-1-M FNRRTC
28 PCT-4\SA\5\1>1754-5-1-5-3-1-M FNRRTC
29 ARD2-3 FNRRTC
30 ARD3-1 FNRRTC
31 ARD3-2 FNRRTC
32 ARD3-5 FNRRTC
33 ARD3-8 FNRRTC
34 ARD3-9 FNRRTC
35 ARD4-3 FNRRTC
36 ARD5-1 FNRRTC
37 ARD5-2 FNRRTC
38 ARD5-3 FNRRTC
39 ARD5-4 FNRRTC
40 ARD5-5 FNRRTC
41 ARD5-7 FNRRTC
42 ARD5-8 FNRRTC
43 ARD5-9 FNRRTC
44 ARD5-10 FNRRTC
45 ARD5-12 FNRRTC
[222]
Table cont’d….
Genotype number Pedigree name Seed source

46 ARD5-13 FNRRTC
47 TP30567 FNRRTC
48 TP30569 FNRRTC
49 TP30570 FNRRTC
50 TP30531 FNRRTC
51 TP30572 FNRRTC
52 TP27626 FNRRTC
53 TP29785 FNRRTC
54 TP29784 FNRRTC
55 TP29788 FNRRTC
56 TP30573 FNRRTC
57 TP30574 FNRRTC
58 TP30575 FNRRTC
59 TP30576 FNRRTC
60 TP30577 FNRRTC
61 TP30244 FNRRTC
62 TP30243 FNRRTC
63 TP30578 FNRRTC
64 TP30579 FNRRTC
65 TP30580 FNRRTC
66 TP30457 FNRRTC
67 TP30458 FNRRTC
68 TP30581 FNRRTC
69 TP30583 FNRRTC
70 TP30584 FNRRTC
71 TP30585 FNRRTC
72 TP30586 FNRRTC
73 TP30587 FNRRTC
74 TP30589 FNRRTC
75 TP30590 FNRRTC
76 TP30592 FNRRTC
77 TP30593 FNRRTC
78 TP30594 FNRRTC
79 TP30595 FNRRTC
80 TP30596 FNRRTC
81 TP22966 FNRRTC
82 TP12158 FNRRTC
83 TP19122 FNRRTC
84 TP9897 FNRRTC
85 TP19187 FNRRTC
86 TP4748 FNRRTC
87 TP21016 FNRRTC
88 TP8396 FNRRTC
89 TP2315 FNRRTC
90 TP22968 FNRRTC
91 YAAS-U1 FNRRTC
92 YAAS-U2 FNRRTC
93 YAAS-U3 FNRRTC
94 YAAS-U4 FNRRTC
95 Adet-1 FNRRTC
96 NERCA-4 FNRRTC
97 Fogera-1 FNRRTC
[223]
1m, respectively. Inter-row spacing of 0.25m and a seed rate of 60 kg per
hectare was used. A plot size of 1.5m 2 with 3 rows per plot was used. Urea
and DAP fertilizers were applied at the rate of 100 kg and 124 kg,
respectively. Urea was applied in three splits (1/3 at planting, 1/3 at tillering
after first weeding and 1/3 at panicle initiation stages of the crop) while DAP
applied all at planting. Three to four times hand weeding and other agronomic and
plant protection management practices were applied uniformly across the plots for
the duration of the experiment.
Data Collection and Statistical Analysis

Data were collected on plot and plant basis following the appropriate
agronomic stages of the crop for each respective measured trait. Some
genotypes (3 genotypes) were failed to germinate and hence no measurement
was taken on plots which received those genotypes. Agronomic traits such as
days to 50% heading (DH), days to 85% maturity (DM), plant height (PH),
panicle length (PL), number of filled grains per panicle (NFG), number of
unfilled grains per panicle (NUFG), grain yield (GY) and 1000 seed weight
(TSW) were considered.
The data recorded from each plot for different traits were subjected to
univariate analyses (ANOVA) using SAS 9.4 statistical software (SAS
Institute, 2019) following the procedures designed by Federer (1956, 1961) for
augmented agricultural research design (Table 2) where the test of
significance was performed using Fisher's (F) test. R² as the coefficient of
determination was computed in order to explain how much of the variability
of the modeled variable has been explained by the explanatory variables.
Table 2: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for augmented design.
Source DF SS MS F-Value
Blocks b-1 ASSB MSSB MSSB/MSE
Treatments v-1 ASST
Among Tests* w-1 SST MSST MSST/MSE
Among Controls u-1 SSC MSSC MSSC/MSE
Test* Vs Controls 1 SSTC MSSTC MSSTC/MSE
Error n-v-b+1 SSE MSE
Corrected Total n-1 TSS
Note: b = total number of blocks; v = total number of treatments (total number of controls + total number tests); w
= total number of tests; u = total number of controls; n = total number of experimental units; Tests*=Test
genotypes
The variance components and genetic variability including broad sense

heritability (H) were estimated to determine the genetic and environmental
effects on the variability of the measured quantitative traits. The phenotypic
and genotypic variance were estimated from the expected mean squares using
the random model where the expected mean squares considered. Genotypic
[224]
variances (2g) among the treatments on their corresponding traits were estimated
according to Falconer (1981) as:
where:  is genotypic variance,

square of genotype, MSe is error mean square, and r is the
number of replications (number of blocks in this case) the treatments or controls in
this study.
Environmental variance (  ) = , and phenotypic variance (  ) =  + ( ) =

, where: (  is phenotypic variance.
In addition to estimating variability using phenotypic and genotypic variances,

phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation were also used based on the
Burton (1952) formula as:
√ √
and
Heritability in broad sense (H) for all the collected quantitative characters was
expressed as a percentage of the ratio of the genotypic variance (2g) to the
phenotypic variance (2p) and was estimated on the genotype mean base as
described by Allard (1960).

, Where: H is Heritability in broad sense,  is

genotypic variance,  is phenotypic variance.
Then clustering of genotypes was performed using the XLstat 2018(XLSTAT,

2018) by Agglomerative hierarchical clustering by following Euclidean Distance
and the distances (D2) for each pair of genotype combinations was computed by
using the following formula by (Sneath and Sokal, 1973).
√∑
Where, Dab= the distance between any two genotypes a and b, Xia and Xib=the
standardized value of character i for genotype a and b respectively, and n= the
number of characters used to calculate the distance.
[225]
The analysis of variance revealed a highly significant variation (P≤ 0.05)
among the tested genotypes for all agronomic traits (Table 3) indicating that
the presence of a genetic variability among the genotypes. The genotypes were
highly and significantly varied on their days to 85 % maturity (DM), number
of filled grains per a panicle (NFG), number of unfilled grains per a panicle
(NUFG), grain yield per hectare (GY) and 1000 seed weight (TSW).
Similarly, Girma et al. (2018) also reported significant differences among 64
rice genotypes on their days to heading, days to maturity, plant height and
grain yield. While emphasizing grain yield (GY) as the most preferable
quantitative trait, the model explains about 99% of the total variability among
the genotypes to their grain yield. The variability among the genotypes is very
highly significant (P≤0.001), whereas the variability among the blocks is less
significant (P≤ 0.044). The variability among the rice germplasms is also
highly significant (P≤0.001). This indicates that there exists an inherent genetic
difference among the germplasms. But the variability among genotypes versus
the controls is also significant (P≤ 0.04). The variation of the contrasting
analysis was strong implies that the tested genotypes had better performance than
the control which could be recommended for further breeding program.
Estimation of Variance Components and Genetic Variability

The variability parameters for eight quantitative traits were measured to
determine the patterns of genetic variation among the tested upland rice
genotypes (Table 4). The genetic variability present within the genotypes was
estimated from the range of values for phenotypic and genotypic coefficients
of variation (GCV & PCV) ranging from 5.38% for panicle length (PL) to
52.77% for number of unfilled grains per panicle (NUFG and from 6.12% for
days to 85% maturity (DM) to 58.98% for number of unfilled grains per
panicle (NUFG), respectively. Generally, the genotypic coefficient of
variation (GCV) was lower in magnitude than phenotypic coefficient of
variation (PCV) for all traits. If the PCV was higher than the GCV for the
traits, the traits will be highly influenced by environment and the reverse is
true (Hamidou, et al., 2018). Therefore, in this experiment the lower ratios of the
GCV to PCV for the collected data indicated that the significant variability on each
trait was more of due to environmental influence.
A higher GCV and PCV was recorded for number of unfilled grain/panicles,
thousand seed weight, grain yield, number of filled grain/panicles, plant
height and days to 50% heading, whereas the lower GCV and PCV was
recorded for days to 85% maturity and panicle length. Similar result was
obtained by Paswan et al. (2014).
[226]
Heritability Estimates
Although the genotypic coefficient of variation revealed the degree of genetic
variability present in the genotypes for various traits, it does not provide full
possibility to assess the heritable variation which is useful for permanent
genetic improvement (Jalal et al., 2011) and a high broad-sense heritability
(H) indicates less environmental influence in the observed variation showing
whether or not there is sufficient genetic variation in a population, which
implies whether or not a population will respond to selection pressure (Ene et
al., 2016).
A higher broad-sense heritability estimates were obtained for thousand seed

weight (92.72%), grain yield (87.35%), days to 85% maturity (81.81%),
number of unfilled grain/panicles (80.04 %) and number of filled
grain/panicles (78.14%), indicating that the observed genetic variation among
the tested genotypes were relatively more of genetic meaning that they were
less influenced by the environment. In a similar fashion, a high broad sense
heritability for number of filled grain/panicles and thousand seed weight was
reported by (Islam et al., 2016). El-Lattef et al. (2011) also reported a high
heritability in grain yield (86%) but in the contrast of this findings the author
reported the higher heritability in days to 50% heading (86%), Plant height
(91%), and a lower heritability in thousand seed weight (69%). Generally, the
value of heritability above 60% mostly grouped in the high heritable traits.
Therefore, most of the traits of the tested genotypes implies this high class
which helps the breeder for future breeding plan.
Table 3: Analysis of variance and Performance mean value for eight quantitative traits of the tested 97 upland rice genotypes
Mean Squares
Source of Variation DF
DH DM PH PL NFG NUFG TSW GY
Block (Eliminating
4 49.23* 56.10** 50.94* 9.56*** 236.26ns 2.93* 10.03* 393538.14**
treatment)
Treatment (Eliminating
96 96.28* 52.55*** 87.93* 1.36* 360.56* 11.09** 15.39* 854596.26***
block)
Among New Genotypes 53 100.36* 38.09** 68.28* 0.64* 394.64* 14.90*** 18.34** 905095.51***
Among Controls 3 129.33* 10.25* 32.25* 0.00ns 942.67* 12.25** 2.40ns 1602644.64***
New Genotypes Vs
1 117.53* 3.65ns 285.55** 0.06ns 1665.71** 22.77** 137.54*** 524761.30**
Controls
R2 0.96 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.92 0.98 0.97 0.99
CV (%) 7.57 2.38 7.29 3.81 20.46 28.54 9.97 7.86
Root MSE 7.12 3.11 6.25 0.80 21.53 1.71 2.62 311.28
Mean 94 130 85.75 20.97 105 6.00 26.26 3959.29
Note: DH-days to 50% heading, DM-days to 85% maturity PH-plant height(cm), PL-panicle length(cm), NFG-number of filled
grains per panicle, NUFG-number of unfilled grains per panicle; TSW-1000 seed weight(g), GY-grain yield(kg) per hectare,
MS-mean square of tests, MSE-Mean square of error, CV-coefficient of variation, MSE-mean square of error, R 2- R-squared
(percent of the total variability in the data pertaining to the corresponding quantitative trait), *,** and *** level of sign ificance at
0.05,0.01 and 0.001 probability level respectively.
[227]
Table 4: Analysis of variance, Performance means, Components of variance, Genetic variability and Heritability estimate
for eight quantitative traits collected from 97 upland Rice genotypes.
Genetic Variability
Component of variance
Traits Heritability
σ2g σ2p GCV PCV
Days to 50% heading 82.39 143.21 9.65 12.73 57.53
Days to 85% maturity 52.07 63.65 5.53 6.12 81.81
Plant height (cm) 79.64 126.54 10.41 13.12 62.94
Panicle length (cm) 1.27 2.04 5.38 6.81 62.46
No. filled grain/panicle 317.18 405.9 17.06 19.31 78.14
No. unfilled grain/panicle 10.02 12.52 52.77 58.98 80.04
Grain yield (kg/ha) 50174.9 57441.7 22.63 24.21 87.35
Thousand seed weight(g) 104.77 112.99 38.98 40.48 92.72
Note: σ2g -genotypic variance, σ2p – phenotypic variance, GCV - genotypic coefficient of variance and PCV – phenotypic
coefficient of variance.
Cluster Distances and Composition of the Rice Genotypes

Cluster analysis is very useful in revealing complex relationships among
populations of diverse origins in a more simplified manner (Soe et al., 2019).
Thus, the clustering analysis using Average Linkage Method with dissimilarity
matrix (Euclidean distance (D2)) was studied to re-check the presence of a genetic
diversity among 97 upland rice genotypes based on eight quantitative traits. The
D2 statistics is a numerical approach for measuring genetic divergence in the
germplasm collections. Ninety-seven rice germplasms were grouped into twelve
different clusters based on the inter se genetic distances (Table 6). The
composition of different clusters obtained from the D2 analysis has been presented
in the Table 5 which indicates the presence of considerably diverse material in the
set of rice germplasm, under this study. Detail insight into the diversity is
therefore, important in order to select the desirable genotypes to be utilized in the
breeding programs. Clustering pattern indicated that, three out of 97 germplasms
belong to the same cluster i.e., cluster I. On the other hand, 9 germplasms belong
to cluster II, 8 belong to cluster III, 12 belong to cluster V, 20 belong to cluster VI,
5 belong to cluster VII, 4 belong to cluster VIII, 6 belong to cluster IX, 17 belong
to cluster X, 11 belong to cluster XI while, cluster IV and XII contain one
germplasm each (Table 5). The highest intra-cluster distance was observed in the
cluster IX (2421611.2) which comprised of 6 germplasms followed by cluster VII
(1967952.5). The highest inter-cluster distance (6239.47) was found between
[228]
cluster II and XII indicating that, hybridization between the most diverse
genotypes would yield desirable segregants with the accumulation of favorable
genes in the segregating generations followed by, clusters X and XII (5253.22)
and clusters VIII and XII (4947.76). The smallest inter-cluster distance (53.06)
was observed between VI and VII followed by the clusters V and XI (78.61)
(Table 6 and Figure 1). Similar trends for results were observed by Devi et al.
(2015), Umesh et al. (2016) and Kumari et al. (2018).
Table 5: Grouping of 97 rice germplasm into eleven clusters.
Clusters Germplasms Number
I G1, G2, G23 3
II G3, G4, G5, G6, G7, G9, G10, G29, G30 9
III G8, G15, G16, G19, G22, G61, G85, G91 8
IV G11 1
V G12, G14, G17, G21, G24, G25, G26, G27, G28, G32, G40, G78 12
VI G13, G18, G20, G31, G33, G34, G35, G36, G37, G38, G39, G42, G43, G44, 20
G46, G56, G64, G95, G96, G97
VII G41, G45, G47, G48, G89 5
VIII G49, G50, G51, G52 4
IX G53, G55, G67, G86, G87, G88 6
X G54, G62, G63, G66, G68, G70, G71, G72, G73, G74, G75, G76, G77, G80, 17
G82, G83, G84
XI G57, G58, G59, G60, G65, G69, G79, G81, G90, G93, G94 11
XII G92 1
Cluster Mean for Different Quantitative Traits

Analysis of cluster means indicates existence of considerable differences in the
mean values of different traits (Table 7). The highest mean value of grain yield
was observed in clusters II, X, VIII and IV. Highest mean values for days to
maturity, plant height, panicle length, number of filled grain/panicle, number of
unfilled grain/panicle and thousand seed weight along with medium values for day
to heading were observed in cluster IV. Cluster IX exhibited highest mean values
for days to heading and days to maturity while that for panicle length, was
observed in cluster V, highest mean values for thousand seed weight was observed
in cluster VI. Thus, various traits contribute to the total divergence in cluster II, X,
IX, VIII, IV, V and VI, and the germplasms comprising these clusters seem to be
quiet promising, for many of the traits under this study. Kumari et al. (2018)
reported similar findings.
[229]
Dissimilarity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
180
160
G55
G87
G88
G53
G67
G86
G65
G57
G58
G69
G60
G79
G94
G59
G93
G81
G90
G52
G50
G49
G51
G84
G66
G63
G68
G62
G70
G54
G83
G73
G74
G75
G77
G72
Agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) (Number of classes = 12)
G82
G71
G76
G80
G92
G45
G47
G48
G41
G89
G26
G27
[230]
Figure 1: Cluster analysis of 97 germplasms of rain-fed upland rice based on the quantitative traits.
G14
G32
G12
Dendrogram
G17
G21
G40
G78
G25
G24
G28
G39
G13
G35
G20
G18
G38
G34
G37
G42
G96
G31
G44
G33
G36
G56
G64
G43
G46
G95
G97
G11
G9
G10
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G29
G30
G2
G1
G23
G22
G61
G8
G19
G91
G85
G15
G16
Table 6: Average intra (non-bold) and inter Cluster Distances D (bold one) value among 12 clusters.
Cluster I Cluster II Cluster III Cluster IV Cluster V Cluster VI Cluster VII Cluster VIII Cluster IX Cluster X Cluster XI Cluster XII
Cluster I 646039.3 4796.24 2184.48 3369.94 1791.87 2724.46 2679.87 3504.89 1276.09 3810.54 1717.18 1446.60
Cluster II 1494895.7 2611.81 1427.68 3005.14 2072.36 2118.09 1292.22 3521.14 986.69 3080.56 6239.47
Cluster III 796975.1 1186.54 394.70 540.75 498.10 1320.63 909.77 1626.18 470.85 3628.24
Cluster IV 0.00 1580.83 651.07 699.70 158.62 2096.14 449.11 1656.75 4814.46
Cluster V 953587.8 932.89 888.02 1713.64 516.64 2019.10 78.61 3234.40
Cluster VI 1396365.4 53.06 781.51 1449.21 1086.53 1008.52 4167.15
Cluster VII 1967952.5 827.32 1404.36 1132.01 963.26 4121.63
Cluster VIII 217027.2 2229.42 306.26 1788.79 4947.76
Cluster IX 2421611.2 2535.04 441.53 2718.82
Cluster X 494927.9 2094.25 5253.22
Cluster XI 797225.5 3159.04
Cluster XII 0.00
[231]
Table 7: Mean values of different characters of 97 rice germplasms grouped in twelve cluster
Number DH DM PH PL NFG NUFG TSW GY

Cluster I 103.33 134.67 104.33 22.80 155.67 11.33 21.67 3932.24
Cluster II 93.00 133.67 101.00 22.80 113.22 5.56 24.13 8728.28
Cluster III 98.63 136.38 93.83 22.30 132.63 6.50 24.85 6116.56
Cluster IV 97.00 143.00 114.00 22.80 172.00 27.00 28.90 7302.07
Cluster V 92.17 128.58 89.13 22.82 102.17 6.08 25.75 5723.19
Cluster VI 84.75 126.40 93.51 21.95 100.15 4.80 31.14 6656.02
Cluster VII 81.20 122.80 84.36 18.56 75.00 2.80 29.92 6610.67
Cluster VIII 118.00 131.25 76.40 20.95 103.00 9.50 27.03 7436.58
Cluster IX 109.50 145.50 82.10 19.83 110.33 4.33 22.47 5207.25
Cluster X 100.00 132.88 72.05 19.59 96.76 5.94 24.84 7742.18
Cluster XI 99.00 130.82 69.85 18.14 94.18 5.55 22.76 5647.94
Cluster XII 84.00 117.00 67.20 17.10 67.00 12.00 27.30 2489.10
Note: DH-days to heading, DM-days to maturity, PH-plant height, PL-panicle length, NFG-number of filled grains per panicle, NUFG-number of unfilled grains per panicle, TSW-thousand
seed weight in gram, GY-grain yield per hectare in kilogram.
[232]
Significant range of variations were evident among ninety-seven rain-fed upland
rice germplasms evaluated for the various agronomic traits measured. Genotypic
to phenotypic variance ratio for most studied traits were low indicating less
environmental effects in the expression of those traits. Higher heritability
estimates for thousand seed weight, grain yield, days to maturity, number of
unfilled and filled grain/panicles were observed. The ninety-seven rice
germplasms were grouped into twelve clusters which was in consonance with the
clustering pattern obtained by Mahalanobis D2 statistics. Parents for hybridization
program could be selected on the basis of magnitude of genetic distance,
contribution of different characters towards the total divergence and magnitude of
cluster means for different characters performance having maximum heterosis.
Hence, germplasms that were grouped in clusters II and XII, X and XII, VIII and
XII can be considered as potential parents.
References
Allard, R.W. (1960). Principles of plant breeding. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Bhattarai, U. and Subudhi, P. K. (2019). Genetic Diversity, Population Structure, and
Marker-Trait Association for Drought Tolerance in US Rice Germplasm.
Plants. doi:10.3390/plants8120530
Burton G.A. (1952). Estimating Heritability in tall fescu (Festuca arundincea) from
replicated clonal material. J. Agro. 45:481-487.
Chakravarthi, B. K. and Naravaneni, R. (2006). SSR marker -based DNA
fingerprinting and diversity study in rice (Oryza sativa L.). African Journal of
Biotechnology, 5(9), 684–688.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). (2021). The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey 2020/21.
Statistical report, The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopian Central
Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa. Retrieved Jun 01, 2021, from
https://www.statsethiopia.gov.et/wp
Dawit, A., and John, T. (2020). The emerging importance of rice as a strategic crop
in Ethiopia. Agricultural policy research in Africa. Retrieved 2021, from
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/
Devi, G.N., Ravindrababu, V.R., Padmavathi, G. and Sunitha, T. (2015). Genetic
diversity in grain quality traits of rice genotypes. Journal of Rice Research, 8(1): 6-
14.
El-Lattef, A., M., A. S., El-Saidy, A. E., El-Kallawy, W. H., & Mady, A. A. (2011).
Evaluation of some Rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes under water stress
conditions. J. Plant Production, 2(2), 307-326.
Ene, C. O., Ogbonna, P. E., Agbo, C. U., and Chukwudi, U. P. (2016). Studies of
phenotypic and genotypic variation in sixteen cucumber genotypes. Chelean
[233]
Journal of Agricultural Research, 76(3), 3017-313. doi:10.4067/S0718-
58392016000300007.
Falconer D.S. (1981). Introduction to quantitative Genetics. 2 nd Edition. Longman
Inc., New York.
Federer, W.T. (1956). “Augmented (or Hoonuiaku) Designs.” Technical Report BU-
74-M, Cornell University, New York.
Federer, W.T. (1961). “Augmented designs with one-way elimination of
heterogeneity.” Biometrics, 17(3), 447–473.
Fukagawa, N.K. and Ziska, L.H. (2019). Rice: Importance for Global Nutrition. Journal
of nutritional science Vitamin ology. Volume 65 Issue Supplement, Pages S2-S3.
DOI https://doi.org/10.3177/jnsv.65.S2.
Gedifew, G., and Tsige, G. (2019). Morphological Characterization and Evaluation
of Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] Landraces in Benishangul Gumuz,
North-western Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(1), 37-56.
doi:10.15580/GJAS.2019.1.123118187.
Girma, B.T., Kitil, M.A., Banje, D.G., Biru, H.M., and Serbessa, T.B. (2018).
Genetic Variability Study of Yield and Yield Related Traits in Rice ( Oryza
sativa L.) Genotypes. Adv Crop Sci Tech 6: 381. doi:10.4172/2329-
8863.1000381.
Islam, M. Z., Khalequzzaman, M., Bashar, M. K., and Ivy, N. A. (2016). Variability
Assessment of Aromatic and Fine Rice Germplasm in Bangladesh Based on
Quantitative Traits. The Scientific World Journal, 1-14.
doi:10.1155/2016/2796720
Jalal A., Al-Tabal, Ahmad H. and AL-Fraihat. (2011). Genetic variation, Heritability,
phenotypic and Genotypic Correlation studies for yield and yield components
in promising Barley Genotypes. Journal of Agricultural Science. 4(3):193-210.
Meron Abebe. (2016). The Contributions and Challenges of Rice Value Chain
Development on the Livelihood of Small Holder Rice.
Paswan, S. K., Sharma, V., Singh, V. K., Ahmad, A., and Deepak. (2014). Genetic
Variability Studies for Yield and Related Attributes in RiceGenotypes (Oryza
sativa L.). Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 5(4), 750-752. doi:1751-
2603-2014-193.
Regmi, R. P., Ladha, J. K. and Pasuquin, E. et al. (2002). “The role of potassium in
sustaining yields in a long-term rice-wheat experiment in the Indo-Gangetic Plains
of Nepal,” Biology and Fertility of Soils, 36(3), 240–247.
SAS Institute Inc. (2015). SAS Software. Version 15.1. Cary, NC 27513 -2414
Saini, N., Jain, N., Jain, S. and Jain, R. K. (2004). Assessment of genetic diversity within
and among Basmati and non-Basmati rice varieties using AFLP, ISSR and SSR
markers. Euphytica, 140(3),133–146.
Saito, K., Nelson, A., Zwart, S.J., Niang, A., Sow, A., Yoshida, H. and Wopereis, M.C.Ss.
(2013). Towards a better understanding of biophysical determinants of yield gaps
and the potential for expansion of the rice area in Africa In M. C. S. Wopereis, D.
E. Johnson, N. Ahmadi, E. Tollens, and Jalloh A. (eds.). Realizing Africa’s rice
promise. CAB International, 188–203.
Sanju Kumari, Singh P.K., Bisen P., Bapsila Loitongbam, Rai V.P. and Sinha B. (2018).
Genetic Diversity Analysis of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Germplasm through
[234]
Morphological Markers. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and
Biotechnology, Citation: IJAEB: pp. 953-957.
Sneath, P.H. and Sokal, R.R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of
numerical classification.
Syafii, M., Cartika, and Ruswandi. (2015). Multivariate Analysis of Genetic
Diversity among some Maize Genotypes under Maize-Albizia Cropping System
in Indonesia. Asian Journal of Crop Science, 7(4), 244-255. doi:
10.3923/ajcs.2015.244.255
Taye Tadesse, Mulugeta Atnaf, Dawit Alemu, Tilahun Tadesse, and Kiyoshi
Shiratori (eds). (2019). Advances in Rice Research and Development in
Ethiopia. ISBN:9789994466641. http://publication.eiar.gov.et
Umesh Jaiswal, H.K., Sravan, T. and Waza, S.A. (2016). Genetic divergence analysis for
yield & quality traits in some indigenous genotypes of basmati rice (Oryza sativa
L.). Green Farming, 7(2): 345-348.
USDA/FAS. (2021). World Agricultural Production. United States department of
Agriculture. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/production
Wasihun Legesse. (2007). Agro-morphological characterization of Sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench Landraces from Metekel area, MSc Thesis.
Hawasa University, Ethiopia. 104pp.
Zhao, X., Wang, Liu, J. and Duan, D. (2007). Population genetic structure of Sargassum
thunbergii (Fucales, Phaeophyta) detected by RAPD and ISSR markers. Journal of
Applied Phycology, 19(5), 409–416.
[235]
Analysis of Genotype-by-Environment Interactions
in a Multi-Environment Trials of Kabuli - Type
Chickpea Genotypes in Ethiopia
Lijalem Korbu1, Assefa Funga1, Nigusie Girma1, Million Eshete1, Fasil Hailu1,
Amin Fedulu1, Genet Mengistu1 and Redwan Mohammad1, Dagnachew Bekele1,
Genet Mengistu1, Abebe H2, Awol Muhamed3, Niguse Kefelegn4,
Tadele Tadesse5, Yasin Goa6 and Asnake Fikre1*
1
Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center (DZARC) of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
(EIAR), Bishoftu, Ethiopia,2 Gonder Agricultural Research Center, Gonder,3Sirinka Agricultural Research
Center, Woldya, 4Debre Birhan agricultural research center, Debre Birhan, 5sinana Agricultural Research
Center, Robe, 6Areka Agricultural Research Center, Sodo; E-mail: Fikreasnake@yahoo.com
Abstract
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the world’s second most important food legume
crops. In Ethiopia, chickpea is grown during the post-rainy season commonly on
residual moisture. The crop is playing an important role in nutritional
supplementation for the resource-poor societies. Currently, the kabuli-type chickpea
is particularly dominating the local as well as export markets and becoming an
important source of income for farmers. Agro-climatic variation results in high
genotype-by-environment (GxE) interaction in multi-location trials, and the lack of
understanding of the underlying causes of such interactions impedes the breeding
progress of developing adaptive genotypes. In the present study, R package-based
GGE biplot model is employed to assess the most representative growing
environments for Kabuli-type chickpeas. The model would also help to identify
superior and stable genotype within the varying production environments in multi-
location research trails. A factor analytic model fitted to the pattern of GxE across
set of experiments explained 79.12% of variations for grain yield. The dendrogram
generated using REML estimates resulted in two major environmental clusters at 0.5
a cut-off height, where AR17 (E3) and JR17 (E11) sites can be considered as outliers
due to high seasonal variation of the cropping season. This result was further
confirmed by the heat map plot (correlation matrix). Yield ranged from 0.34 to 4.05 t
ha-1. The highest grain yield of ~4 t ha-1 was obtained cultivar Ejere at E11 (Jari
2017) while the least grain yield was obtained from the line DZ-2012-CK-0259 at E8
(Debre Zeit 2017). All the released cultivars (checks) gave the highest across
environment mean grain yield. Among the advanced breeding line DZ-2012-CK-
0272 gave the highest grain yield (3.95 t ha -1) at E2 (Akaki 2017) followed by DZ-
2012-CK-0281 (3.91 t ha-1) were selected as best candidates to be promoted to
varietal verification in the upcoming seasons.
Introduction
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the world’s second most important food legume
crop grown on low input marginal lands and represents an important component of
the subsistence farming (Varshney et al. 2014). It is mostly grown on residual
moisture from monsoon rains on the Indian subcontinent and semi-arid regions of
[237]
Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Varshney et al. 2014). Globally, chickpea is cultivated
on an area of 17.85 million hectares with an annual production over 17 million
tons (FAOSTAT 2018; FAO, 2018). Among chickpea growing countries, India
alone contributes about 70% of the world’s total production (Korbu et al. 2020).
Chickpea is mostly grown in the dry (arid and semi-arid) areas, and is regarded as
drought tolerant crop (Kanouni et al. 2012; Kumar et al. 2018; Varshney et al.
2014) owing to its long and deep root system.
Ethiopia is the leading chickpea producer in Africa, producing more than 500
thousand metric tons per year from an area of ~243,000 hectares of smallholder
farms (CSA, 2018; FAO, 2018), accounting for over 90% of grain production in
SSA (Verkaart et al., 2017; Fikre et al. 2018). Currently, the average national
yield is over 2 t ha-1, which is much higher than the global average (Korbu et al.
2016). In Ethiopia, chickpea is playing an important role in nutritional
supplementation for the resource-poor farming communities. Both chickpea types,
the desi and the kabuli, are commonly grown in the country; the kabuli-types are
currently dominating the local as well as export markets becoming an important
source of income for farmers. The crop grows on residual moisture for the entire
growth periods, and hence moisture stressis commonly can occur at any stage of
the crop growth (Korbu et al. 2020). Particularly, severe moisture stress leads to
significant yield reduction, especially when it occurs during the reproductive and
grain filling phases (Nadeem et al. 2019; Samarah et al. 2009; Vadez et al. 2012).
This is especially of particular concern in view of the current global agro-climatic
variation (Morton 2007).
Climatic variability is becoming a major concern in Ethiopia because of its

potential adverse effects on the agricultural sector (Amare and Simane 2017)
given the country’s dependence on agricultural production. Climate change is
mainly manifested through rainfall inconsistency and temperature increment,
which have an overwhelming impact on smallholders’ crop productivity. Recent
reports indicated that the annual average minimum temperature in Ethiopia has
shown an increasing trend of 0.2 oC every decade, and there have been heavy
droughts in the last 50 years leading to major agricultural losses (EPCC, 2015;
Mamo et al. 2013). The majority of Ethiopian smallholder farmers are entirely
dependent on rain fed agriculture, which is highly vulnerable to temporal and
spatial climate variability. Agro-climatic variation also results in high genotype-
by-environment (GxE) interactions in multi-location trials (Chapman 2008).
The lack of understanding of the underlying causes of such interactions impedes

the breeding progress to develop better adapted genotypes in a given growing
environment. Despite the ever-increasing agro-climatic changes in Ethiopia,
information about environmental variation in relation to crop performance are
largely lacking. Recently, Korbu et al. (2020) reported that there is huge gap
[238]
between actually achieved and potential yield of chickpea in Ethiopia due mainly
to environmental variations. Therefore, characterization of production
environments and the assessment of crop response to varying environmental cues
is highly relevant to crop improvement and to design copping strategies. In the
present study, R package based GGE biplot model is employed to fill the
aforementioned gaps in multi-location research activities. The study was aimed to
characterize chickpea testing sites thereby determine representative production
environments targeting Kabuli-type chickpea cultivars to identify superior and
stable genotypes across varying growing environments.

Plant materials
A study was carried out by using germplasm of different genetic background to
determine their level of GxE in their biological yield responses. A total of 37
kabuli (macrosperma) type chickpea genotypes comprising advanced breeding
lines (n = 33) and released cultivars (n = 4) included as checks were evaluated
under series of multi-environment trails called Kabuli Chickpea Preliminary
Varity Trial (CKPVT) and Kabuli Chickpea National Varity Trial (CKNVT)
(Table 1) at potential growing environments. The trials were conducted under on-
station field conditions over three seasons between 2016 and 2018 at nine national
testing sites resulting in 14 environments. Randomized complete block design
with three and four replications for PVT and NVT was used, respectively. Each
genotype was planted in 30 cm by 10 cminter and intra row spacings. The
experiments were conducted entirely under rainfed conditions.
[239]
Table 1. List of genotypes used in the experiment across sites over three consecutive years (2016- 2018)
GID* Entry GID Entry

1 DZ-10-4 20 DZ-2012-CK-0274
2 DZ-2012-CK-0242 21 DZ-2012-CK-0275
3 DZ-2012-CK-0243 22 DZ-2012-CK-0276
4 DZ-2012-CK-0244 23 DZ-2012-CK-0277
5 DZ-2012-CK-0259 24 DZ-2012-CK-0278
6 DZ-2012-CK-0260 25 DZ-2012-CK-0279
7 DZ-2012-CK-0261 26 DZ-2012-CK-0280
8 DZ-2012-CK-0262 27 DZ-2012-CK-0281
9 DZ-2012-CK-0263 28 DZ-2012-CK-0282
10 DZ-2012-CK-0264 29 DZ-2012-CK-0283
11 DZ-2012-CK-0265 30 DZ-2012-CK-0284
12 DZ-2012-CK-0266 31 DZ-2012-CK-0285
13 DZ-2012-CK-0267 32 DZ-2012-CK-0286
14 DZ-2012-CK-0268 33 DZ-2012-CK-0287
15 DZ-2012-CK-0269 34 DZ-2012-CK-0288
16 DZ-2012-CK-0270 35 Ejere
17 DZ-2012-CK-0271 36 HORA
18 DZ-2012-CK-0272 37 Teji
19 DZ-2012-CK-0273
*GID = Genotype identification number of the study materials.
Description of experimental sites

The experimental sites of the study were located in the Central, Southern and
Northwestern regions of the country covering (chickpeas potential growing
agroecologies in Ethiopia) – from mid altitude at 1885 meters (Debre Zeit) to
extreme highland at about 2670 meters (Enewari) growing agro-ecologies. The
high environmental gradient of increasing altitude as we move to the highlands
and decreasing temperatures could result in a wide range of agro-ecological
conditions (Fikre et al. 2018). The physical settings (topography and elevation)
mainly influence the amount and distribution of rainfall received in the main
cropping season. Mean annual rainfalls are between 1000 and 1450 mm (Table 1),
and mean annual temperatures also ranged from 7 to 28 ◦C. Crop production in all
study areas is dominate by small-scale farmers predominantly rainfed dependent
system.
Statistical analysis
A Multi-environment trial (MET) data analysis was undertaken across the set of
14 environments described above for the two seasons. A factor analytic model was
fitted to the pattern of G x E interaction using R package-based
ASReml-Rsoftware package , and predicted grain yield (t ha-1) values for all
genotypes under evaluation were obtained using the notation of Beeck et al.
(2010) the model for genotype i at environment j is given by:
usij = sj1fsi1 + sj2fsi2 + … + sjkfsik+ sij
[240]
where usij is the genetic effect (additive (s = a), non-additive (s = â), or total (s = g)
if we are ignoring pedigrees), sjr is the loading for environment j in factor r,( j
=l...t, r = 1...ks), fsir is the score for variety i(i =l...m) in factor r, sij is the lack of
fit effect, and ks is the order of the FA model. This model, therefore, represents a
regression of GE effects on environment loadings (unknown covariates) with
different slopes (scores) for each variety. On the other hand, GGE biplots were
generated using the first two principal components, PC1 and PC2. The genotypes
were represented on the biplots as the points derived from their scores for the first
two components, and the environments as the vectors from the biplot origin to
their points. The cosine of angle between a pair of environment vectors
approximates correlation between them (Yan and Kang 2003). An acute angle
(<90o) indicates a strong positive correlation and an angle close to 90o indicates
the environments are not correlated, whereas an obtuse angle close to 180o
represents a strong negative relationship (Kroonenberg 1995). These graphic
analyses were done using R GGEBiplotGUI package of version 1.0.9 as illustrated
by Frutos et al. (2014).

A factor analytic model fitted to the pattern of genotype by environment across set
of experiments explained 79.12% of variation at an FA-2 for yield. Summary of
the REML estimates of the total variance accounted for (%VAF) grain yield
presented in Table 2. These results demonstrated the presence of the complex
nature of cross-over of GxE interaction for yield. The FA-2 model provides a
satisfactory fit for most test environments except for E3 (Arsi Robe 2017) and E11
(Jari 2017), indicating that they were negatively correlated with the majority of the
test environments during 2017 cropping season. This may further suggest that
these two testing sites (Arsi Robe and Jari) are out of the normal chickpea growing
environments in Ethiopia. Similarly, E11 (Jari 2017) had negative correlation with
E1 (Akaki 2016) and E8 (Debre Zeit 2017)) environments, and no relationship
with E10 (Enewari 2017) and E13 (Kokate 2018).
[241]
Table 2. Precent of variations explained by the model for the MET based on yield response of 37 kabuli chickpea
genotypes
Trial* Environment code Fac_1 Fac_2 All
AK16 E1 16.73 83.27 100.00
AK17 E2 92.30 1.68 93.98
AR17 E3 55.39 44.61 99.99
CD16 E4 65.11 2.85 67.96
CD17 E5 53.32 0.72 54.04
DL18 E6 98.66 1.34 100.00
DZ16 E7 74.20 0.12 74.33
DZ17 E8 7.62 92.38 100.00
DZ18 E9 81.32 18.68 100.00
EN17 E10 42.68 23.85 66.53
JR17 E11 34.16 65.84 100.00
JR18 E12 80.11 2.79 82.90
KK18 E13 71.25 26.88 98.14
SN18 E14 36.70 0.79 37.49
Cumulative - - - 79.12
*Ak16 & AK17 (Akaki 2016 & 2017); AR17 (Arsi Robe 2017); CD16 & CD17 (Chefe Donsa 2016 & 2017);
DL18 (Delgi 2018); DZ16, DZ17 & DZ18 (Debre Zeit 2016, 2017 & 2018); EN17 (Enewari 2017); JR17 &
JR18 (Jari 2017 & 2018); KK18 (Kokate 2018), and SN18 (Sinana 2018).
The dendrogram was generated using REML estimates to visualize the

correlation/dissimilarity matrix between test environments (Fig. 1A) as the
similarity measure using the total effect. Two clusters were formed at a cut-off
about 0.5 height of the dendrogram where AR17 (E3) and JR17 (E11) sites can be
considered as outliers due to high seasonal variation in climatic conditions of the
cropping season (2017). The heat map plot to provide further evidence that the
clusters suggested from the dendrogram appeared to describe the pattern of cross-
over GxE (depicted in Fig. 1B).
B
A
Figure 1 Dendrogram of the dissimilarity matrix of the additive effects (A) and heat map (B) for grain yield.
[242]
An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling GxE interaction in
measuring the performance of the trials in which 37 Kabuli-type genotypes were
tested across 14 environments presented based on earlier suggestions (Yan and
Tinker, 2006; Frutos et al., 2014). Mean grain yield ranged from 0.34 to 4.05 t ha-
1
. The highest grain yield (4.05 t ha-1) was obtained from the check cultivar, Ejere
at E11 (Jari site during 2017 season) while the least grain yield was obtained from
the line, DZ-2012-CK-0259 at E8 (Debre Zeit site during 2017 season) (Table 3).
Interestingly, all the released cultivars (checks) gave the highest across
environment mean grain yield, and as expected the oldest cultivar, DZ-10-4
(representing farmer’s cultivar) gave the least mean grain yield (data not shown).
This shows that the improved cultivars have shown better performance stability
over the range of growing environments, which further proves varietal selection
efficiency in the breeding program.
Among the advanced lines, DZ-2012-CK-0272 gave the highest grain yield (3.95 t
ha-1) at E2 (Akaki during 2017 season) followed by DZ-2012-CK-0281, which
gave 3.91 t ha-1 (Table 3). These two lines have comparable overall performance
where DZ-2012-CK-0281 gave slightly more mean grain yield than DZ-2012-CK-
0272 across test environments. Overall, the two genotypes gave 39% and 37%
yield advantages over the local check, and 16.4% and 14.5% yield advantage over
the recently released check variety Hora, respectively. Hence, they are identified
as best performers – potential candidates for varietal verification trails under
representative sites in the upcoming cropping seasons.
[243]
Table 3 Mean grain yield (t ha–1) of 37 kabuli chickpea genotypes tested across 14 environments over three cropping seasons from 2016 to 2018 GC
Environment
E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14
Entry E1 AK17 AR17 CD16 CD17 DL18 DZ16 DZ17 DZ18 EN17 JR17 JR18 KK18 SN18
AK16
DZ-10-4 2.13 3.27 2.37 1.32 1.59 1.18 1.43 0.53 1.74 0.87 3.82 1.29 1.22 2.38
DZ-2012-CK-0242 3.25 3.47 2.20 1.86 2.46 1.33 1.12 1.01 1.21 1.24 3.43 1.07 1.59 2.82
DZ-2012-CK-0243 2.96 3.44 2.25 2.06 2.20 1.30 1.25 0.88 1.36 1.12 3.54 1.08 1.50 2.68
DZ-2012-CK-0244 2.82 3.35 2.27 1.77 2.30 1.23 0.83 0.83 1.27 1.07 3.54 1.02 1.42 2.78
DZ-2012-CK-0259 1.68 3.20 2.43 1.02 2.26 1.12 1.47 0.34 1.94 0.60 3.98 1.02 1.06 2.91
DZ-2012-CK-0260 2.16 3.13 2.38 1.09 2.00 1.05 0.64 0.56 1.29 0.80 3.69 0.90 1.14 2.71
DZ-2012-CK-0261 2.14 2.97 2.41 0.69 1.77 0.92 0.19 0.57 0.86 0.72 3.58 0.68 1.04 2.59
DZ-2012-CK-0262 2.70 3.02 2.33 0.70 1.74 0.97 0.37 0.81 0.53 0.85 3.37 0.65 1.22 2.60
DZ-2012-CK-0263 1.90 3.16 2.41 0.90 2.26 1.10 0.63 0.44 1.68 0.80 3.85 1.14 1.10 2.91
DZ-2012-CK-0264 2.81 3.75 2.21 2.57 3.09 1.59 2.04 0.78 2.46 1.19 3.87 1.56 1.66 3.33
DZ-2012-CK-0265 2.46 3.54 2.29 2.21 2.59 1.40 1.63 0.65 2.16 1.06 3.86 1.40 1.44 2.97
DZ-2012-CK-0266 3.19 3.44 2.22 1.90 2.40 1.30 1.42 0.98 1.19 1.12 3.44 0.94 1.57 2.74
DZ-2012-CK-0267 3.21 3.65 2.18 2.30 2.88 1.49 1.55 0.97 1.77 1.30 3.60 1.38 1.69 3.02
DZ-2012-CK-0268 2.93 3.86 2.19 2.92 3.05 1.68 2.43 0.82 2.63 1.32 3.89 1.73 1.74 3.15
DZ-2012-CK-0269 2.62 3.64 2.26 1.83 3.07 1.46 1.10 0.71 2.20 1.04 3.84 1.51 1.52 3.03
DZ-2012-CK-0270 2.77 3.23 2.30 1.04 1.98 1.12 0.77 0.82 0.95 1.10 3.47 0.83 1.33 2.59
DZ-2012-CK-0271 2.83 3.34 2.27 1.42 2.47 1.22 1.15 0.83 1.24 1.17 3.53 0.83 1.41 2.67
DZ-2012-CK-0272 3.19 3.95 2.14 2.87 2.73 1.74 2.18 0.93 2.61 1.40 3.83 1.83 1.85 3.16
DZ-2012-CK-0273 2.62 3.27 2.31 1.61 2.18 1.16 0.68 0.75 1.24 0.98 3.58 0.96 1.33 2.75
DZ-2012-CK-0274 2.86 3.53 2.24 2.09 3.03 1.40 1.35 0.82 1.78 1.12 3.67 1.43 1.53 2.88
DZ-2012-CK-0275 2.74 3.70 2.23 2.15 2.82 1.54 2.31 0.75 2.35 1.20 3.86 1.56 1.60 3.06
DZ-2012-CK-0276 2.98 3.34 2.25 2.05 2.72 1.23 1.34 0.90 1.13 1.11 3.47 1.01 1.46 3.04
DZ-2012-CK-0277 2.75 3.56 2.25 1.96 2.61 1.42 1.76 0.77 1.94 1.14 3.74 1.35 1.52 2.95
DZ-2012-CK-0278 2.32 3.24 2.35 1.55 2.06 1.12 0.59 0.62 1.38 0.78 3.68 1.01 1.23 2.85
DZ-2012-CK-0279 2.13 3.27 2.37 1.96 2.20 1.17 0.69 0.53 1.70 0.85 3.81 1.10 1.21 2.81
DZ-2012-CK-0280 2.31 3.33 2.34 2.12 1.86 1.20 1.13 0.60 1.63 0.91 3.75 0.97 1.26 2.96
DZ-2012-CK-0281 2.86 3.91 2.19 2.82 3.11 1.71 2.74 0.78 2.81 1.32 3.96 1.81 1.75 3.19
DZ-2012-CK-0282 3.10 3.74 2.18 2.33 2.86 1.56 2.15 0.91 2.10 1.31 3.71 1.50 1.71 3.04
DZ-2012-CK-0283 3.08 3.57 2.21 2.38 2.62 1.42 1.34 0.92 1.66 1.24 3.59 1.27 1.61 2.92
[244]
DZ-2012-CK-0284 2.76 3.72 2.23 2.40 2.84 1.56 2.21 0.76 2.38 1.22 3.86 1.58 1.62 3.07
DZ-2012-CK-0285 2.80 3.58 2.24 2.04 2.64 1.43 1.77 0.79 1.95 1.17 3.73 1.36 1.55 2.96
DZ-2012-CK-0286 2.97 3.86 2.18 2.82 3.05 1.68 2.48 0.84 2.59 1.33 3.87 1.72 1.75 3.15
DZ-2012-CK-0287 2.68 3.64 2.25 1.99 2.78 1.49 2.19 0.73 2.26 1.41 3.84 1.42 1.55 2.85
DZ-2012-CK-0288 2.53 3.67 2.26 2.30 2.77 1.51 2.15 0.66 2.45 1.13 3.93 1.57 1.53 3.06
Ejere 2.54 3.83 2.24 2.62 3.01 1.65 2.68 0.65 2.89 1.21 4.05 1.79 1.62 3.18
Hora 3.24 3.58 2.19 2.16 2.49 1.43 1.57 0.99 1.56 1.38 3.53 1.33 1.66 2.93
Teji 2.83 3.69 2.22 1.91 2.80 1.53 2.37 0.79 2.23 1.22 3.80 1.51 1.62 3.04
E1 (Akaki 2016), E2 (Akaki 2017), E3 (Arsi Robe 2017), E4 (Chefe 2017), E5 (Chefe 2016), E5 (Chefe 2018), E6 (Delgi 2018), E7 (Debre Zeit 2016), E8 (Debre Zeit 2017), E9 (Debre Zeit
2018), E10 (Enewari 2017), E11 (Jari 2017), E12 (Jari 2018), E13 (Kokate 2018), E14 (Sinana 2018).
[245]
Analysis of test environments
Performance of a given genotype is largely determined by the impacts of its
growing environment. Better understanding of production environmental
characteristics is increasingly important for cultivar development fitting to specific
growing conditions. The GGE biplot based on the yield data was analyzed using
on R software (Table 3). In evaluating relationships among test environments, the
environment-vector views of the GGE biplot for the data in Table 3 were used. It
is based on an environment-centered (centering = 2) GE table without any scaling
(scaling = 0), and it is environment-metric preserving (SVP = 2) and its axes are
drawn to scale (default feature of GGE biplot) as described by Frutos, et al.
(2014). This biplot explained 92% of total variation of the environment-centered
GE Table. Assuming that it adequately approximates the environment centered
two-way Table (Fig. 2). The lines that connect the test environments to the biplot
origin are called environment vectors, and the cosine of the angle between two
vectors approximates the correlation between the two environments
(Kroonenberg, 1995). Except for E3 (Arsi Robe 2017), all of the test environments
fall on the first and fourth quadrants of the GGE Biplot while genotypes were
randomly distributed in all quadrants (Fig. 2). The largest angle (> 90o) was
formed between E3 (Arsi Robe 2017) and E8 (Debre Zeit 2017), implying that the
GE is moderately larger. Interestingly, the majority of test environments had
angles less than 90°, implying strong positive correlation among the environments.
The presence of close associations among test environments suggests that the
same information about a given genotype could be obtained from fewer test
environments, which can substantially reduce costs of conducting MET activities.
If two test environments are closely correlated consistently across years, one of
them can be dropped without significant reduction of genotypic information (Yan
and Tinker 2006). The present study revealed that some of the test environments
(e.g. Akaki, Chefe Donsa and Delgi) showed redundancy that could be dropped
from the MET research activities.
[246]
GGE Biplot
E1
2
2
12
36
22 2913
1
16 174 E8
20
8
AXIS2 16 %
3 28
E10
E1318 E5
19 E4
31 E6E2
0
23 10
E14 32
26 37 14
E3 15 2130 E12 E7
7 27
24 33
6 11
34
-1
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 2 The environment-vector view of the GGE biplot to show similarities among the 14 test environments. Where: E1
(Akaki 2016), E2 (Akaki 2017), E3 (Arsi Robe 2017), E4 (Chefe 2017), E5 (Chefe 2016), E5 (Chefe 2018), E6
(Delgi 2018), E7 (Debre Zeit 2016), E8 (Debre Zeit 2017), E9 (Debre Zeit 2018), E10 (Enewari 2017), E11
(Jari 2017), E12 (Jari 2018), E13 (Kokate 2018), E14 (Sinana 2018).
The discriminating ability of test environments is shown in Fig. 3. The concentric

circles on the Biplot help to visualize the length of the environment vectors, which
is proportional to the standard deviation within the respective environments and is
a measure of the discriminating power of a given environment (Yan and Tinker
2006). Therefore, among the 14 environments, E5 (Chefe 2016), E7 (Debre Zeit
2016) , E9 (Debre Zeit 2018) and E1 (Akaki 2016) were the most discriminating
environments in that order for Kabuli chickpea genotypes tested while E3 (Arsi
Robe) is the least discriminating environment followed by E14 (Sinana) (Fig. 3).
[247]
Discrimitiveness vs. representativenss
E1
2 2
12
36
22 2913
1
16 174 E8
20
8
AXIS2 16 %
3 28
E10
E1318 E5
19 E4
31 E6E2
0
23 10 32
26 37 E14 14
E3 15 2130 E7
7
24 27E12
6 33
11
34
-1
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 3 The discrimination and representativeness view of the GGE biplot.
\Regarding representativeness of the test environments, Yan and Tinker (2006)

stated that the average environment represented by the small circle at the end of
the arrow has the average coordinates of all test environments. The Average
Environment Axis (AEA) is the line that passes through the average environment
and the biplot origin. Accordingly, a test environment that has a smaller angle
with the AEA is more representative of other test environments. Thus, E2 (Akaki
2017) and E6 (Delgi 2018) are the most representative environments whereas E1
(Akaki 2016) and E9 (Debre Zeit 2018) are the least (Fig. 4). Test environments
that are both discriminating and representative are ideal environments for selecting
genotypes having wider adaptation. On the other hand, test environments which
have high discriminating power, but non-representative (such as E5 (Chefe 2016)
and E7 (Debre Zeit 2016) ) are useful to select genotypes with specific adaptation.
Within a single mega-environment, the ideal test environment should be most

discriminating and at the same time most representative of the target environment.
Furthermore, the center of the concentric circles defines an “ideal test
environment” (Fig. 4). It is a point on the AEA with a distance to the biplot origin
equal to the longest vector of all environments. In this study E4 (Chefe 2017) is
closest to this point and is, therefore, best while E6 (Delgi 2018) was the poorest
for selecting cultivars adapted to the whole region.
[248]
Ranking Environments
E1
2
1
E8
AXIS2 16 %
E10
E13 E5
E4
E6E2
0
E14
E3 E12 E7
-1
E11
E9
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 4 The discrimination and representativeness view of the GGE biplot to rank test environments relative to an ideal
test environment.
Genotype evaluation based on GGE biplots

To evaluate the mean performance and stability of the genotypes within a single
mega-environment, the data should be genotype-metric preserving (SVP = 1) for
appropriate genotype evaluations (Yan and Tinker, 2006). Accordingly, the single-
arrowed line called Average Environment Coordinate (AEC) abscissa (or AEA)
points to higher mean yield across environments. Thus, genotype 27 (DZ-2012-
CK-0281) gave the highest mean yield (Table 3), showing better performance and
a stable genotype across the test environments (Figure 5). The AEC ordinate
points to greater variability (poorer stability) in either direction of the AEC. Thus,
genotypes 23 and 31 were highly stable whereas genotype 35 was highly unstable
because it gave lower than expected yield at E8 (DZ site) but higher than expected
yield at E11 (Jari) environments (Figure 5).
[249]
Mean vs. Stability
E1
2
1
12
22 3629 13
E820
AXIS2 16 %
8 16 17 4
3 E10
E13 28
E5
19 18
E4
E2
E6
31
0
23 10 32
26 E3 E14 37 14
7 15E12 21 E730 27
24
6 1133 34
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-1
5
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 75.71 %
[250]
Mean vs. Stability
2 E1
2
1
12
22 3629 13
E820
AXIS2 16 %
8 16 17 4
3 E10
E13 28
E5
19 18
E4
E2
E6
31
0
23 10 32
26 E3 E14 37 14
7 15E12 21 E730 27
24
6 1133 34
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-1
5
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 5. The average-environment coordination (AEC) views to show the mean performance and stability of the
genotypes.
Ranking genotypes relative to the ideal genotype

A genotype is considered as an ideal if it had both high mean yield performance
and high stability across environments. Figure 6 defines an “ideal genotype” (the
center of the concentric circles) to be a point on the AEA (“absolutely stable”) in
the direction towards the pointing of the arrow and has a vector length equal to the
longest vectors of the genotypes on AEA (“highest mean performance”).
Accordingly, G18 (DZ-2012-CK-0272) is chosen as an ideal genotype, and other
test genotypes located closer to this ideal genotype are considered as desirable
genotypes (Yan and Tinker, 2006). Thus, genotypes 14, 18 and 27 were closer to
the ideal genotype and are considered to be desirable for stability across
environments. On the other hand, genotypes 7 (DZ-2012-CK-0261) and 8 (DZ-
2012-CK-0262) were less stable as they consistently performed poorly on average
testing environments with the only exception at E11 (Jari site) where they gave
maximum grain yield (Table 3), showing they may be ideal for specific
adaptation.
[251]
Ranking Genotypes
2
E1
2
1
12
22 3629 13
E820
AXIS2 16 %
8 16 17 4
3 E10
E13 28
E5
19 18
E4
E2
E6
31
0
23 10 32
26 E3 E14 37 14
7 15E12 21 E730 27
24
6 1133 34
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-1
5
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 75.71 %
Ranking Genotypes
2
E1
2
1
12
22 3629 13
E820
AXIS2 16 %
8 16 17 4
3 E10
E13 28
E5
19 18
E4
E2
E6
31
0
23 10 32
26 E3 E14 37 14
7 15E12 21 E730 27
24
6 1133 34
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-1
5
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 6 Ranking cultivars based on yield performance and stability of kabuli chickpea genotypes
[252]
Which-won-where?
One of the most attractive features of a GGE biplot is its ability to show the
which-won-where pattern of a genotype by environment data set (Yan and Tinker,
2006). The polygon formed by connecting the markers of the genotypes that are
farthest away from the biplot origin, such that all other genotypes are contained in
the polygon. Figure 7 also contains a set of lines perpendicular to each side of the
polygon. These perpendicular lines divide the biplot into several sectors. The
winning genotype for each sector is the one located at the respective vertex.
Genotypes located at the vertices of the polygon reveal the best or the poorest in
one or other environment (Yan and Tinker 2006; Fructos et al, 2014). There are
eight pseudo sectors and three major sectors were formed (Fig. 7) (where the
majority of the genotypes were falling) with genotypes code number 2, 5, 7, 8, 18,
27 and 35 as the vertex genotypes. Environment (E1, Akaki) fall in the sector
where genotype 36 (Hora) was found the best cultivar at this environment. The
rest of the test environments were falling in the sector under which several
genotypes found to be the vertex genotypes (Figure 7), which mean that these
genotypes were the best cultivars in the majority of the test environments. No
environment was falling into sectors with genotypes 2, 5, 7 and 8 as the vertices,
indicating that these cultivars were not the paramount in any of the environments.
Interestingly, E3 (Arsi Robe) and E11 (Jari) are falling on the same sector, which
further confirmed the above result (i.e. the dendrogram).
2
E1
16 2
1
12
22 3629 13
E820
AXIS2 16 %
8 17 4
3 E10
E13 28
E5
19 18
E4
E2
E6
31
0
23 10 32
26 E3 E14 37 14
7 15E12 21 30
E7 27
24 33
6 11 34
25 E11
1 35
9 E9
-1
5
-2
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 75.71 %
Figure 7. The which-won-where view of the GGE biplot for 37 kabuli-type chickpea genotypes.
[253]
In the present study, we identified a number of test environments that are
informative and representative for kabuli chickpea. The use of MET data analysis
using the GGE biplot model helps to select best performing genotypes where
environmental information is scarce or inaccessible under the ever-changing
growing environments. The study has further demonstrated the importance of
complementing agronomic data with the analysis of environmental suitability of
test genotypes using appropriate models that can increase the comprehensiveness
of genotypic information. Furthermore, MET data of crop response based
environmental analysis, also help in prioritizing of testing sites For instance, if two
environments are consistently showing close association, they can be regarded as
redundant, and one of them can be dropped without significant loss of
information. This can meaningfully reduce costs of conducting MET activities in
the country. The present study revealed that some of the test environments (e.g.
Akaki, Chefe Donsa and Delgi) showed redundancy, and hence some of them can
be dropped from the future national kabuli-type chickpea MET research activities
without significant loss of information. This would help in determining optimum
national testing locations with the limited resources.
References
Amare A, and Simane B (2017) Climate Change Induced Vulnerability of
Smallholder Farmers: Agroecology-Based Analysis in the Muger Sub-Basin
of the Upper Blue-Nile Basin of Ethiopia. American Journal of Climate
Change, 6: 668–93. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajcc.2017.64034 .
Beeck CP, Cowling WA, Smith AB, and Cullis BR (2010) Analysis of Yield and
Oil from a Series of Canola Breeding Trials Part I Fitting Factor Analytic
Mixed Models with Pedigree Information. Genome, 53(11): 992–1001.
Chapman S (2008) Use of Crop Models to Understand Genotype by Environment
Interactions for Drought in Real-Word and Simulated Plant Breeding Trials.
Euphytica, 161: 195–208.
CSA (2018) Central Statistics Authority (CSA)- Agricultural Sample Survey:
Report on Area and Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher
Season). Statistical Bulletins, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
EPCC EP on C (2015) First Assessment Report, Working Group II Agriculture
and Food Security. Ethiopian Academy of Sciences, Addis Ababa, 230 P.
FAO (2018) World Food and Agriculture– Statistical Pocketbook 2018. Rome.
254 Pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Fikre A, Funga A, Korbu L, Eshete M, and Girma N (2018) Stability Analysis in
Chickpea Genotype Sets as Tool for Breeding Germplasm Structuring
Strategy and Adaptability Scoping. Ethiop. J. Crop Sci, 6(2):19–37.
[254]
Frutos E, Galindo M, and Leiva V (2014) An Interactive Biplot Implementation in
R for Modeling Genotype-by-Environment Interaction. Stochastic
Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28(7): 1629–41.
Kanouni H, Shahab M, Imtiaz M, and Khalili M (2012) Genetic Variation in
Drought Tolerance in Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L) Genotypes. Crop Breed.
J., 2(2): 133–38.
Korbu L, Girma N, Fikre A and Angassa D (2016) The role of international
research collaboration in broadening genetic base of chickpea in Ethiopia:
implications on local germplasm use. In: K., Lijalem et al. (eds.) Harnessing
chickpea value chain for nutrition security and commercialization of
smallholder agriculture in Africa. Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. p. 146–162.
Korbu L, Tafes B, Kassa G, Mola T, and Fikre A (2020) Unlocking the Genetic
Potential of Chickpea through Improved Crop Management Practices in
Ethiopia A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(13).
Kroonenberg P (1995) Introduction to Biplots for GE Tables. Research Report No.
51.,.
Kumar P, Boora KS, Kumar N, Batra R, Goyal M, Sharma KD, and Yadav RC
(2018) Traits of Significance for Screening of Chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L)
Genotypes under Terminal Drought Stress. Journal of Agrometeorology,
20(1): 40–45.
Mamo G, Getnet M, Legesse G, and Mitiku T (2013) Integration of Information
on Climate, Soil and Cultivar to Increase Water Productivity of Maize in
Semi-Arid Eco-Regions of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 24: 123–39.
Morton J (2007) The Impact of Climate Change on Smallholder and Subsistence
Agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50):
19680–85.
Nadeem M, Li J, Yahya M, Sher A, Ma C, Wang X, and Qiu L (2019) Research
Progress and Perspective on Drought Stress in Legumes: A Review. Int. J.
Mol. Sci., 20(10).
Samarah N, Haddad N, and Alqudah A (2009) Yield Potential Evaluation in
Chickpea Genotypes under Late Terminal Drought in Relation to the Length
of Reproductive Stage. Ital. J. Agron., 3: 111–117.
Vadez V, Berger JD, Warkentin T, Asseng S, Ratnakumar P, Rao KPC, M. PG,
Munier-Jolain N, Larmure A, Voisin AS, Sharma HC, Pande S, Sharma M,
Krishnamurthy L, and Zaman MA (2012) Adaptation of Grain Legumes to
Climate Change: A Review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 32(1):
31–44.
Varshney RK, Thudi M, Spurthi N, Pooran M, Kashiwagi J, Krishnamurthy L,
Jayalakshmi D, Koppolu J, Bohra A, Tripathi S, Rathore A, Jukanti K,
Jayalakshmi V, Vemula A, Singh S, Yasin M, Sheshshayee M, and
Viswanatha K (2014) Genetic Dissection of Drought Tolerance in Chickpea
(Cicer Arietinum L). Theor Appl Genet, 127: 445–462.
[255]
Verkaart S, Munyua B, Mausch K, and Michler J (2017) Welfare Impacts of
Improved Chickpea Adoption: A Pathway for Rural Development in
Ethiopia? Food Policy, 66: 50–61.
Yan W, and Kang M (2003) GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Tool for
Geneticists, Breeders, and Agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.,.
Yan W, and Tinker N (2006) Biplot Analysis of Multi-Environment Trial Data:
Principles and Applications. Canadian journal of plant science, 86(3): 623–
45.
[256]
Genotype by Environment Interaction on Selected
Early Maturing Soybean (Glycine max L.) Merrill)
Genotypes in Ethiopia
Masresha Yirga1; Yechalew Sileshi1*, and Behailu Atero1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center (JARC), Department of field crops division;
E-mail: yechalewss@gmail.com, P.O. Box, 192, Jimma, Ethiopia
Abstract
Soybean is becoming the most important oil crops in Ethiopia. The national soybean
breeding program is working to develop high-yielding, adaptable and stable
varieties to increase production and productivity in the country. Breeding for early-
maturing varieites is currently given due emphasis to overcome soybean production
drow backs in moisture defecit areas. Hence, performance evaluation of early
maturing soybean genotypes across representative environments is essential to
examine genotype × environment (G xE) interactions and identify the most stable
and performed genotype. The trial was conducted using 10 soybean genotypes
including checks in RCB design with four replications. The materials were
evaluated over eight locations and G x E interaction was assessed using GGE-biplot
analysis to identify stable genotype across testing environments. Data on
phenological, agro-morphological and reaction to important diseases were collected
for the crop.The combined analysis of variances showed significant to highly
significant (P ˂ 0.01) difference among genotypes, environments and G x E
interactions for most of the studied traits. GGE-biplot models showed that the eight
environments used for the study belonged to four mega-environments. According to
the GGE results, G3 (JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2), and G7 (JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB)
were identified as ideal genotypes in terms of higher-yielding ability and stability,
and hence these genotypes are recommended for mega environment production in
the country.
Introduction
Soybean (Glycin max L.) has been cultivated in eastern Asia since the 11th century
(Hymowitz and shurtleff, 2005). The genus Glycin has assumed to be
domesticated from the wild soybean progenitor, Glycinesoja (Bernard and Weiss,
1973) . The crop is now grown under a wide range of climate conditions in Latin
America and African countries. Until mid of 1940s, the major areas of soybean
production were restricted to temperate regions of the world, after which
production slowly to spread tropical and sub-tropical regions (Franca Neto and
Henning, 1994).
Soybean has the highest protein content (40%) as compared to other pulse crops.
Moreover, it has high oil content (20%) make it a highly desirable crop potential
to improve the diets of millions of people in the developing countries (Singth et
[257]
al.,2008). The crop is also known to improve and amend soil properties through
nitrogen fixation for low input farming systems and enhanced moisture retention
(Graham and Vance, 2003). Ability to break lifecycles of pests and diseases and
improve soil properties makes soybean an ideal crop in cereal rotation program
(Waymark, 1997).
Soybean was introduced to Ethiopia in 1950s and the introduced materials were
evaluated and potential areas for soybean production in the country were
identified (Amare, 1987). Soybean genotypes are classified based on their
maturity period asearly, medium and late maturity groups. Early maturity
genotypes are suitable for moisture stress and moisture defecit areas and also
suited for double cropping for long duration rain fall condition. Due to climate
change dry spell is increasing across soybean growing environments including in
high rainfall areas. Therefore, breeding of soybean is importance for early
maturing with stable performance across growing environments.
Phenotypes are the manifestation of the genetic make-up(G), environmental

effect(E) and their interaction (G x E). Multi-environment trials widely used by
plant breeders to evaluate the relative performance of genotypes for target
environments (Delacyet al., 1996). GGE biplot analysis is one of the most
important methods to reveal the patterns of G × E interaction and can offer better
varietal selection power. So, this research activity was conducted with the
objective to evaluate and identify the performance and stability of early maturing
soybean genotypes across growing environments of the country.

The experiment was conducted at eight environments, namely, Jimma (Tiro-
Afeta), Areka (Gofa), Humera for two cropping seasons (2018 and 2019) while
Mehoniin in 2018 and at Sirinka in 2019 cropping season.
Testing sites Altitude Annual Temperature (Oc)

(m.a.s.l) rainfall (mm) Min Max
Mehoni 1571 300-750 18 25
Tiro-afeta 2200 1592-1275 18 26
Areka (Gofa) 1774 1298 13.04 28
Sirinka 1749 680-1200 18 27
Most of the tested soybean genotypes were introductions from USA while the four
genotypes namely, JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2, JM-PR142/G99-15-SB, JM-
HAR/PR142-15-SB, and JM-DAV/PR142-15D are recombinant inbred lines
developed by JARC. The other two genotypes, Gazale and Nova were released
[258]
varieties in Ethiopia included as checks in the present study (Table 2). The field
trial was arranged using RCB design in four replications. Planting was done in a
plot of four rows with 4m length and with spacing of 5 cm between plants and 40
cm between rows. Planting was done with two seeds per hill and later thinned to
one plant per hill at 2-3 weeks after emergence. Fertilizer NPS (19%Nitrogen,
38% Phosphorus, 7% Sulfur; and the rest filler) at the rate of 122kg ha-1 rate was
applied at planting. All agronomic management practices were done as per the
recommendations.
Agronomic charactersof Days to flowering, days to maturity, Plant Height (cm),

Number of Pod per plant, Number of seeds per plant; hundred seed weight (gm)
and grain yield per plot were recorded. All the data including grain yield were
collected from the middle two harvestable rows. Prior to proceeding with the
analysis of variance (ANOVA), homogeneity test was made for each variable and
all the data were subjected to combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) over
environment for RCBD using the SAS program software. GGE analysis was used
to determine the effects of GEI on yields. The results were visualized in biplot
graphs (Rakshit et al., 2012; Yan et al., 2000). The GGE model was as the
following: Yijr = µ + ej + λk αikγjk+ εijr, Yijr = observation of the rth replicate
of the ith genotype in the jth environment, µ = the overall means, ej = main
effect of the jth environment, ᵡ = matrix rank {gge}ij when {gge}ij = gi + geij,
λk = the singular value for principal component k, αik = the eigenvector score for
genotype i and component k, γjk = the eigenvector score for environment j and
component k, and εijr = the error for genotype i and environment j and replicate r.
Table 2. Soybean genotypes used in the study
GID Genotype Name Origin/Source

G1 Gazale(C2) Improved/released in Ethiopian
G2 PI200488 USA
G3 JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2 RIL by JARC
G4 PI417116 USA
G5 JM-PR142/G99-15-SB RIL by JARC
G6 PI506764 USA
G7 JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB RIL by JARC
G8 Nova(C1) Improved/released in Ethiopian
G9 JM-DAV/PR142-15D RIL by JARC
G10 Delsoy 4710 USA
Where: GID: Genotype code/ID, RIL: recombinant inbred line.
[259]
The results from the combined analysis of variance is presented in Table 3. The
pooled analysis of variance revealed that the mean square due to location and
genotype were highly significant (P≤ 0.01) for all the traits indicating the distinct
nature of the test materials and locations. Mean square due to years differed
significantly with respect to all the traits indicated that variability of the
environment.. Mean squares due to location x genotype were significant for most
of traits implying that genotypes exhibited different relative performance under
each location. Significant genotype x year was observed for most of the traits.
Location x year interaction reveled significant effect for all traits except for
hundred seeds weight. Mean squares due to Genotype x location x year interaction
found significant effect for most of the traits except for days to flowering. The
result for yield and related traits indicated that phenotypic variability for these
traits is dependent on genetic factors, environmental variables and the interaction
between them (Table 3).
Based on the combined data analysis, the performance of the genotypes ranged
widely for days to flowering (40.8-47.9), days to maturity (85.5- 102), total plant
height (29.5–56.5 cm), number of pods per plant(23.5–50.2), number of seeds per
plant(56.8–129.2), hundred seeds weight (12.9–19.1g) and grain yield per hectare
(1.1–2.11 t/ha). Among important traits, highest ranges were obtained for the
number of seeds per plant followed by number of pods per plant, plant height,
days to maturity, hundred seeds weight and grain yield wereplayed important role
in the total variability of the test genotypes. The maximum yield was recorded
from genotype JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB (2.11t/ha) followed by JM-HAR/G99-15-
SD-2 (1.98 t/ha) and JM-PR142/G99-15-SB (1.97 t/ha), which exhibited a yield
advantage of 16.6% and 26.3%; 9.4% and 18.56%; and 8.8% and 17.9%) over the
standard checks; Gazale (2.1t/ha) and Nova (1.67t/ha), respectively (Table 4).
In terms of maturity period all genotypes exhibit early physiological maturity that
ranged between 86 and 102 days. The genotypes identified as early maturing were
JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB (98 days), JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2 (97 days) and JM-
PR142/G99-15-SB (101 days) had relatively shorter maturity period than the
standard check Gazale (102) which is a positive trait for earliness.
[260]
Table 3. Mean squares of the combined analysis of variance for yield and related characters of soybean genotypes
Source df DTF DTM PH NPP NSP HSW YLD
Yr 1 168.38** 1439.97** 6252.23** 630.99* 10959.23** 989.88** 47.12**

4
Loc 5606.67** 25332.09** 3308.69** 26758.66** 234009.86** 1341.13** 47.73**
Rep 3 14.45ns 45..0ns 5.85** 94.05ns 1188.44ns 14.87ns 0.09ns
Geno 9 155.27** 1097.53** 2414.33** 1678.83* 14029.06** 90.99** 2.88**

Yr*Loc 2 2562.86** 4763.41** 524.31** 4360.06** 29124.59** 11.58ns 23.81**
Loc*Geno 36 57.35** 188.89** 392.85** 500.88** 4920.31** 40.93** 1.36**
Yr*Geno 9 14.89* 154.55** 82.79** 319.85* 2668.00* 15.38* 1.25**
Yr*Loc*Geno 18 11.23ns 222.01** 178.16** 316.18** 2647.59* 21.15** 0.623**
Error 226 7.95 23.81 38.94 134.33 1330.79 8.41 0.16
Where, * = significant at (P≤0.05) and ** = significant at (P≤ 0.01), Yr = year, Loc = location, Geno = genotype, df = degree of freedom, DTF = days to 50% flowering, DTM = days to
95% pod maturity, PH = plant height, NPP = Number of pods per plant, NSP = Number of seeds per plant, HSW=hundred seeds weight, YLD = Seed yield per ha.
[261]
.
Table 4 Mean yield and yield components of early maturing soybean genotypes based on over location mean values
Combined value of seed yield (t/ha) Combined value of yield related traits
GID
Y1L1 Y1L2 Y1L3 Y1L4 Y2L1 Y2L2 Y2L3 Y2L5 Combined DTF DTM PH NPP NSP HSW
G1(C1) 1.35 1.35 0.53 0.80 4.08 3.65 1.17 1.38 1.81 48 102 53.9 43.4 113.0 18.3
G2 1.33 1.05 0.66 0.85 3.98 1.38 0.20 1.53 1.41 43 87 38.4 31.5 80.0 18.2
G3 2.18 2.60 0.58 0.50 4.65 3.23 0.77 1.08 1.98 45 97 45.4 34.0 94.1 18.2
G4 1.35 0.70 0.53 0.28 2.30 1.83 0.43 1.33 1.11 42 86 30.8 26.2 57.2 19.1
G5 1.73 2.35 0.83 0.85 4.23 3.4 0.80 1.30 1.97 48 101 54.5 38.8 104.5 17.3
G6 0.98 0.60 1.15 0.10 1.68 1.45 1.03 1.58 1.30 41 89 29.6 23.5 56.8 18.4
G7 1.90 2.45 0.80 0.85 4.45 3.83 0.40 1.45 2.11 45 98 56.5 43.5 113.4 15.7
G8 (C2) 1.58 2.45 0.83 0.48 4.13 2.23 0.33 1.05 1.67 44 86 54.5 50.2 129.2 12.9
G9 1.73 1.75 1.03 0.88 4.38 2.35 0.83 1.13 1.79 46 96 41.3 40.7 100.2 17.3
G10 1.45 2.00 1.03 0.38 2.60 2.28 0.23 1.20 1.43 41 88 41.7 34.9 95.2 16.0
Mean 1.56 1.73 0.80 0.60 3.65 2.56 0.62 1.30 1.66 44 93 44.7 36.7 94.4 17.1
CV (%) 22.36 14.54 14.7 14.57 8.96 23.65 44.99 14.54 24.36 6.4 5.3 14 31.6 38.7 16.8
LSD 0.5 0.36 0.17 0.13 0.47 0.88 0.48 0.36 0.78 5.5 9.6 12.2 22.7 71.5 5.7
(0.05)
L1= Tiroafeta ;L2 =Gofa;L3 =Humera; L4 = Mehoni;L5= Sirinka; Y1= year 1, Y2 = year 2; DTF = days to 50% flowering, DTM = days to 95% pod maturity, PH = plant height, NPP =pod per
plant, NSP= seed per plant, HSW=hundred seed weight
[262]
The GGE biplot is important to visualize the genotype by environment interaction.
The polygon view of soybean genotypes tested at eight environments is presented
in figure1. Results of the GGE biplot analysis indicates that the first two principal
components IPCA 1 and IPCA 2 accounted for 72.6 % and 12.9% of the sum of
squares, respectively explained about 85.5% of the total variation for seed yield.
Genotypes at the vertex of the polygon are either the best or poorest in one or
more environments (Rakshit et al., 2012). The genotypes found at the vertex of
the polygon perform best in the environments within the sector (Yan and
Tinker,2006). Six rays divide the biplot into six sectors and the eight environment
fall into four different mega-environments (Figure 1). Genotypes, G1, G2, G3,G6,
and G7 were the vertex genotypes and G1 was best at Y2L3 on the first mega
environment. The second environment comprises the higher yielding environment
Y2L2 with a winner genotype G7. The third environment includes Y1L4,
Y1L1and Y1L2 with a vertex genotype G3 while the fourth environment includes
Y2L5 and Y1L3 with the winner genotype G6. Furthermore, though it is on the
vertex there was no environment representing the genotype G2 it (Figure 1). This
indicates that genotypes in vertex without environment performed poorly in all of
the testing sites (Alake and Ariyo et al., 2012).

2
Y2L2
G1
1
G6 Y2L3 G7
AXIS2 12.9 %
G5
G4 G10
Y2L5
Y1L3
0
G3
Y1L1
Y1L4 Y1L2
G9
G8
Y2L1
-1
G2
-1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 72.61 %
Figure 1. Polygon view of which won where
[263]
Figure 2 indicates the ranking of the genotypes based on their mean performance
and stability. The line passing through the Biplot origin and the average
environment indicated by a circle is called the average environment coordinate
(AEC) axis, which is defined by the average PC1 and PC2 scores of all the
environments. By using the average principal components in all environments the
AEC method was employed to evaluate yield stability of the genotypes. A line
drawn through the average environment and the Biplot origin, having one
direction pointed to a greater genotype main effect. Moving in either direction
away from AEC ordinate and from the Biplot origin indicates the greater GEI
effect and reduced stability. From this study genotypes performing above average
mean includesG3, G5, G7 and G1. An ideal genotype is the one with the highest
mean performance and be absolutely stable (i.e. the best performer under all
environments). Accordingly, genotype G9 had yield performance greater than the
mean yield. While genotype on the right of the ordinate line had yielded less than
the average mean. Hence, G2, G10, G4 and G6 showed lower yield performance
as compared to the mean yield of the most stable genotypes such as G3, G7and
G5. On the other hand, G2 is the lowest stable among the test genotype (Figure 2).
Mean vs. Stability

2
Y2L2
G1
1
G6 Y2L3 G7
AXIS2 12.9 %
G5
G4 G10
Y2L5
Y1L3
0
G3
Y1L1
Y1L4 Y1L2
G9
G8
Y2L1
-1
G2
-1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 72.61 %
Figure 2. Ranking of the genotypes based on their mean performance and stability
The ideal genotype is the one that with the highest mean performance and
absolutely stable found in the center of the concentric circles (Yan and Kang,
2003,). Genotype located closer to an ideal genotype is the most desirable
genotype. Hence, genotypes G3 and G7 were ideal in terms of higher yielding
ability and stability while genotypes G6, G2, and G4 were located distant from
the first concentric circle and are low yielding and unstable genotypes (Figure 3).
[264]
Ranking Genotypes
2
Y2L2
G1
1
G6 Y2L3 G7
AXIS2 12.9 %
G5
G4 G10
Y2L5
Y1L3
0
G3
Y1L1
Y1L4 Y1L2
G9
G8
Y2L1
-1
G2
-1 0 1 2 3
AXIS1 72.61 %
Figure 3. Ranking of the genotypes based on the ideal genotype
Similar to the ideal genotype an ideal environment is also important as a reference

for genotype selection. The ideal environments had the longest vector with small
IPCA which fell into the center of the concentric circles. The ideal environment is
the most representative of the overall environments and is the most powerful to
discriminate the test genotypes. Accordingly, Y2L2 and Y1L3 represent ideal
environments in the present study. Environments Y1L1 on the other hand was
found far from the ideal environment and hence, considered as less powerful to
discriminate among genotypes (Figure 4).
2.0
1.5
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
Y2
Y2L3
0.5
L4
Y2 L2
0.0
Y1L2Y1L3
-0.5
Y1L1
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
.
Figure 4. Ranking of the environments based on the ideal environments
[265]
Conclusions
In view of the current climate change scenarios soybean improvement program
need to evaluate early maturing soybean genotypes targeting moisture stress
growing areas in Ethiopia.The present study revealed that the tested genotypes
significantly differed for most of the studied traits. The maximum seed yield was
recorded from genotypes JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB (2.11t/ha) followed by JM-
HAR/G99-15-SD-2 (1.98 t/ha) and JM-PR142/G99-15-SB (1.97 t/ha). According
to GGE biplot analyses, G3 (JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2), and G7 (JM-HAR/PR142-
15-SB) were ideal genotypes in terms of higher-yielding ability and stability.
Hence, these two genotypes are potential genotypes recomenderd to be verified
for official release for wider production. On the other hand, Y2L2 (Gofa) and
Y1L3 (Humera) were identified as ideal environments for soybean production in
the country.
References
Amare Abebe. 1987. Bean production and research in Ethiopia. In: R.A. Kirkby
(ed). Proceedings of aworkshop on Bean Research in Eastern Africa,
Mukono, Uganda, 22-25 June, 1987 CIAT African Workshop Series, No 2.
Alake, C.O. and Ariyo, O.J., 2012. Comparative analysis of genotype x
environment interaction techniques in West African Okra,(Abelmoschus
caillei, A. Chev Stevels). Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(4), p.135.
Bernard, R.L. and M.G. Weiss, 1973. Qualitative Genetics. Soybeans, Production
and Uses. B.E. Caldwell (ed.). Agronomy Series, American Society of
Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 117-154.
DeLacy, I.H., Basford, K.E., Cooper, M., Bull, J.K. and McLaren, C.G., 1996.
Analysis of multi-environment trials–an historical perspective. Plant
adaptation and crop improvement, 39124.
Franca-Neto, J.B., Henning, A.A., Krzyzanowski, F.C. and EMBRAPA^
dCNPSo, 1994.Seed production and technology for the tropics. Tropical
soybean: improvement and production.
Graham, P.H. and Vance, C.P., 2003. Legumes: importance and constraints to
greater use. Plant physiology, 131(3), pp.872-877.
Hymowitz, T. and Shurtleff, W.R., 2005.Debunking soybean myths and legends in
the historical and popular literature. Crop science, 45(2), pp.473-476.
Rakshit, S., Ganapathy, K.N., Gomashe, S.S., Rathore, A., Ghorade, R.B., Kumar,
M.N., Ganesmurthy, K., Jain, S.K., Kamtar, M.Y., Sachan, J.S. and
Ambekar, S.S., 2012.GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype, environment
and their interactions in sorghum multi-location data. Euphytica, 185(3),
pp.465-479.
[266]
Singh, P., Kumar, R., Sabapathy, S.N. and Bawa, A.S., 2008. Functional and
edible uses of soy protein products. Comprehensive reviews in food science
and food safety, 7(1), pp.14-28.
Yan W, Hunt LA, Sheng Q, Szlavnics Z. 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega
environment investigation based on GGE biplot. Crop Sci 40:597–605
Yan W and Kang MS. 2003. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders,
geneticists, and agronomists. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Yan, W. and Tinker, N.A., 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data:
Principles and applications. Canadian journal of plant science, 86(3),
pp.623-645.
[267]
Genotype x Environment Interaction on Medium
Maturing Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill.)
Genotypes for Grain Yield in Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi1* ; Masresha Yirga1 and Behailu Atero1
1
Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research, Jimma Agricultural Research,
Department of Field crop division; E-mail: yechalewss@gmail.com, P.O. Box, 192, Jimma, Ethiopia
Abstract
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) production is affected by several biotic and
abiotic stresses. Lack of stable genotypes across the soybean production area is
one of the problems. Hence, this experiment was conducted to evaluate the
genotype by environment interaction and to identify stable genotypes using GGE-
biplot analysis. Eleven soybean genotypes, including one control genotype were
evaluated over eleven locations in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons. The
experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with four
replications. The combined analysis of variances showed significant to highly
significant (P˂ 0.01) difference among genotypes, environments and genotype by
environment interactions. GGE-biplot models showed that the eleven environments
used for the study belonged to five mega-environments. According to the GGE
results, G8 (JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SD), G2 (SCS-1) and G1 (5002T) were the most
productive and stable genotypes across soybean growing environments and these
could be recommended for mega environment production.
Introduction
The cultivated soybean (Glycine max) is self-pollinating plant usually with self-
pollination a rate of higher than 99% (Caviness, 1966). And it was derived from
China from wild type (Martin et al., 1976). It is a medium-altitude crop and is well
adapted to areas located at altitudes ranging from 1300 to 1800 m a.s.l and
receiving rainfall of 900 to 1300 mm (Hammer and Haralson, 1975). Soybean is
the most cultivated crop in the world and the largest source of edible oils. In
Ethiopia, more than 864,678.69 quintals of soybean produced annually (CSA,
2018). But the productivity of the crop is 2.27 tone ha-1 in the country (CSA,
2018), which is lower than its potential of 4 ton ha-1. In Ethiopia, the area seeded
to soybeans is expected to increase due to increased demand of domestic
processing industries and increased demand of international market. Genotype by
environment (G x E) interaction is of notable importance in the evaluation,
selection and recommendation of new varieties. Phenotype is a mixture of
genotype (G) and environment (E) components and also an interaction between
genotype by environment. Consequently, multi-environment trials (MET) are
conducted by plant breeders to evaluate yield stability performance of genetic
materials under varying environmental conditions (Yan et al., 2000).
[269]
A genotype grown at different environment usually show fluctuations in yield
performance. These changes or differences are influenced by the different
environmental conditions and are referred to as genotype by environment
interaction. G x E interaction should be exploited either by selecting superior
genotype for each specific target environment or it could be avoided by selecting
widely adapted and stable genotype across a wide range of environments.
Numerous methods have been developed to reveal the pattern of GxE (Ebherhart
and Russel, 1996;). GGE bi-plot display graphical of GE interaction pattern of
MET data with many advantages as it uses functions from many of the other
methods jointly. Among the total phenotypic variation, E explains most of the
variation, and G and GE are usually small (Yan, 2002). However, only the G and
GxE interaction are relevant to cultivar evaluation especially when G x E
interaction is identified as repeatable. GGE-biplot allows for visual examination of
relationships among test environments, genotypes and genotype by environment
interactions. Nowadays, it is a common practice in crop improvement program by
breeders including soybean to use GGE models in explaining G × E interaction,
and analyzing the performance of genotypes and test environments (Michael,
2018).
Since the inception of soybean research in Ethiopia a number of varieties were
released for different agro-ecologies. However, only few studies are available on
the adaptability and stability of soybean genotypes in Ethiopia. Therefore, the
objectives of this study were: (i) to evaluate G × E interaction using GGE-biplot
analysis yield of soybean genotypes; (ii) to identify stable best performing stable
genotypes; and (iii) to examine the possible existence of different mega-
environments

The experimental material of the present study comprised eleven elite soybean
lines developed by Jimma Agricultural Research Centre, national soybean
programme and two commercial checks were used in the study (Table 1). A
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications was carried out.
Each plot consisted of four rows 4 meters in length with spacing of 5 cm between
plants and 60 cm between rows. Planting was done with two seeds per hill and
latter thinned to one plant per hill at 2-3 weeks after emergence. NPS fertilizer
was applied during sowing at the recommended rate of 122 kg ha-1 and the rest
agronomic management was done as per the recommendation.
[270]
Table 1. Description of the 11 soybean genotypes tested during 2018-2019 Cropping season
Genotype label PEDGREE SOURCE

G1 5002T USA
G2 SCS-1 CIMMYT Zimbabwe
G3 Ozark USA
G4 KS4895 USA
G5 Harber USA
G6 JM-PR142/CLK-15-SE ETH Cross
G7 Hs93-4118 USA
G8 JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SD ETH Cross
G9 PI471904 USA
G10 PI417089A USA
G11 Nyala(C1) ETH released
Description of Study Area

The trial was conducted over two seasons in 2018 and 2019 at Jimma (L1), Mettu
(L2), Asosa (L3), Shire (L4), Gonder (L5), Jinka (L6), and Tepi (L7), the trials
were planted throughout two seasons in 2018 and 2019, whereas at Gonder, Jinka,
and Tepi, the trial was only planted in 2019.
Elevation Total Average

Environment Latitude / Longitude (masl) rainfall(mm) Temperature(o c)
Jimma 36082'N7067'E 1775 1561 9-28
Mettu 35057'N8028'E 1550 1835 12.5-28.6
Asosa 34052'N10000'E 1580 14- 39
Shire 38029'N14010'E 1871 17.57
Gonder 37043'N12052'E 1973 912 19.8-26.1
Jinka 36055'N5077'E 1375 15.56
Tepi 35044'N7020'E 1208 1559 15.5 -29.7
Data collection and data analysis

Agronomic characters like days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height (cm), number
of pod per plant, number of seed per plant, number of branch per plant, lodging,
shattering, and hundred seed weight (gm) were recorded. Prior to proceeding with the
analysis of variance (ANOVA), homogeneity test was made and then all the data
considered were subjected to combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) over environment,
which was performed using the SAS program software. GGE analysis was used to
determine the effects of GEI on yields. The results were visualized in biplot graphs
(Rakshit et al., 2012; Yan et al.,2000). The GGE model was as the following:
Yijr = µ + ej + λk αik γjk+ εijr. : Where: Yijr = observation of the rth replicate of the ith
genotype in the jth environment, µ = the overall means, ej = main effect of the jth
environment, ᵡ = matrix rank {gge}ij when {gge}ij = gi + geij, λk = the singular value
for principal component k, αik = the eigenvector score for genotype i and component k,
γjk = the eigenvector score for environment j and component k, and εijr = the error for
genotype i and environment j and replicate r.
[271]
Combined analysis of variance
The result of analysis of variance indicates presence of significant difference
among genotypes, genotypes x environment and year x genotypes x environment
for most of the parameters (Table 3). Based on the combined data analysis result,
seed yield of tested soybean genotypes ranged from 1.72 tons/ha to 2.85 tons/ha.
Check variety had an average seed yield of 2.62 tons /ha. Based on the combined
data the highest seed yield was observed from the JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SD while
the lowest seed yield was recorded from the genotypes Hs93-4118 which was 2.85
tons/ha and 1.70 tons/ha respectively. When we consider individual locations
mean grain yield of the two genotypes, namely JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SDand 5002T
showed better performance in most of the locations than the check, Nyala (Table
4).
Table 3. Mean squares and degrees of freedom for yield and yield related traits for 11 soybean genotypes evaluated
during 2018 and 2019 over locations
Source Df DTF DTM PH NOP NOS HSW YLD

Year 1 2460.6** 565.1** 968.5** 5693** 282769.3** 68.92** 27.89**
Location 3 2804.4** 11980.6** 5162.5** 69.7** 126832.9** 238** 11.7**
Replication 3 58.5ns 18.1 ns 57.9 ns 23.3 ns 362.5 ns 1.9 ns 0.5 ns
Var 10 1241.7** 584.0** 7151** 768.7** 4198.1** 120.5** 3.0**
Year x loc 3 1203.7** 349.5** 3069.6** 4142.6** 35068.6** 46.7** 16.3**
Year x var 10 135.6** 124.2** 101.6** 365.45** 2379.4** 6.4** 2.2**
Loc* var 30 175.3** 95.7** 180.3** 182.1** 1914.7** 7.2ns 1.3**
Year*geno x loc 30 99.6** 45.2** 62.77ns 68.8 ns 794.2** 4.4 ns 0.3 ns
Error 261 54.6** 20.7** 34.9** 61.3** 451.6** 2.2** 0.20**
NB: Df degree of freedom, m.s. mean square, DTF=Days to flower;DTM=Days to maturity;NOP=Number of pod per
plant ;NOS=;HSW=Hundred seed weight;YLD=Grain yield ; Var=Variety ; loc=location;* Significant at 0.05, ** Significant
at 0.01and *** Significant at 0.001
[272]
Table 4. Individual and combined mean yield and yield related traits for 11 soybean genotypes evaluated across seven environments at Jimma, Mettu , Asosa, Shire, Gonder, Jinka,
and Tepi.
Grain yield t/ha Combined value of yield related traits
No Variety Y1L1 Y1L2 Y1L3 Y1L4 Y2LL7 Y2L1 Y2L2 Y2L3 Y2L4 Y2L5 Y2L6 Overall DF DM PH NP NS HSW
1. 5002T 2.97 2.61 1.64 3.72 2.24 2.82 2.90 3.70 2.89 2.18 2.40 2.73 51.4 114.6 64.1 29.6 70.5 20.6
2. SCS-1 2.95 1.97 1.31 4.72 2.26 1.92 2.09 4.00 3.03 1.92 2.12 2.57 63.3 119.7 64.7 38.8 87.0 17.1
3. Ozark 2.58 2.24 0.97 3.07 1.76 2.87 2.97 2.26 2.75 2.02 2.54 2.37 50.7 112.3 44.4 28.3 59.1 18.3
4. KS4895 2.22 2.08 1.28 3.02 1.97 2.37 2.21 2.45 2.80 1.52 2.80 2.25 51.7 110.5 46.7 29.2 65.0 16.9
5. Harber 2.31 1.70 1.17 2.65 1.95 2.58 2.30 2.42 2.39 1.32 2.21 2.09 51.2 111.6 45.3 30.9 69.3 18.8
6. JM-PR142/CLK-15-SE 2.33 2.39 1.36 3.29 2.03 1.36 3.05 2.66 2.71 1.91 2.25 2.30 60.9 117.7 62.3 37.2 76.9 18.8
7. Hs93-4118 1.40 1.19 0.40 2.30 1.59 2.39 1.84 1.31 2.97 1.28 2.04 1.70 45.2 108.1 42.4 27.6 62.3 18.6
8. JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SD 3.05 2.72 1.91 3.77 2.47 2.37 2.98 4.27 2.91 2.17 2.62 2.84 62.8 117.9 64.5 36.7 78.8 18.4
9. PI471904 1.76 2.60 1.53 3.74 3.24 1.53 2.41 3.06 3.18 2.96 3.03 2.64 63.3 122.5 86.8 42.2 96.2 14.1
10. PI417089A 2.47 2.26 1.50 2.62 1.82 2.66 2.61 3.22 2.60 1.79 1.80 2.30 56.5 114.0 81.5 35.1 78.8 21.0
11. Nyala(C1) 2.56 2.44 1.70 2.58 2.44 1.71 2.32 3.71 1.83 1.80 2.71 2.35 57.5 115.9 53.4 30.9 62.8 20.2
Mean 2.4 2.2 1.3 3.2 2.2 2.2 2.5 3.0 2.7 1.9 2.4 2.4 55.9 115.0 59.6 33.3 73.3 18.4
Min 1.4 1.2 0.4 2.3 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.8 1.7 45.2 108.1 42.4 27.6 59.1 14.1
Max 3.1 2.7 1.9 4.7 3.2 2.9 3.1 4.3 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.8 63.3 122.5 86.8 42.2 96.2 21.0
CV (%) 12.83 16.92 19.66 20.28 19.83 12.46 17.47 19.19 14.37 30.27 34.18 18.8 13.3 4.0 9.9 23.5 29.0 8.1
LSD (0.05) 0.41 0.61 0.38 0.79 0.61 0.43 0.63 0.83 0.66 0.82 1.18 0.21 3.6 2.2 2.9 3.9 10.5 0.7
Remarks; L1= Jimma,L2= Mettu , L3= Asosa, L4= Shire, L5= Gonder, L6= Jinka, L7=Tepi, Y1= year one and Y2= year two
[273]
GGE biplots
The GGE bi-plot analysis result of the 11 soybean Genotypes evaluated across
locations with respect to yield is presented in Fig.1. The first two principal
components IPCA 1 and IPCA 2 accounted for 56.69% and 17.62% of sum of
squares, respectively; jointly explained 74.31 % of the total variation for yield. In
this study the pattern on the environment in the biplot suggests that the existence
of seven sector and five different mega-environments (Figure 1). The vertex
genotype of each sector is the one that gave the highest yield for the environments
which fall within that sector. The vertex genotypes in this study were genotypes,
G2, G11, G7, G8, G10,G11 and G9. According to Yan and Tinker (2006), the
vertex genotypes were the most responsive genotypes, as they have the longest
distance from the origin in their direction. From this figure, G 9 was best
performer at Y2L5, Y2L7, Y1L1, Y2L6 and Y2L4 on the first environment; the
second environment containing the higher yielding locations Y2L2, Y1L3, Y1L2
and Y2L3 with a winner genotypes G8 and G2. The third environment includes
Y2L1 with a vertex genotype G11and G1 while the fourth environment includes
only Y1L1with the winner genotype G7. The figure also showed G10 which had
no environment at all was on the vertex. This indicates that genotypes in vertex
without environment performed poorly in all the sites (Alake et al., 2012).
However, genotypes within the polygon, particularly those located near the biplot
origin were less responsive than the genotypes on the vertices, and the ideal
genotype would be one closest to the origin (Nwangburuka et al., 2011).
2.0
1.5
G9
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
0.5
Y2 L4
G7 G6
G4 Y2 L2
0.0
G3 G2
G8Y1L3
G5 Y1L2
G11
-0.5
G10 G1
Y1L1 Y2 L3
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 1. Polygon views of the GGE-biplot based on symmetrical scaling for ‘‘which-won-where’’ and mega- environment
delineation
[274]
Relationship among environments
In the present study, the relationships among the test environments are presented
in (Figure 2). The lowest angle was observed between Y2L5 & Y2L7, Y1L3 &
Y2L3 followed by those between Y1L2 & Y2L1, indicating the existence of high
correlation between them. This shows that genotypes performing best at Y2L5 can
repeat the same performance at Y2L7, and vice versa. The angles between Y2L1
and Y2L5 on the other hand, was closer to 90°, showing that they have no
correlation or indicating that each environment has independent genotypic
performance. Furthermore, the angle between Y2L1 and Y2L6 is greater than 900
showing that they have negative correlations. Hence, genotypes performing best at
Y2L1 do not repeat the same performance at Y2L6, and vice versa. The eleven
test environments in the present study were grouped into three based on the
relationship among environments. Thus, group-I contained of Y2L5, Y2L7, Y1L1,
Y2L6, Y2L3, Y2L4 and Y2L2; group two comprised Y2L3, Y1L1 and Y2L1
whereas the third group consisted of Y1L1 only. The grouping based on
relationship among environments is in line with the environmental grouping of the
polygon view.
Relationship among environments

2.0
1.5
Y2 L3
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
0.5
Y2 L4
Y2 L2
0.0
Y1L2Y1L3
-0.5
Y1L1
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 2. GGE biplot showing the relationship among test environments
[275]
Discriminativeness vs representativeness
of the test environments
It is known that the GGE biplot is also useful to assess how much a test
environment is capable of generating unique information about the differences
among genotypes and how representative the mega-environment is. In this study,
based on the length of vector of the different environments, Y2L3, Y2L1, Y1L1,
Y2L4, Y2L5 and Y2L7 had the longest vector length and, therefore, are the most
discriminating environments in the present study. Similarly, Y1L2, Y2L2 and
Y1L3 had the shortest vector length which indicates that they are the least
discriminating of all the test environments.
Discrimitiveness vs. representativenss

2.0
1.5
G9
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
Y2
Y2L3
0.5
L4
G7 G6
G4 Y2 L2
0.0
G3 G2
G8Y1L3
G5 Y1L2
G11
-0.5
G10 G1
Y1L1
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 3. Discriminativeness vs Representativeness of the test environments
Ranking of genotypes based on mean

yield and stability performance
The ranking of the genotypes based on their mean performance and stability is
presented in Figure 2. It has been established that if the PC1 of a GGE biplot
approximates the genotype main effects (mean performance), PC2 must
approximate the GE effects associated with each genotype, which is a measure of
instability (Yan et al., 2000). The line passing through the biplot origin and the
[276]
average environment indicated by a circle is called the average environment
coordinate (AEC) axis, which is defined by the average PC1 and PC2 scores of all
the environments. By using the average principal components in all environments,
the average environment coordination (AEC) method was employed to evaluate
the yield stability of genotypes. A line drawn through the average environment
and the biplot origin having one direction pointed to a greater genotype main
effect. Moving in either direction away from AEC ordinate and from the biplot
origin indicates the greater GEI effect and reduced stability. The AEC ordinate
separates genotypes with below-average means from those with above-average
means. Hence, from this study, genotypes with above-average means were G8,
G11, G1 and G2, and genotype G9 had the yield performance greater than the
mean yield (Figure 4). While genotype on the right of the ordinate line hade yield
less than the average mean yield, accordingly, G7, G10, G5, G4 and G3 hade
lower yielding performance. The genotypes G8, G2 and G4 are more stable. On
the other hand, genotypes G9 and G10 are the least low stable. Stability can also
be identified based on concentric circles, and ideal genotypes are on the center of
concentric circles i.e., high mean yield and stable hence, good genotypes can be
identified as they are close to ideal genotypes.
Mean vs. Stability

2.0
1.5
G9
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
0.5
Y2 L4
G7 G6
G4 Y2 L2
0.0
G3 G2
G8Y1L3
G5 Y1L2
G11
-0.5
G10 G1
Y1L1 Y2 L3
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 4. GGE-biplot showing the best soybean genotypes based on mean grain yield performance and stability across
environments
[277]
Evaluation of genotypes relative to ideal genotypes
The ideal genotype is the one that with the highest mean performance and
absolutely stable (Yan and Kang, 2003); this is assumed to be in the center of the
concentric circles. It is more desirable for a genotype to be located closer to the
ideal genotype. GGE biplots (Figure. 5) shows that G8 and G2 were ideal in terms
of higher-yielding ability and stability as compared to the other genotypes while
genotypes G7, G5, G9, G10 and G5, were unfavorable since there are too far from
the ideal genotypes.
Ranking Genotypes
2.0
1.5
G9
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
0.5
Y2 L4
G7 G6
G4 Y2 L2
0.0
G3 G2
G8Y1L3
G5 Y1L2
G11
-0.5
G10 G1
Y1L1 Y2 L3
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 5. GGE-biplot showing the genotypes relative to ideal genotypes
Evaluation of environments relative to ideal environments

Ideal Environments had the longest vector with small IPCA, which fell into the
center of concentric circles. Hence, from this study Y2L4 and Y2L3 is ideal
environment. Ideal environment is the most representative of the overall
environments and the most powerful to discriminate genotypes. Likewise, Y2L2
and Y1L3 were closer to the ideal environment and considered as second powerful
to discriminate genotypes. On the other hand, environments Y1L1and Y1L4 were
found far from the ideal environment and considered as less powerful to
discriminate genotypes (Figure 6).
[278]
2.0
1.5
1.0
Y2
Y2 L5
L7
Y1L4
Y2 L6
AXIS2 17.62 %
Y2
Y2L3
0.5
L4
Y2 L2
0.0
Y1L2Y1L3
-0.5
Y1L1
-1.0
Y2 L1
-1.5
-1 0 1 2
AXIS1 56.69 %
Figure 6. GGE-biplot showing ideal environments
Conclusion
The result of analysis of variance indicates the presence of significant difference
among genotypes, genotypes x environment and year x genotypes x environment
interactions for most of the parameters studied. According to GGE biplot analyses
G8 and G1 showed a significant higher yield than other genotypes and check
variety, which ranged from 2.85 to 2.75 t ha -1. The stability analysis indicates
genotypes G8, G1, G4 and G6 are more stable while genotypes G8 (JM-
CLK/CRFD-15-SD) and G1 (5002T) are the most stable with higher seed yield.
The identified promising genotypes could be used in soybean breeding program
and release for production.
References
Alake, C.O. and Ariyo, O.J., 2012. Comparative analysis of genotype x environment
interaction techniques in West African Okra,(Abelmoschus caillei, A. Chev
Stevels). Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(4), p.135.
Caviness, C.E., 1966. Estimates of Natural Crosspollination in Jackson Soybeans in
Arkansas 1. Crop Science, 6(2), pp.211-212.
Eberhart, S.T. and Russell, W.A., 1966. Stability parameters for comparing varieties
1. Crop science, 6(1), pp.36-40.
[279]
Martin, P.B., Lingren, P.D. and Greene, G.L., 1976. Relative abundance and host
preferences of cabbage looper, soybean looper, tobacco budworm, and corn earworm
on crops grown in northern Florida. Environmental Entomology, 5(5), pp.878-882.
Nwangburuka, C.C. and Denton, O., 2011. Genotype x environment interaction and seed
yield stability in cultivated okra using the additive main effect and multiplicative
interaction (AMMI) and genotype and genotype x environment interaction
(GGE). Archives of Applied Science Research, 3(4), pp.193-205.
Rakshit, S., Ganapathy, K.N., Gomashe, S.S., Rathore, A., Ghorade, R.B., Kumar, M.N.,
Ganesmurthy, K., Jain, S.K., Kamtar, M.Y., Sachan, J.S. and Ambekar, S.S., 2012.
GGE biplot analysis to evaluate genotype, environment and their interactions in
sorghum multi-location data. Euphytica, 185(3), pp.465-479.
Yan, W., 2002. Singular‐value partitioning in biplot analysis of multienvironment trial
data. Agronomy journal, 94(5), pp.990-996.
Yan, W. and Tinker, N.A., 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data:
Principles and applications. Canadian journal of plant science, 86(3), pp.623-645.
Yan, W., Hunt, L.A., Sheng, Q. and Szlavnics, Z., 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega‐
environment investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop science, 40(3), pp.597-
605.
[280]
Stability Analysis of Selected Medium Maturing
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) Genotypes for
Grain Yield in Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi1,*, Mesfin Hailemariam1, Masresha Yirga1,
Abush Tesfaye2,and Behailu Atero1
1
Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research, Jimma Agricultural Research, Department of Field crop
2
International Institutes of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road 200001, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) is one of the most important crops in the world
and becoming one of the economically important crops in Ethiopia. It is important to
develop high-yielding and stable soybean varieties in the country. The G x E study is
useful in soybean breeding and varietal development particularly for releasing a
variety for different agro-ecologies. Study was conducted with the objective of to
evaluat the yield performance of soybean genotypes under different growing
environments and to determine the effect of G x E interaction and stability of the
genotypes. Total of fifteen medium maturing soybean genotypes were used for
the study and planted across five locations for two years in randomized
complete block design with four replications. Genotype main effect and
genotype by environment interaction (GGE) bi-plot graphical tool was used to
analyze the multi-environment trials data. Variance components for genotypic and
GE interaction effects were found significant for most of the studed traits indicated
that the tested genotypes ranked differently at tested locations. The partitioning of
the GE interaction showed that PC1 and PC2 accounted for 34.8 and 26.35 % of the
GGE sum of squares, respectively, with a total of 60.4% of the GEI variation.
Overall based on GGE biplot analyses genotypes G2 (SCS-1) and G12 (PI417089A)
were found the best performed for their high stability and yield. These genotypes are
recommended for use in breeding programmes and to be released for use in the
soybean production.
Introduction
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) production and trade has been rapidly
expanding than any other grain and oil seed crop globally, and estimated to
occupy 6% of the world’s arable land (Goldsmith, 2017). It is one of the most
traded crops with an estimated export value of more than $60 Billion in 2018
(FAO stat, 2020) accounting to about 83.8% of the world’s major legume crops
trade (Abate et al., 2012). Soybean has tremoundous significance for Sub Saharan
Africa (SSA) for its multiple importantce more importantly for its high nutritional
value that might play a very important role in the fight againts widespread
malnutrition in the region. It is also a very important feed supplement for the
poultry and livestock industries. Soybean helps small-holder farmers increase
incomes because of increased opportunities to sell the grain to traders, producer
farmers and marketing organizations and processors. Integrating soybean into the
[281]
smallholder farming system encourages sutainable cropping system (Sinclair and
Vadez, 2012) and reduces farm inputs and cost of production through fixing
atmospheric nitrogen.
Soybean production has shown rapid increase in several African countries
(Khojely et al., 2018), however, Cornelius and Goldsmith (2019) attributed this
yield increase mainly to increase in the area of production than productivity, while
Varshney et al., (2019) reported comparable rate of growth in both area of
production (3.0%) and yield (3.5%). On the other hand, the gap between the local
demand and consumption of soybean in SSA is very high, and Gbegbelegbe et al.,
(2019) reported an estimated 72% gap between demand and local consumption in
the year 2011. Increasing the local production and productivity of the crop will be
the best option to fill this huge gap in demand and supply.
In Ethiopia soybean production has shown fast growthand its production was
estimated 82,242 MTexcluding commercial production (CSA, 2017) was
estimated to be 190,000 MT by USDA in the same year, and the same report
showed an increase of 10,000 MT in 2019 with an estimated total production of
200,000MT. USDA , also estimated the local consumption and export trade to
reach 73,000 MT and 127,000 MT, respectively (FAOSTAT,2020). The national
average productivity of the crop was estimated as 2.3 t ha-1 (CSA, 2019) which is
lower than the global average productivity 2.85 t ha-1. In 2017 the national average
productivity of the best soybean producing countries USA is 3.30 t ha-1 and Brazil
3.78 t ha-1 (FAOstat, 2019). However, yields at different research stations plots
demonstrated that soybean yields has the potential to be improved beyond 4.0 t ha-
1
through the use of high yielding varieties with the best agronomic practices.
Limited availability of high yielding and widely adapted varieties along with less
use of the best agronomic practices are among the major factors responsible for
the low productivity of the crop in the country.
The yield performance of soybean is influenced by genotypes, environment, and
genotype by environment interaction. Genotype by environment (GxE) interaction
is important in the development and evaluation of genotypes that enables to
understand yield stability performance of genetic materials under varying
environmental conditions (Yan et al., 2000). G x E interaction should be exploited
either by selecting superior genotype for each specific target environment or it
could be avoided by selecting widely adapted and stable genotype across a wide
range of environments. The G x E study is useful in soybean breeding and varietal
development, particularly for releasing a variety for different agro-ecologies, and
helps breeders to determine optimum breeding strategy. However, there are very
limited studies on G x E in soybean in Ethiopia, suggesting to conduct more
studies across major soybean growing areas in the country. Therefore, the
objectives of this study were to evaluate the yield performance of soybean
genotypes under different growing environments; to determine the effect of GxE
[282]
interaction and stability of the genotypes; and to examine the possible existence
of different mega-environments
Materials and methods
Discription of the Study Area

The study was conducted at five different soybean growing areas across
Ethiopia,. The trials were undertaken for two consecutive years at Jimma,
Metu ,Gonder, and Asosa and only for one year atTepi ( Table 1).
Table 1. Descriptions of the experimental areas
Location Altitude ( masl) Latitude (N) Longitude (E)

Jima 1,754 040’ 36047’
Mettu 1550 803’ 300
Gonder 1650 09°06' 37°09'
Tepi 1500 11˚49'00" 39˚38'00"
Asossa 1650 10°02.922' 34° 33.8'
Experimental materials and Design

A total of fifteen medium maturing soybean genotypes were evaluated in
randomized completed block design with four replications in 2018 and 2019
cropping seasons (Table 2). The materials wereplanted in four rows plot of 4 m
length. The spacing used was 60 cm between rows and 5 cm between plants. 100
kg DAP fertilizer was applied during planting. All other agronomic activities were
applied properly as recommended .
Table 2. List of the tested soybean genotypes and their sources
Genotype label Genotypes Source

G1 Essex-1 CIMMYT
G2 SCS-1 CIMMYT
G3 H-7 CIMMYT
G4 JM-ALM/H3-15-SH ETH cross
G5 PR-143-(14) CIMMYT
G6 BRS 283 Brazil
G7 Pawe 3 ETH Released
G8 H-3 CIMMYT
G9 JM-DAV/PR142-15-SA ETH cross
G10 JM-ALM/H3-15-SC-1 ETH cross
G11 PI417129B USA
G12 PI416810 USA
G13 PI587905 USA
G14 PI594538A USA
G15 PI417089A USA
[283]
Data Collection and data analysis
Days to flowering, days to maturity, hundred seed weight, disease severity and
yield were collected on plot base. Five plants from the central rows were randomly
selected for data collection on plant basis and the average of the five plants in each
experimental plot were used for statistical analysis for traits such as plant height,
number of pods per plant, and number of seeds per plant. The collected data were
subjected to independent location and combined analysis of variance using SAS
softwaretreatment means were separated by the Least Significant Difference
(LSD) at the 5% probability level. Stability analysis was carried out using
Wricke's Ecovalence, Shukla’s stability variance (σ2), Cultivar superiority
measure (Pi), Yield stability index (YSI), Spearman rank order correlation
coefficient, and Genotype main effect and genotype x environment interaction
effect (of GGE) biplot analysis.
Result and Discussion

Combined Analysis of Variance
Combined analysis of variance showed a highly significant (p < 0.001) difference
among the tested environments and the genotypes for days to flowering, days to
maturity, plant height, number of pods, number of seed, hundred seed weight, and
yield. Genotype x environment x year interaction showed a highly significant (p <
0.01) for all of the studied traits except hundred seed weight. Similarly, the
interactions of the year by the location and the varieties showed highly significant
differences for all of the traits except hundred seed weight. This result revealed
that seed yield remarkably affected by environment and years. In this line, Rao et
al.,2002) tested 12 soybean genotypes and found significant genotype-year-
location (GxYxL) interaction effect for yield.
[284]
Table 3. Mean square of combined ANOVA for bean yield related traits of tested genotypes at different environments during 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons.
Sources of variation DF DTF DTM PH NOP NOS HSW Yield t/ha

Year 1 908.06** 0.10** 14464.53** 2644.54** 50535.39** 199.82** 27.06**
Location 4 11681.99** 19579.67** 2720.88** 2453.34** 27683.7** 404.8** 11.87**
Replication 3 18.89ns 104.7ns 169.46ns 36.36ns 2760.5ns 18.79ns 0.02ns
Genotypes 14 499.87** 917.76** 6630** 633.26** 6077.27** 108.2** 1.08**
Year x Location 3 180.03** 1141.72** 2536.84** 17321.2** 135046.5** 387.67** 19.58**
Year X Genotypes 14 81.42** 77.14** 195.61** 391.31** 4356.27** 17.62* 0.6**
Location X Genotypes 56 61.78** 125.12** 304.48** 251.33** 2266.7** 18.03** 0.86**
Year X Location X Genotypes 42 39.56** 68.03** 165.24** 281.82** 3156.05** 9.38ns 0.73**
Error 402 20.23 27.28 11.44 86.3 1303.68 8.46 0.19
Remark= **= significant at 0.01 probability level, * = significant 0.05 probability level, DF= Degree of Freedom PH=Plant height (cm); NOP=number of pods per plant; NOS= number of
seeds per plant; HSW= Hundred seed Weight.
[285]
Mean Performance of the Genotypes
Based on the combined data over locations and yeardays to 50% flowering of the
genotype PI 594538A was the earliest (52.1 days); while genotype Pawe-3 showed
the latest flowering (64 days). Days to maturity ranged from 106 to 126.5 days for
the genotypes PI 594538A and Pawe-3, respectively. Similar trends of variability
in phenology were reported for days to 50% flowering, days to maturity (Singh et
al.,1996; Adiyata et al.,2011). Variation among genotypes for days to maturity
was observed due to differences in genetic constitution of genotypes. The
maximum plant height was recorded from the genotype BRS (87.4 cm), while the
minimum from the genotypes PI 594538A (37.2cm). Singh (2009) reported a
range of 66.25 -110.75 cm plant height in various soybean genotypes. The highest
pod per plant was recorded on the genotypes Pawe-3 (44), while the lowest on the
genotypes H-7 (27). Similarly, seeds per plant ranged from 57.1 for genotype PI
594538A to 111.9 to Pawe-3; and hundred seed weight from 12.2g for a
genotype PI417129B to 17.6 g for a genotype PI417089A and PI 594538A.
The maximum yield of 2.76 t ha-1 was observed from the genotype SCS-1 while
the minimum yield of 2.11 t ha-1was observed from the genotype PI587905 among
all the genotypes evaluated across the locations and seasons (Table 4). However,
there was a crossover ranking effect across the locations and years. The highest
yielding genotype at L1Y1 (Jimma) was PI417089A, while genotype Pawe 3 was
the poorest performer in that location. At L2Y1 (Mettu), the highest yield was
observed on the genotype PI417089A but, genotype PI416810 performed poorly.
At L2Y2, Essex-1 and SCS-1were the best genotypes, whereas PI594538A was
the worst performing genotype at this location. At L4Y1 (Asosa) the highest
yielding genotype was Essex-1, and the poorest genotype was PI416810.
Likewise, at L4Y2 (Asosa) the highest yielding genotype was SCS-1, and the
poorest genotype was PI587905.
[286]
Table 4. Mean performance of 15 Soybean genotypes for grain yield (t/ha) and yield related traits in Ethiopia, during 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons
Grain yield t/ha Combined value of yield related traits

No Genotypes L1Y1 L2Y1 L3Y1 L4Y1 L5 Y2 L1Y2 L2Y2 L3Y2 L4Y2 Overall DF DM PH NOP NOS HSW
1. Essex-1 2.59 2.06 1.92 2.16 2.51 2.61 3.32 1.73 2.71 2.40 56.1 117.7 67.1 33.2 76.3 16.2
2. SCS-1 2.72 2.45 1.87 1.61 3.70 2.96 2.79 2.74 4.00 2.76 57.8 117.2 63.4 38.8 81.0 15.1
3. H-7 2.74 2.37 1.78 1.31 2.50 2.66 2.95 2.11 3.33 2.42 52.4 114.2 48.4 27.8 61.2 17.0
4. JM-ALM/H3-15-SH 2.44 2.08 1.80 1.24 2.83 2.84 2.72 1.86 2.99 2.31 56.9 120.8 72.7 37.9 77.6 15.6
5. PR-143-(14) 2.62 2.01 1.88 1.37 2.93 2.86 2.28 1.63 2.89 2.27 58.8 117.5 60.3 38.7 83.6 15.2
6. BRS 283 2.65 2.31 2.02 1.61 2.29 2.56 2.66 1.58 2.90 2.29 53.1 114.3 87.4 35.8 76.3 17.4
7. Pawe 3(C1) 1.70 2.15 3.00 2.10 2.66 1.32 2.61 3.33 2.43 2.37 64.1 126.5 75.7 44.0 111.9 14.1
8. H-3 2.83 1.88 2.49 1.56 3.30 2.92 2.62 1.78 3.19 2.51 59.2 116.4 62.5 37.8 75.0 14.9
9. JM-DAV/PR142-15-SA 2.31 2.53 2.22 1.27 2.87 2.63 2.53 1.74 2.75 2.32 53.8 113.8 48.9 31.3 68.5 13.6
10. JM-ALM/H3-15-SC-1 2.36 2.21 2.47 1.32 2.93 2.56 2.71 1.93 2.89 2.38 56.4 116.6 57.0 32.9 73.8 14.1
11. PI417129B 2.26 2.17 2.41 1.66 2.56 2.64 2.66 1.77 2.72 2.32 57.1 117.2 51.5 32.1 71.5 12.2
12 PI416810 2.92 1.51 2.30 0.84 3.00 3.15 2.50 1.88 1.95 2.23 52.1 111.6 60.0 34.4 77.5 12.9
13 PI587905 2.77 2.13 2.80 1.37 1.89 2.34 2.21 1.70 1.76 2.11 53.1 108.8 45.0 34.4 66.5 12.8
14 PI594538A 3.14 2.22 1.58 1.19 2.13 1.93 1.97 2.09 3.39 2.18 49.1 106.1 37.2 29.7 57.1 17.6
15 PI417089A 3.47 2.72 1.00 1.60 2.92 2.26 2.26 2.79 3.22 2.47 53.4 111.4 75.6 33.5 65.4 17.6
Mean 2.63 2.19 2.10 1.48 2.73 2.55 2.59 2.04 2.87 2.35 55.6 115.4 60.9 34 74.9 15.1
CV (%) 6.34 2.78 20.27 23.3 37.4 6.77 20.8 17.84 15.3 19.11 2.1 2.2 3.2 4.3 16.5 1.3
LSD (0.05) 0.23 0.45 0.79 0.71 0.65 0.48 0.76 0.73 0.45 0.20 8.1 4.5 11.4 26 48.0 19.2
Remark= L1= Jimma, L2= Metu, L3=Gonder, L4=Asosa and L5=Tepi. **= significant at 0.01 probability level, * = significant 0.05 probability level, DF= Days to flowering; DM; Days to
Maturity; PH=Plant height (cm); NOP=number of pods/plant; NOS= number of seeds/plant; HSW= Hundred seed Weight; Y1=year one; Y2 =year two
[287]
Stability Analysis for YieldAccording to the Wricke (1962) method the most
stable genotypes were G10 and G11. However, these genotypes were not the
highest in rank for the mean yield. Hence, Wricke’s ecovalence analysis was not
efficient to identify high yielder and stable genotypes. Likewise, the most unstable
genotypes were G7 and G15 (Table 5). According to Cultivar superiority measure
(Pi) analysis, the genotype with low or small Pi value is considered to be more
stable (Lin and Binns, 1988). Therefore, the high yielding genotype G2 showed
low cultivar superiority value and highest yield performance, indicating stability
of this genotype. On the other hand, genotype G7 showed high Pi value and lowest
mean yield and was considered to be unstable (Table 5).
Genotypes G10 and G4 showed low Shukla’s stability variance value which indicates
that these genotypes are less responsive to favorable environments . On the other hand,
genotypes G7 and G15 exhibited highest Shukla’s stability variance value which implies
that these genotypes should perform better in increasingly favorable environments
(Table 5). From the results of this analysis, it can be seen that Wricke (1962) and Shukla
(1972) stability analysis method were identically estimated stability of genotypes for
yield. According to Francis et al.,1978), stable genotype shoud be the one that provides
a high yield performance and consistent low CV. As a result of these procedures, the
geneotypes G11, G1, and G6 are ranked first to third. On average the genotype mean
grain yields was found 2.33 t ha-1and the grain yield for G112.87 t ha-1), G12.37 t ha-1,
and G6 2.23 t ha-1 which almost meets the definition of stability.
[288]
Table 5. Selected Univariate stability analysis of seed yield of 15 soybean genotypes tested in five environments
.
Genotype Mean
Code t ha-1 CVi Rank ri2 Rank Wi Rank Pi Rank Si(1) Rank Si2 Rank
G2 2.729 29.984 12 0.212 10 1.567 10 0.159 1 1.0 7 10.88 5
G8 2.476 27.71 8 0.087 8 0.702 8 0.305 2 0.92 4 14.62 8
G15 2.469 31.814 13 0.427 14 3.058 14 0.418 5 1.61 14 32.25 13
G3 2.376 29.543 11 0.075 7 0.619 7 0.377 3 1.36 12 19.75 9
G1 2.37 21.43 2 0.158 9 1.194 9 0.461 7 1.31 11 20 10
G10 2.345 24.811 4 0.03 1 0.305 1 0.387 4 0.74 1 7.91 1
G7 2.335 27.656 7 0.765 15 5.406 15 0.603 12 0.89 3 32.5 15
G11 2.287 19.667 1 0.042 3 0.394 3 0.467 8 1.08 8 10.38 3
G9 2.286 25.604 5 0.045 4 0.408 4 0.469 9 0.75 2 10.5 4
G4 2.28 29.053 10 0.036 2 0.352 2 0.453 6 1.22 10 9.75 2
G6 2.255 23.214 3 0.045 5 0.411 5 0.508 11 1.0 6 12.25 6
G5 2.244 28.521 9 0.048 6 0.433 6 0.498 10 0.93 5 12.69 7
G12 2.197 37.581 15 0.299 12 2.176 12 0.638 14 1.14 9 30.88 12
G14 2.151 34.642 14 0.237 11 1.745 11 0.61 13 2 15 32.25 14
G13 2.078 25.961 6 0.308 13 2.233 13 0.795 15 1.58 13 21.28 11
B;- G1= Essex-1,G2= SCS-1,G3= H-7,G4= JM-ALM/H3-15-SH, G5= PR-143-(14), G6= BRS 283,G7= Paw 3 (C1), G8= H-3, G9 =JM-DAV/PR142-15-SA, G10= JM-ALM/H3-15-SC-1,G11=
PI417129B,G12= PI416810,G13= PI587905,G14= PI594538A,G15= PI417089A ;CV=Francis and Kannenberg’s (1978) coefficient of variability; environmental Variance(S2i); Pi=Lin and Binns's
(1988) cultivar performance measure; σ2i= Shukla's (1972) stability variance; Wi=Wricke's (1962) ecovalence; bi= Finlay and Wilkinson's (1963) regression coefficient; S2di= Eberhart and
Russell’s' (1966) deviation from regression.
[289]
The GGE bi-plot analysis of the 15 soybean genotypes evaluated in nine
environments with respect to yield is presented in Fig.1. The first two principal
components PCA 1 and PCA 2 accounted for 34.34 % and 26.35% of the sum of
squares, respectively; bo. The two PCA jointly explained a total of 60 .4% of the
total variation for yield. There are five rays and five sections and the nine
environments fell into four mega-environments while the genotypes fell into five
sections. The vertex genotype of each sector is the one that gave the highest yield
for the environments which fall within that sector. The vertex genotypes in this
study were genotypes, G7, G15, G2, G12 and G13. According to Yan and Tinker
(2006), the vertex genotypes were the most responsive genotypes as they have the
longest distance from the origin in their direction. Genotye G12 had the best
performance in the first environment designated as L1Y1. Likewise, genotype G7
showed the best performance in the second environment designated as L3Y2,
L4Y2, and L3Y1. The forth environment included L4Y1,L1Y2 and L5Y2 with a
vertex genotype G2 and G15. Only genotype G13 was on the vertex without
environment. The genotypes found at the vertex without environment performed
poorly in all the sites ( Alake et al., 2012). However, genotypes within the
polygon, particularly those located near the biplot origin were less responsive than
the genotypes on the vertices and the ideal genotype would be one closest to the
origin.
1.5
L1Y1
1.0
G12
L1Y2 G5
0.5
G8
G4
G6
G9 G13
AXIS2 26.35 %
L5Y2 G3L2Y1
G1 G11
0.0
G10
L4Y1 G2 G14
L3Y2
-0.5
L2Y2
G15
L4Y2
-1.0
-1.5
L3Y1
-2.0
G7
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 34.34 %
Figure 11. Polygon views of the GGE-biplot based on symmetrical scaling for ‘‘which-won-where’’ and mega-
environment delineation
NB;- G1= Essex-1,G2= SCS-1,G3= H-7,G4= JM-ALM/H3-15-SH, G5= PR-143-(14), G6= BRS 283,G7= Paw 3 (C1), G8=
H-3, G9 =JM-DAV/PR142-15-SA, G10= JM-ALM/H3-15-SC-1,G11= PI417129B,G12= PI416810,G13=
PI587905,G14= PI594538A,G15= PI417089A. L1 =Jimma ;L2= mettu ; L3 Gonder; L4= Asosa; L5 = Tepi.
[290]
The ranking of the genotypes based on their mean performance and stability listed
in figure 2. It has been established that if the PC1 of a GGE biplot approximates
the genotype main effects (mean performance), PC2 must approximate the GE
effects associated with each genotype, which is a measure of instability (Yan et
al., 2000). The line passing through the biplot origin and the average environment
indicated by a circle is called the average environment coordinate (AEC) axis,
which is defined by the average PC1 and PC2 scores of all the environments. By
using the average principal components in all environments, the average
environment coordination (AEC) method was employed to evaluate the yield
stability of genotypes. A line drawn through the average environment and the
biplot origin, having one direction, pointed to a greater genotype main effect.
Moving in either direction away from AEC ordinate and from the biplot origin
indicates the greater GEI effect and reduced stability. The AEC ordinate separates
genotypes with below-average means for those with above-average means. Hence,
from this study genotypes with above-average means were G2,G15,G14 and G3,
and genotype G12 had the poorest mean yield (Figure 2 ). Similarly, genotypes
G14,G15 and G1 were more stable while genotypes G7,G12, G5, G8 and G13
exhibited the lowest stablity.
Mean vs. Stability
1.5
L1Y1
1.0
G12
L1Y2 G5
0.5
G8
G4
G6
G9 G13
AXIS2 26.35 %
L5Y2 G3L2Y1
G1 G11
0.0
G10
L4Y1 G2 G14
L3Y2
-0.5
L2Y2
G15
L4Y2
-1.0
-1.5
L3Y1
-2.0
G7
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 34.34 %
Figure 2. GGE-biplot showing the best soybean genotypes based on mean grain yield performance and stability across
environments
GGE-biplot based on genotype-focused scaling for comparison of the genotypes

with the ideal genotype indicated in Figure 3. The ideal genotype is the one that
with the highest mean performance and absolutely stable (Yan and Kang, 2003).
This is assumed to be in the center of the concentric circles is an ideal genotype. It
is more desirable for a genotype to be located closer to the ideal genotype. Hence,
genotypes G2 ( SCS-1) and G15 (PI417089A) were ideal in terms of higher-
yielding and stability as compared to the other genotypes. While genotypes G7,
[291]
G12, G13, G5 and G8, which are located distant from the first concentric circle
were proorly performed as they were low yielding and unstable (Figure 3).
Ranking Genotypes
1.5
L1Y1
1.0
G12
L1Y2
G5
0.5
G8
G4
G6
G9 G13
AXIS2 26.35 %
L5Y2 G3L2Y1
G1 G11
0.0
G10
L4Y1 G2 G14
L3Y2
-0.5
L2Y2
G15
L4Y2
-1.0
-1.5
L3Y1
-2.0
G7
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 34.34 %
Figure 3. GGE-biplot showing the genotypes relative to ideal genotypes
Ideal environments had the longest vector with small IPCA, which fell into the center of concentric
circles. Hence, from this study, L4Y1 (Asosa) is an ideal environment. The ideal environment is
the most representative of the overall environments and the most powerful to discriminate
genotypes. Likewise, L5Y2(Tepi), L2Y2 (Metu) and L3Y1 (Gonder) were closer to the ideal
environment (L4Y1) and considered as a second powerful to discriminate genotypes. On the other
hand, environments L3Y2 (Gonder) and L1Y1(Jima) were found far from the ideal environment
and considered as less powerful to discriminate genotypes (Figure 4).
1.5
L1Y1
1.0
L1Y2
0.5
AXIS2 26.35 %
L5Y2
0.0
L2Y1
L4Y1 L3Y2
-0.5
L2Y2
L4Y2
-1.0
-1.5
L3Y1
-2.0
-2 -1 0 1 2
AXIS1 34.34 %
Figure 4. GGE-biplot showing ideal environments

[292]
Conclusion and Recomendation
Based on the results of this study genotype x environment x year was highly
significant (p < 0.01) for all of the studied trait except hundred seed weight.
Similarly, the interactions of the year, by location, year x varieties being
significantly different for all the studied traits. GGE biplot analysis showed SCS-1
and PI417089A were most stable genotypes because their interaction with the
environment was not enough to hinder yield as indicated by the IPCA scores of
zero or near zero. This suggests that these genotypes could be cultivated in any of
the tested environments for their stability. G2 (SCS-1) and G12 (PI417089A)
appeared to be the overall best genotype withhigh stability and better yield.
Therefore, these materials are recommended as candidates for release to the
farmers and for commercial production.
References
Abate, T., Alene, A.D., Bergvinson, D., Shiferaw, B., Silim, S., Orr, A. and Asfaw, S.,
2012. Tropical grain legumes in Africa and south Asia: knowledge and opportunities.
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
Aditya J.P., Bhartiya P. and Bhartiya A. 2011.Genetic variability, heritability and character
association for yield and component characters in soybean (G. max (L.) Merrill). Journal of
Central European Agriculture.12:27-34.
Alake, C.O. and Ariyo, O.J., 2012. Comparative analysis of genotype x environment interaction
techniques in West African Okra,(Abelmoschus caillei, A. Chev Stevels). Journal of
Agricultural Science, 4(4), p.135.
Asfaw, Asrat, A.T., Alamire, S. and Atnaf, M., 2006. Soybean Genetic Improvement in
Ethiopia. Food and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress and Prospects, p.95.
Central Stastical Autority Agricultural samples survey., 2017. Report on Area and Production of
Crops, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Central Stastical Autority Agricultural samples survey., 2019. Report on Area and Production of
Crops, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cornelius, M. and Goldsmith, P., 2019. Soybean yield in Africa. African Journal of Food,
Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 19(5), pp.15169-15172.
FAOSTAT (2019) Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed on October
07, 2021.
FAOSTAT (2020) Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. Accessed on October
07, 2021.
Gbegbelegbe, S., Alene, A., Kamara, A., Wiebe, K., Manyong, V., Abdoulaye, T. and
Mkandawire, P., 2019. Ex‐ ante evaluation of promising soybean innovations for sub‐
Saharan Africa. Food and energy security, 8(4), p.e00172.
Goldsmith, P., 2017. The Faustian Bargain of Tropical Soybean Production. Tropical Conservation
Science, 10, p.1940082917723892.
Francis, T.R. and Kannenberg, L.W., 1978. Yield stability studies in short-season maize. I. A
descriptive method for grouping genotypes. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58(4),
pp.1029-1034.
Khojely, D.M., Ibrahim, S.E., Sapey, E. and Han, T., 2018. History, current status, and prospects
of soybean production and research in sub-Saharan Africa. The Crop Journal, 6(3), pp.226-
235.
[293]
Lin, C.S. and Binns, M.R., 1988. A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar×
location data. Canadian journal of plant science, 68(1), pp.193-198.
Rao, M.S.S., Mullinix, B.G., Rangappa, M., Cebert, E., Bhagsari, A.S., Sapra, V.T., Joshi, J.M.
and Dadson, R.B., 2002. Genotype× environment interactions and yield stability of food‐
grade soybean genotypes. Agronomy Journal, 94(1), pp.72-80.
Sinclair, T.R. and Vadez, V., 2012. The future of grain legumes in cropping systems. Crop and
Pasture Science, 63(6), pp.501-512.
Tharanathan, R.N. and Mahadevamma, S., 2003. Grain legumes—a boon to human
nutrition. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 14(12), pp.507-518.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service.2007 Oilseeds: World Markets
and Trade, Washington, D.C
Varshney, R.K., Ojiewo, C. and Monyo, E., 2019. A decade of Tropical Legumes projects:
Development and adoption of improved varieties, creation of market‐ demand to benefit
smallholder farmers and empowerment of national programmes in sub‐ Saharan Africa and
South Asia. Plant Breeding, 138(4), pp.379-388.
Yan, W. and Kang, M. S. 2003.GGE Bi-plot Analysis - A Graphical Tool for Breeders, Geneticists
and Agronomists.First edition CRC Press, Florida.Pp. 271.
Yan, W. and Kang, M.S., 2002. GGE biplot analysis: A graphical tool for breeders, geneticists,
and agronomists. CRC press.Shukla, G.K. 1972. Some statistical aspects of partitioning
genotype-environmental components of variability. Heredity 29:237-245
Yan, W. and Tinker, N.A., 2006. Biplot analysis of multi-environment trial data: Principles and
applications. Canadian journal of plant science, 86(3), pp.623-645.Yan, W., Hunt, L.A.,
Sheng, Q. and Szlavnics, Z., 2000. Cultivar evaluation and mega‐ environment
investigation based on the GGE biplot. Crop science, 40(3), pp.597-605.
[294]
Performance of Newly Released Medium Maturing
Soybean Variety, Melko Bonsa-01in Major
Soybean Growing Agro-ecologies of Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi1*, Mesfin Hailemariam1, Masresha Yirga1,
Abush Tesfaye2, Behailu Atero1 and Ermias Tefera3
1
2
International Institutes of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road 200001, Ibadan, Nigeria
3
Ethiopian Institutes of Agricultural Research, Asosa Agricultural Research, Department of Field crop
Division; E-mail: yechalewss@gmail.com, P.O. Box, 192, Jimma, Ethiopia
Abstract
Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) is the most important oil crop globally and it is
becoming among the top list oil crop in Ethiopia. Based on productivity, soybean
ranked first among all other oil crops cultivated in the country. However, the
national average yield of soybean which is s 2.27 t ha-1, is lower than its potential
yield of 4 t ha-1. Lack of high yielding varieties adoptable to major soybean agro
ecologies, biotic and a biotic stresses have considerable contribution to the low
yield of the crop. Thus, this experiment was designed with the objective to develop
high yielding and desirable quality improved varieties of soybean suitable for
diverse agro-ecologies. Eleven soybean genotypes including the checks were tested
in a randomized complete block design with four replications for two years (2017
and 2018) across eleven locations. The combined data analysis across locations and
years indicated that variety MelkoBonsa-01 performed better than the two checks
and other test genotypes. Melko Bonsa-01 exhibited high yield advantages of 20.9%
and 30.3% over the checks, Nyala and Pawe-2, respectively. The variety was
tolerant to rust, bacterial blight and frog eye leaf spot diseases and has attractive
seed color and luster. Moreover, the variety has comparable protein and oil content
with the standard checks. Because of the various positive features the candidate
variety Melko Bonsa-01 evaluated nationally for released by the national varity
releasing committee since 2020.
Introduction
The cultivated soybean (Glycine max) is a self-pollinating plant with a self-
pollination rate of more than 99 percent in most cases (Caviness, 1966; Yoshimura
et al., 2006). Soybean is one of the most important pulse crops due to its good
biochemical compositions (Singh et al., 2008) and an ideal crop for improved
nutrition, food security, sustainable crop production and suitable in livestock
integration systems. Soybean is grown in medium and low altitude agro-ecologies.
History of soybean production started in Africa in 1858 in Egypt, while an
adaptation of soybean was started in Ethiopia in the 1950s (Shurtleff and Aoyagi,
2009). Global production of soybean has grown at annual growth rate of 4.68%
since 1961, while African production levels are rising at a rate of 6.84% per year.
Both world and Africa’s growth in production mostly result from an increase in
[295]
soybean acres planted and not from yield. South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia are
the top three soybean producers on the African continent (Cornelius and
Goldsmith, 2019). In Ethiopia, more than 8.1 million quintals of soybean
produced annually (CSA, 2018). The national soybean production is unable to
meet the demand of the country; therefore, the country depends on import of
soybean. The current productivity of the crop in Ethiopia is 2.27 tone ha-1(CSA,
2018), which is lower than its potential of 4 ton ha-1. To date, a total of 30 soybean
varieties have been released in Ethiopia for different agro-ecologies for production
by different research centers (MOA, 2018). However, alternative improved
soybean variety development across agro ecology is important to increase
production and productivity in the country. Therefore, this activity was initiated to
evaluate elite soybean genotypes across soybean growing environments and
release high yielding disease tolerant and quality soybean varieties to major
soybean growing agro ecologies of the country to further boost production and
productivity of the crop.

Planting materials origin and pedigree
Melko Bonsa-01 was tested in observation nursery at Jimma Agricultural
Research Centerand it was tested at different agro-ecological zones of the country
in multi-location yield trials; i.e. PVT and NVT. The National variety trial (NVT)
which generated the basic data for variety release committee was conducted at 11
locations; namely, Jimma, Metu, Assosa and Shire- Mytsemeri for two years
(2017 and 2018); and Tepi, Gonder and Jinka for one year. Melko Bonsa-01 with
its pedigree name JM-CLK/CRFD-15-SD is developed by Jimma Agricultural
Research Center soybean breeding team. It is a cross between clarck 63K a
medium maturing soybean variety recommended in 1981 and under production in
south western Ethiopia and crow ford, an early maturing variety recommended in
1980 but not in farmers hand at the moment. Melko Bonsaa-1 is a recombinant
inbred line selected at S5 from segregating generations developed through
successive selfing in a modified single seed decent method.
Table 1. Description of the study sites representing, south western, southern, western and northern part of the country
Latitude/ Elevation Total rainfall

Environment Longitude (masl) (mm) Soil type
Jimma 36082'N7067'E 1775 1561 Chromic Nitosol and Cambisol
Mettu 35057'N8028'E 1550 1835 Reddish brown
Asosa 34052'N10000'E 1580 Dystric Nitosols
Shire 38029'N14010'E 1871 Cambisols
Gonder 37043'N12052'E 1973 912
Jinka 36055'N5077'E 1375 Nitosol
Tepi 35044'N7020'E 1208 1559 Nitosol
[296]
Melko Bonsa-1 is the top yielding variety in national variety trial tested over
eleven locations. It has 20.9 % increase in yield over check1 (Nyala) and 30.3%
yield increase over check 2 (Pawe 2) respectively (Table 2). The variety had big
seed size with attractive seed color and seed luster, which is one of the important
criteria for food processing industries and export market (Table 3).The variety is
tolerant to soybean rust, frog eye leaf spot and bacterial blight (Table 4).
Moreover, it has comparable protein and oil content with the check (Figure 1).
The genotype Melko Bonsa-01 was late as compared to the check Nyala. The
maximum number of pod and number of seeds per plant was observed for pawe 2
followed by the candidate genotype Melko Bonsa-01; while the smallest number
of pod per plant was observed for genotype Hs93-4118. The candidate genotype
Melko Bonsa-01 was better than the check Pawe 2 in hundred seed weight.
[297]
Table 2. Combined mean grain yield (t/ha) and other parameters of soybean genotypes tested over 11 locations in 2 years period
% yield increase
Yield over check Standard
Variety DF DM PH NP NS HSW ( t/ha) Nyala(C1) Pawe2(C2)
5002T 51.4 114.6 64.1 29.6 70.5 20.6 2.73 16.2 25.2
SCS-1 63.3 119.7 64.7 38.8 87.0 17.1 2.57 9.4 17.9
Ozark 50.7 112.3 44.4 28.3 59.1 18.3 2.37 0.9 8.7
KS4895 51.7 110.5 46.7 29.2 65.0 16.9 2.25 -4.3 3.2
Harber 51.2 111.6 45.3 30.9 69.3 18.8 2.09 -11.1 -4.1
JM-PR142/CLK-15-SE 60.9 117.7 62.3 37.2 76.9 18.8 2.30 -2.1 5.5
Hs93-4118 45.2 108.1 42.4 27.6 62.3 18.6 1.70 -27.7 -22.0
Melko Bonsa-01 62.8 117.9 64.5 36.7 78.8 18.4 2.84 20.9 30.3
PI471904 63.3 122.5 86.8 42.2 96.2 14.1 2.64 12.3 21.1
PI417089A 56.5 114.0 81.5 35.1 78.8 21.0 2.30 -2.1 5.5
Nyala(C1) 57.5 115.9 53.4 30.9 62.8 20.2 2.35
Pawe 2 82 147 77.3 82 133.7 15.4 2.18
Mean 58.0 117.7 61.1 37.4 78.4 18.2 2.4
Min 45.2 108.1 42.4 27.6 59.1 14.1 1.7
Max 82.0 147.0 86.8 82.0 133.7 21.0 2.8
CV (%) 13.3 4.0 9.9 23.5 29.0 8.1 18.8
LSD (0.05) 3.6 2.2 2.9 3.9 10.5 0.7 0.21
Table 3. Main morphological characteristics of the candidate’s variety
Seed coat Hilum color of Flower Pubescence Seed Pubescence

No. Variety Color Leaf Shape the seed color color Pod color cluster density
1. Melko Bonsa-01 Yellow Intermediate Buff Purple Gray Light brown 1 Semi dense
NB; Seed luster scoring system is 1-5 scale (1=luster or attractive, 5= UN attractive
Table 4. Mean score of the candidate’s varieties relative to the standard check for diseases
Diseases Standard check-1 (Pawe-2) Check-2 (Nyala) Melko Bonsa-01

Common bacterial blight 2 2.90 2.35
Soybean rust 2 2.54 2.35
Frog eye leaf spot 3 1.0 2
The scoring system is 1-9 scale (1=immune, 9=Susceptible, then 1-3=resistant, 4-6=moderately resistant and 7-9 = susceptible
[298]
Protien Oil
35.65 36.75
Protein and oil contents of Candidates
34.73
21.82
and Checks in %
20.74 20.64
Melko Bonsa-01 Pawe 2 Nyala

Name of variety
Figure 1. Protein and oil contents of Candidates and Checks

The newly released soybean variety (Melko Bonsa - 01) is high yielder, tolerant to
major leaf disease of soybean, and attractive in seed color. Furthermore, it posses
comparable oil and protein content as compared to the standared checks. Hence,
the candidate variety has the capacity to increase productivity and production of
soybean if it is properly addressed to soybean growers in the area of adaptation
and similar agro ecologies. We therefore recommended demonstration and
popularization of the varieties to small scale farmers and commercial farms.
Variety development has value if and only if enough quantity of seed is multiplied
and distributed to users in both quality and quantity. Therefore, all stake holders in
soybean value chain should do their at most effort to multiply the seed. Jimma
research center who is the breeder and maintainer of the variety should multiply
enough breeder and pre basic seed.
References
Caviness, C.E., 1966. Estimates of Natural Crosspollination in Jackson Soybeans
in Arkansas 1. Crop Science, 6(2), pp.211-212.
Central StasticalAutority Agricultural samples survey. 2017/18. Report on Area
and Production of Crops, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Cornelius, M. and Goldsmith, P., 2019.Soybean yield in Africa. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 19(5), pp.15169-15172.
[299]
Ministry of Agriculture., 2018 Plant Variety Release, Protection and Seed Quality
Control Directorate, Crop Variety Register, Issue No. 17, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
Shurtleff, W. and Aoyagi, A., 2009. History of soybeans and soy foods in Africa
(1857-2009): extensively annotated bibliography and sourcebook. Soy info
Center.
Singh, P., Kumar, R., Sabapathy, S.N. and Bawa, A.S., 2008. Functional and
edible uses of soy protein products. Comprehensive reviews in food science
and food safety, 7(1), pp.14-28.
[300]
Screening of Soybean Genotypes in the Highland
Agroecology of Southwestern Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi13 Mesfin Hailemariam1* Masresha Yirga1;
Abush Tesfaye2 and Behailu Atero1
1
Division; 2International Institutes of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road 200001, Ibadan, Nigeria
3
National lowland oil crops research coordinator, Soybean innovation lab project coordinator and Pulse, oil
and fiber crops research representative at Jimma Agricultural research center
Abstract
Soybean is becoming economically important oil crop in Ethiopia. The current
production of soybean is lower than the demand in Ethiopia. The population of
Ethiopia is highly concentrated in the highland areas and relatively higher
prevalence of under-nutrition is found in the highland areas of the country. Hence
evaluating the adaptability of soybean genotypes at highland agro ecology is an
important option for nutrition security and horizontal production increment.
Soybean evaluation trial was conducted with 100 genotypes in simple lattice design
in the year 2019 main cropping season at Jimma zone, dedo district, South Western
parts of Ethiopia. The parameters collected include; days to flowering, days to
maturity, number of pods per plant, number of seed per plant, hundred seed weight
and grain yield. The statistical analysis showed significant difference at (P<0.05)
among the genotypes for most of the parameters. Out of the tested 100 about 68 % of
the soybean genotypes were unable to set seed and only 32% were able to set seed.
Mean grain yield ranged from 0.24 t/ha to 1.26 t/ha. The yield performances of the
tested soybean genotypes are lower than the national productivity of soybean at the
tested location. Hence, in the future, introduction of soybean genotypes adaptive to
such high altitude areas from different sources is indispensable. Furthermore, it is
necessary widen the genetic base with hybridization and develop soybean varieties of
high yielder and earliness for highland areas
Introduction
Soybean (G. max (L.) Merr.) is originated from China, and it is a major source of
protein for humans and a high-quality animal feed (FAO, 2009). Soybean is a non-
native crop in sub Saharan Africa (SSA) but one of the most feasible legumes has
the potential to become a commercial crop in Africa. is . It was introduced to SSA
in the 19th century (Giller & Dashiell, 2006). Soybean production in Africa
represents only about 1% of the global production in (FAOSTAT, 2019).
However, soybean production and productivity in sub Saharan Africa counter
including Ethiopia indicates increasing trends in the past ten year and expected to
increase in the future both in production and productivity (USDA, 2017).
According to the CSA report, the national annual production of soybean in
Ethiopia has increased from 1620. metric tons to closely 1,256,232.03 metric tons
between 2001/2002 and 2018/2019 cropping seasons. The periodical yield
[301]
increment was attributed to increased areas under production and improved
productivity per unit area of land. The demand of soybean in Ethiopia
is increasing from time to time. And current production of soybean is extremely
lower than the demand. Currently, soybean grows below sea level to altitudes
close to 1800 m in Ethiopia, but there is experience to grow soybean up to 2400
m.a.s.l in different countries like Kenya. More than 1900 m.a.s.l in Brazil
(Jeandson, 2013) with an average temperature between 20 oC and 30oC. Hence,
horizontal production increment through the development of suitable varieties
under highland area is one of the possible options to maximize the production of
soybean. Similarly Ethiopian highland area is highly concentrated in population
and relatively higher prevalence of under-nutrition and high soil fertility depletion.
Therefore identifying soybean genotypes adaptable to the highland area is a good
solution for the above mention problems. The aim of the present study was to
evaluate the performance of soybean genotypes under highland area.
The Study Area

The study was conducted at Jimma Zone Dedo district in Oromia regional state of
Ethiopia. Dedo is located 377 km from Addis Ababa, the altitude lies between 880
and 2400 m.a.s.l, However, the trial site lies in 2300 m.a.s.l with mean annual
rainfall ranges between 1200 and 2800 mm and temperature ranges from 20°C to
25°C (Gemechu , 2016).
Experimental Treatments and Design

A total of 94 early maturing lines and six released soybean varieties in Ethiopia
were evaluated in the simple lattice design. The experiment was planted in 2 rows
plot of 4 m length. The spacing used was 60 cm between rows and 5 cm between
plants. 100 kg DAP fertilizer was applied during planting and 3-4 hand weeding
was practiced to control weeds. Harvesting and threshing was done manually.
Data Collection
The morpho-physiological observations were recorded at different stages of
crop viz., days to flowering, days to maturity and hundred seed weight, disease
severity and yield were collected on plot base. Plant height, number of pods/plant
and number of seeds/plant were collected on a plant basis on randomly selected
five plants from the central rows and the averages of the five plants in each
experimental plot were used for statistical analysis.
[302]
Data Analysis
The collected data were subjected to Analysis of variance using SAS Software
after testing the ANOVA assumptions and treatment means were separated with
the Least Significant Difference (LSD) at the 5 % probability level.

Soybean production at highland area depends on three independent and synergistic
traits of flowering, viz: number of flowers produced on central racemes; capacity
to retain central raceme flowers despite cold stress; and capacity to compensate a
loss of central raceme flowers by rapid and sustained flower development on
lateral racemes (Gass et al, 1996). In the present study all of the tested soybean
genotypes grow well. However, only 32 soybean genotypes set seeds and about 68
soybean genotypes were unsuccessful to set seed and formed an abnormal pod
(Photo1). Responses of soya bean to day length after flowering is a typical
phenomenon of photoperiodism (Han and Wang, 1995). However, it is unclear
whether this hypothesis is true for other field crops. Hence, only 32 soybean
genotypes included in the statically analysis.
The statistical analysis showed significant difference for all of the parameters
except number pod per plant (Table 1). Mean yield and other parameters of
soybean genotypes tested at Dedo listed in table. 2. From these studies, soybean
genotypes T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G8 was the earliest to flower (71 days); while
genotype PI471904 showed the latest for flowering (129 days). Days to maturity
ranged from 149 for the genotypes T1-EL-OS-JM17-E4and- 197 days for the
genotypes PI471904 with a mean value of 182 days to maturity. In this study both
days to flowering and maturity takes extended time, as reported by other authors
(Singh et al., 1996; Adiyata et al. 2011) Soybean genotypes grown in their
optimum adaptation region can exhibit optimal agronomic traits and yield
potentials. Genotypes grown at a high latitude will increase in vegetative growth
and its flowering and seed maturity will be delayed, subjecting it to killing frost
compared to grown at low latitudes , its The (Zhang et al., 2007). Boyer et al
(2015) reported that delayed maturation decreases the yield of soybean.
About 16 soybean genotypes show plant height below the mean value (57cm). The
tallest plant height was recorded from PI471904 (98.7) and the shortest from
PI417116 (33.5). The maximum number of pods per plant was observed on the
varieties AFGAT (36.8) and the minimum from varieties PI423959 (7.8) with a
mean value of 20.3. The result is comparable to the one reported by Shankar
(2014), who reported that pod per plant ranged from 19.20 to 53.93 with a general
mean of 28.82 pods per plant. Similarly AFGAT showed the largest number of
seed per plant (55.8), while varieties PI423959 showed the lowest number of seed
per plant (10). With the mean value of 29.9, about 17 soybean genotypes recorded
[303]
more than the mean value in hundred seed weight (18.9g). The maximum hundred
seed weight was recorded from the variety PI200456 (28.6g), while the minimum
from the varieties PI567104B (9.7g). Mean yield ranges from 0.24 - 1.26 t/ha at
dedo. The recently released soybean variety called Pawe-02 gives the highest
yield as compared to the other which give 1.26 t/ha and the lowest yielding variety
was PI506764(0.24 t/ha). The yield performance of testing soybean genotypes was
lower as compared to the national productivity, which is 2.3 t/ha (CSA, 2019).
a b c d
Figure 1 Performance of some soybean genotypes at highland area, Dedo (a-c). Good
performance (d). Unable to set seed due to chilling problem (photo)
Table 1. Mean square value of yield and other parameters of soybean genotypes tested at Dedo highland in the year
2019
Source of variation
Traits Mean square( Df = 31) Error( Df=31)
DF 531.7** 54
DM 237.4** 87.5
PH 470.9** 131.9
NP 79.76ns 39.3
NS 249.9* 79.9
HSW 34.03** 7.5
Yield 15.4** 2.2
[304]
Table 2. Mean yield and other parameters of soybean genotypes adaptation trial at Dedo high land (Jimma)
Genotypes DF DM PH (cm) NP NS HSW Yield t /ha)

Pawe -2 111.5 196 64.1 33.7 51.5 24.7 1.26
SCS-1 115.5 187 56.8 21.2 26.4 21.6 1.13
PI417129B 106 187.5 59.9 20.9 34.9 19.8 1.05
PI567054C 125.5 197.5 79.9 26.3 44.7 10.9 1.01
JM-HAR/G99-15-SD-2 85 181.5 48.1 20 30.6 20.4 0.97
PR-143-(14) 113 187 52.1 24.6 40.9 19.9 0.96
JM-PR142/G99-15-SB 99.5 176.5 58.5 16.2 24.9 24.5 0.94
PI416810 109.5 171 67 20.4 32.1 16.8 0.93
PI417085 112.5 186 67.2 31.7 49.6 21.5 0.88
Nyala 98 186.5 51.6 19.3 26.1 16.5 0.87
PI423963 89 182 51.3 18.7 25.5 15.6 0.8
PI471904 129.5 197 98.7 26.7 42.2 12.3 0.79
PI200456 106.5 186 65.9 14.6 19.9 28.6 0.77
PI594760B 118.5 172.5 84 23.7 34.6 14.2 0.64
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B6 88.5 187.5 59.8 15.2 24.4 17.1 0.62
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G8 71 185.5 43.8 15.6 25.9 18.2 0.62
Coker 240 94.5 190 56.6 15.4 21 20.2 0.56
PI200488 93 183 45.7 24.4 33.6 20.6 0.53
Clark 63K 106.5 192 41.9 15.2 22.4 19 0.53
AFGAT 80 187 52.5 36.8 55.8 16.6 0.52
PI423959 94.5 185 41.4 7.8 10 24.3 0.52
PI567104B 119 154 88.1 24.7 42.7 9.7 0.51
PI200466 97.5 168.5 58.4 19.5 28.8 20.3 0.49
PI417089A 84 185.5 68.9 15.1 20 22 0.46
T1-EL-OS-JM17-E4 85 149 70.1 20.5 10.4 20.2 0.43
JM-HAR/PR142-15-SB 85 167 50.5 21.5 29.1 17.6 0.42
Harber 76.5 185.5 36 23.3 38.1 17 0.36
T3-EL-LG-63-JM17-A28 92 190.5 49.7 13.7 20.3 15.9 0.34
PI594172A 86 185.5 47.8 17.6 24.6 18.2 0.32
KS4895 79 186 40.1 11 17.5 16.8 0.31
PI417116 93.5 183 33.5 17.3 25.4 23.2 0.26
PI506764 86.5 185 41 16 23.8 23.4 0.24
Mean 98.5 182.6 57.2 20.3 29.9 18.9 0.66
Max 129 197.5 98.7 36.8 55.8 28.6 1.26
Min 71 149 33.5 7.8 10 9.7 0.24
CV (%) 7.5 5.1 20.07 30.9 29.8 14.4 22.4
LSD(0.05) 15 19 23 12.7 18.2 5.58 3

Among the tested soybean genotypes only 32 genotypes set seeds; while the rest
genotypes were unable to set seed. Grain yield ranged from 0.24 t/ha to 1.26 t/ha,
which is poor performance less than the national average of soybean productivity.
Based on this result it is not feasible to advance the tested soybean genotypes for
further test. In the future, focusing on introduction of soybean genotypes adaptive
for the high altitude area from different sources and planning hybridization
program to develop varieties for highland is recommended.
[305]
References
Aditya, J.P., Bhartiya, P. and Bhartiya, A., 2011. Genetic variability, heritability
and character association for yield and component characters in soybean (G.
max (L.) Merrill). Journal of Central European Agriculture, 12(1), pp.27-34.
Boyer, C.N., M. Stefanini, J.A. Larson, S.A. Smith, A. Mengistu, and N.
Bellaloui. 2015. Profitability and risk analysis of soybean planting date by
maturity group. Agron. J. 107:2253– 2262. doi:10.2134/agronj15.0148
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia, 2019. Agricultural sample survey
report on area and production of major crops for private peasant holdings,
Meher season, volume I. Addis Ababa.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) of Ethiopia, 20202. Agricultural sample survey
report on area and production of major crops for private peasant holdings,
Meher season, volume I. Addis Ababa.
FAO. 2009 . Climate change in Africa: The threat to Agriculture
FAOSTAT Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. 2019.
Accessed on July 1, 2019.
Foreign Agricultural Service/United Sates Department of Agriculture,.2017 .
Oilseeds: World Markets and Trade, USDA, Washington, D.C., USA .
Gass, T., Schori, A., Fossati, A., Soldati, A. and Stamp, P., 1996. Cold tolerance
of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) during the reproductive
phase. European Journal of Agronomy, 5(1-2), pp.71-88.
Gemechu A (2016). Estimation of soil loss using revised universal soil loss
equation and determinants of soil loss in TiroAfeta and Dedo Districts of
Jimma Zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. Trends in
Agricultural Economics 9: 1-12.
Giller, K.E. and Dashiell, K.E., 2006. Glycine max (L.) Merr. Plant resources of
tropical Africa, 1, pp.76-82.
Han, T., C. Wu, R.S. Mentreddy, J. Zhao, X. Xu, and J. Gai. 2005. Post-flowering
photoperiod effects on reproductive development and agronomic traits of
long-day and short-day crops. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 191:255–262.
doi:10.1111/j.1439-037X.2005.00148.x
Singh, M. and Ceccarelli, S., 1996. Estimation of heritability of crop traits from
variety trial data. ICARDA.
Zhang, M., Duan, L., Tian, X., He, Z., Li, J., Wang, B. and Li, Z., 2007.
Uniconazole-induced tolerance of soybean to water deficit stress in relation
to changes in photosynthesis, hormones and antioxidant system. Journal of
Plant Physiology, 164(6), pp.709-717.
[306]
Performance Evaluation of Medium Maturing
Soybean (Glycine max (L) Merrill) Varieties under
Irrigation in Northwester Ethiopia
Derese Hunde 1*, Molla Malede2, and Asmamaw Amogne 2
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Email: http//www.eiar.gov.et, P.O.Box 2003, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: 2Pawe Agricultural Research Center (PARC); Email:parceiar2008@gmail.com, P. O. Box
25. Pawe, Ethiopia; E-mail: deressehunde20@gmail.com,
Abstract
Soybean is one of the most global oil crop produced and utilization is highly
accepted world wid because of its nutrient composition, soilfertility regulation and
market value. In Ethiopia its production is only rain based and once per year.
Rainy based single production is not enough to meet the current soybean demand in
Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular. In addition, offseason production
increase soybean productivity by reducing disease pressure. There fore this
experiment was conducted at Pawe Agricultural Research Center irrigation site of
Duhuans Baguna substation in 2018 and 2019 off seasons to select best performing
soybean varieties under irrigation to widen the options of soybean sutable varity for
the farmers having irrigation facility. Hence eight medium maturing released
soybean varieties were evaluated using randomized complete block design with
three replications. The combined analysis revealed that there was highly
significant difference in days to flowering and hundred seed weight among the
tested varieties. The highest grain yield was obtained from Cheri (26.15 Q ha-1)
followed by Wello (26.074 Q ha-1) while the lowest grain yield were recorded for
varity Davies (19.096 Q ha-1) foloweed by Crawford (20.264 Q ha-1). Therefore, the
two varietys namely Cheri, and Wello are recommended for irrigation based
production in north western Ethiopia and similare agroecology.
Introduction
Soybean (Glycine max L.) is the first among oilseed crops on the planet and
contributes almost 25 percent of universes all out oil and fat production (Basediya
et al., 2018). The world soybean yearly production is 362.87 million metric tons.
Top five world soybean delivering nations are USA, Brazil, Argentina, China and
India, which represent 89.31% of world supply (USDA, 2019). According to
CSA, 2019 report, in the past 10 years the total area of land under soybean
production increased from 5678.69 to 64,720.12 ha, while the total volume of
soybean production during the same period has increased from 7205 to 149454.6
tons and productivity increased from 12.7 to 23.1 quintal ha-1 which mean 81.8%
of increment. The expansion of soybean production area was largely in order to
meet local demand of edible oil, soybean meal, for livestock feed and used as
rotation crop (USDA, 2016). In Ethiopia, Soybeans is produced on more than
64,720.12 ha yearly with national average yield of 2.31 tons ha-1 (CSA, 2019). The
[307]
significant (99.6%) soybean produsing zones are North Western and South
Western parts of the country namily Oromia , Benishangul Gumuz, Tigiray and
some parts of Amhara region.
Irrigation has been tremendously refreshing for its noteworthy commitment to
worldwide farming production and food security in the course of recent years.
Now a day, greater than 40 percent of worldwide agricultural products are created
on irrigated land (FAO, 2018). The ultimate goal of irrigation is to utilize added
water efficiently on soybean hectarage that can give the greatest seed yield
increase from added water (Pejic B et al., 2012). Several studies conducted for a
wide range of environments have demonstrated that soybean yield increases with
irrigation (Dogan et al. 2007, Sincik et al. 2008, Bajaj et al. 2008, Gerçek et al.
2009). Irrigation improved overall yield of soybean by an average of21.93%
(Pejic B et al., 2012), 26.1% (Berger-Doyle et al., 2014). The area and production
of soybean in Ethiopia has steadily increased over the years. However, the
national average productivity in Ethiopia is 2.31 tons ha -1 (CSA, 2019) which is
far below the genetic potential of the crop when compared to countries like Brazil
(3.33), USA (3.16), and Argentina (3.02 tons ha -1) (USDA, 2020).
The major reasons for low productivity of the crop includes: limited availability of
seed, poor crop management and extension service, lack of mechanization, biotic
and abiotic factors, limited seed sector involvement, limited financial support and
low soil fertility (Tesfaye et al., 2018, Deresse et al, 2019). So far, a large portion
of the released soybean varieties by the national and regional research institute
were tested fundamentally for rainfed environmental conditions as participatory
variety selection and demonstration (Deresse and Gezahagn,2018). Therefore, the
objective of this study was to select high yielidng and best performing soybean
varieties under irrigation condition.

Discription of the experimental site
The study was conducted during the 2018 and 2019 winter seasons at Pawe
Agricultural Research Center, Duhuans Baguna substation irrigation site, which is
located in Benishangul Gumuz Regional State, Metekel Zone.
Table1. Discription of the study irrigation site site Duhuans Baguna under pawe
ARC.
[308]
Table 1. Discription of the study irrigation site site Duhuans Baguna under pawe ARC.
Altitude 1190 m.a.s.l

Latitude 11.06°, 02´ N
Longitude 36.32°, 13´ E
Rain fall 1586mm
Soil types Nitosol
Soil Texture clay = 38%
silt = 24%
Sand = 38%
NB the soil texture indicated in the table was taken at 30cm soil depth
Experimental material
Eight medium maturing released soybean varieties were used for this study. These
materials were released by federal and regional agricultural research institute in
our country. The lists of materials used for this experiment are preset in Table 2
below.
Experimental design and Cultural practices used
The experiment was laid out in a randomized completely block design with three
replication. Each variety was planted using 2.4 m × 4m plot area and 100kg ha-1
NPS which applied at sowing. Planting date for 2018 cropping season was on 15 th
of December 2018 and for 2019 cropping season was on 11th of December 2019.
Furrow irrigation with spacing of 60cm between rows and 15cm raising bed was
used and 5cm between plants spacing used on the one shady sides of the ridgeto
protect the seed from the sun. The plots were irrigated using a conventional furrow
irrigation method at 100% field capacity (FC) and subsequent irrigations were
applied every 9 days interval during plant vegetative development stage, and every
7 days interval during reproductive stages.
Table 2. List of released soybean varieties used for the study using irrigation in 2018 and 2019
Maturity Maturity Year of Released

S.no. Variety date group Released Center
1 Gizo 90-120 Medium set 2010 Pawe ARC/EIAR
2 Afgat 110-136 Medium set 2007 Awassa ARC/SARI
3 Cheri 100-135 Medium set 2003 Bako ARC/OARI
4 Wello 90-125 Medium set 2012 Sirinqa ARC/ARARI
5 Davies 121-135 Medium set 1982 Awassa ARC/SARI
6 Clark-63k 101-135 Medium set 1982 Awassa ARC/SARI
7 Crawford 90-120 Medium set 1982 Awassa ARC/SARI
8 Gishama 90-120 Medium set 2010 Pawe ARC/EIAR
Where ARC= Agricultural Research Center, AwARC= Awassa Agricultural Research Center, EIAR = Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research, ARARI=Amhara Regional Agriculture Research Institute, OARI= Oromia Agriculture Research
Institute and SARI= Southern Agriculture Research Institute
Data collection
Data on crop phenology, yield and yield related traits were recorded. At maturity,
five plants were randomly selected from the two central varvestable rows of each
[309]
plot and the following traits were measured; plant height (cm), number of
branches plant-1, number of pods plant-1, number of seeds plant-1 and number of
seeds pod-1 and Seed yield Q ha-1 was calculated from over all plants in the two
central rows of the plot.
Statistical analysiss
The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis of Variance and the error
variance were tested using the general linear model (GLM) in SAS 9.4 software.
The least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% of probability was performed to
compared the differences among the varieties. The two years was combined and
tested fornormality and homogeneity of variance using Levene’s test.

The combined analysis of variance revealed that there was statistically high
significant difference in years fordays to flowering, days tomaturity, numbers of
seeds per pod , numbers of seeds per plant, plant height and hundred seed weight
(Table 3). This indicates the materials were significantly influenced by the
environment. Similar findings reported for plant height (Perez Arocho, 2017;
Ibrahim et al., 2017), days to flowering and days to maturity (Ibrahim et al.,
2017). Significan variation across the years were observed for days to flowering
and numbers of branches.
Table 3. Combined analysis of variance for agronomic traits of the eight medium maturing soybean varieties evaluated
under irrigation for consecutive years of 2018 and 2019
Year Rep(year) Trt Year*trt Error (28) CV%
Parameter (1) (4) (7) (7)
265043 22.16
YLD 43649.96ns 196779.21ns 399462.56ns 290008.68ns
HSW 27.15** 10.77* 7.55* 4.88 ns 2.65 10.99
NB 0.01ns 0.734ns 0.89ns 2.01* 0.6 21.52
SdP 2.13** 0.12ns 0.24ns 0.15ns 0.18 23.96
SdPP 11765.67** 173.31ns 386.50ns 316.72ns 325.95 22.08
PPP 318.79ns 65.03ns 222.71ns 162.24ns 168.88 27.23
PH 5334.08** 183.25ns 510.78ns 377.43ns 415.52 28.42
DM 11470.08** 22.71ns 42.13ns 12.42ns 41.76 5.44
DF 1419.19** 10.98ns 137.16** 73.95* 27.43 8.73
Where DF= days to 50% flowering, DM= days to maturity, PH= plant height(cm), PPP= number of pods plant-1, SdPP=
number of seeds plant-1, SdP= number of seeds pod-1, NB= number of branch plant-1, HSW= 100 seed weight(gm), and
GY = grain yield (kg ha-1)
Grain yield performance of the tested materials for the year of 2018 was ranged
from 1361.7 to 28.206 Q ha-1 and for the year of 2019 ranged from 19.924 to
26.572 Q ha-1 (Table 4 and 5). In 2018, the highest grain yield was recorded on
variety clarck-63K (28.206 Q ha-1) followed by Wello (27.139 Q ha-1) and Cheri
(25.728 Q ha-1) whereas the lowest grain yield under the mean was obtained on
variety Crawford and Davies (Table 4). In 2019 the highest grain yield
[310]
performance was found on variety Cheri (26.572 Q ha-1) and Wello (25.008 Q ha-
1
) whereas Gizo and Clarck-63K were poorly performed below the mean (Table
5). The overall yield performance in 2019 season was low in comparison with the
2018 season. This was due to security problem leads for earlier interruption of
the irrigation application than the planed which The combined result confirmed
there was no significant variation in grain yield among the tested varieties, year
and variety year interaction (Table 3). These might be due to the same genetic
background of those varieties and their response to irrigation environment.
The combined grain yield for the two consecutive years was ranged from 19.096
to 26.15 Q ha-1 (Table 6). The highest grain yield was found on variety Cheri
(26.15 Q ha-1 ) followed by Wello (26.074 Q ha-1) and Clark-63k (24.982 Q ha-1)
whereas the lowest grain yield was recorded on variety Davies (1909.4 Q ha-1) and
Crawford (20.264 Q ha-1) (Table 6). The varieties Cheri, Wello, Clark-63K and
Afgat were performed above the mean and Davies, Crawford, Gizo and Gishama
performed below the combined mean. Even if it was not statistically significant
the variety Cheri and Wello were performed well under irrigation environment. In
2018, Days to flowering were ranged from 53 to 73 days. Davies, Crawford,
Clarck-63K and Cheri were flowered early, while Gishama, Gizo, Wello and
Afgat were flowered late (Table 3). In 2019, days to flowering were ranged from
50 to 60.33 days. Davies, Cheri, Gizo and Clarck-63K were flowered early, while
Afgat, Crawford and Gishama were flowered lately (Table 4).
There was ranking difference in days to flowering for Crawford and Gizo in 2018
and 2019 experimental seasons (Table 4 and 5). The overall combined analysis of
variance for days to flowering revealed significant variation for the year, variety
and their interaction (Table 3). Days to 50% flowering was ranged from 51.5 to
65.2 days. The variety Davies, and Crawford were flowered early among the
tested varieties while Afgat, Gishama, Wello and Gizo were found late flowering
(Table 6). Statistically there was no significant difference among the tested
varieties in Days to maturity in both 2018 and 2019 experimental seasons. Days to
maturity was ranged from 128.67 to 140.67 days in 2018. Cheri, Davies and
Crawford were matured early while, Clarck-63K was matured late (Table 4). In
2019, days to maturity of genotypes were ranged from 98.67 to 106.33 days.
Relatively the varieties Gizo was matured early whereas ,Wello, Afgat, and
Clarck-63K were matured late (Table 6). The combined result revealed that days
to maturity ranged from 115.5 to 122.5 days (Table 6). The variety Chari, Davies
and Crawford were matured early while Clarck-63K, Afgat, and Wello were
observed relatively late maturing varities.
Plant height ranges from 53.72cm to 82.23cm and variety Wello was the tallest
71.87cm followed by Gishama and Crawford 66.93 and 65.93cm respectively. on
the other hand Afgat, Davies, and Cheri were short in plant height (Table 4). In
2019 the varity with higher plant hidgt was Afgat (102.9 cm), followed by
[311]
Gishama (94.4), Wello (92.6), and Clark-63K(83.33cm). On contrary the shortest
plant height found on varieties Davies (53.3cm) followed by Crawford (68.53cm)
(Table 5). There was significant variation for plant hight across the two years
these might be due to variation in water suplied. The combined analysis over the
two-year revealed that there was no significant variation among the varities for
plant heigh (Table 6).
Table 4. Mean performance of medium maturing soybean variety evaluated under irrigation in 2018
Variety GY DF DM PH PPP HSW SdP NB

Gizo 25.472 71 135.67 60.67 44.17 14.83 1.64 3
Afgat 25.262 70 137 52.07 60.47 13.5 1.17 3.27
Cheri 25.728 67 128.67 55.17 44.93 12.17 1.66 3.43
Wello 27.139 70.33 135.33 71.87 48.2 14.33 1.38 3.8
Davies 17.204 53 131 54.13 42.13 16 1.71 4.47
Clarck-63K 28.206 65.33 140.67 62.67 31.6 14.17 2.04 3.53
Crawford 13.617 54 132 65.93 41.13 14.83 1.71 3.67
Gishama 22.062 73 133 66.93 48.73 12.67 1.23 3.8
MEAN 23.0862 65.46 134.17 61.18 45.17 14.06 1.57 3.62
CV% 23.45 2.12 4.53 17.61 26.73 4.48 27.44 15.78
LSD 948.09 2.43 10.65 18.87 21.15 1.1 0.75 1
Table 5. Mean performance of medium maturing soybean variety evaluated under irrigation at pawe substation, Duhuans
Baguna irrigation site in 2019
Variety GY DF DM PH PPP HSW SdP NB

Gizo 19.924 53.00 98.67 73.40 51.93 14.03 2.23 3.87
Afgat 22.560 60.33 105.33 102.90 47.07 14.67 2.13 3.40
Cheri 26.572 52.00 102.33 78.23 55.00 17.33 2.09 5.60
Wello 25.008 55.33 106.33 92.60 64.60 14.17 1.63 3.20
Davies 20.987 50.00 101.33 53.30 37.07 18.17 1.95 2.67
Clarck-63K 21.757 53.33 104.33 83.33 46.67 16.33 2.18 3.07
Crawford 23.324 56.00 101.33 68.53 51.47 15.83 1.75 3.47
Gishama 23.320 56.67 101.33 94.40 48.80 14.00 1.93 3.53
Mean 22.932 54.58 102.63 80.84 50.33 15.57 1.99 3.60
CV% 23.54 13.33 6.71 34.20 27.53 14.24 21.21 26.07
LSD 945.29 12.74 12.06 48.43 24.26 3.88 0.74 1.64
Where DF= days to 50% flowering, DM= days to maturity, PH= plant height (cm), PPP= number of pods plant-1, SdP=
number of seeds pod-1, NB= number of branch plant-1, HSW= 100 seed weight (gm), and GY = grain yield (kg ha-1)
The mean performance of pods number per plant in 2018 and 2019 is presented in
Table 4 and 5 respectively. The number of pods per plant was ranged from 31.6
for variety Clarck-63K to 60.47 for Afgat in 2018 (Table 4), and it ranged from
37.07 for variety Davies to 64.6 for variety Wello in 2019 (Table 5). The
combined result for the two years showed the lowest number of pods per plant was
observed on varieties Clarck-63K (39.13) and Davies (39.6). On contrary, highest
pod numbers were recorded on varieties Wello (56.4) and Afgat (53.77) (Table 6).
Significant variation was observed for hundred seed weight (gm) over the two
years ranged from 12.17gm to 16gm in 2018 and from14gm to 18.17gm in 2019.
[312]
The combined two years mean also show significant variation in hundred seed
weight ranged from 13.33 to 17.08g and the highest hundred seed weight was
recorded on varity Davies (Table 6)
Table 6. Combined Mean Performance of eight medium maturing soybean varieties evaluated at pawe substation,
Duhuans Baguna irrigation site in 2018 and 2019 offseason
Variety GY DF DM PH PPP HSW NB SdP

Gizo 22.698 62 119.7 72.73 48.05 14.43 3.43 1.94
Afgat 23.911 65.17 121.2 77.48 53.77 14.08 3.33 1.65a
Cheri 26.15 59.5 115.5 66.7 49.97 14.75 4.52 1.88
Wello 26.074 62.83 120.8 82.23 56.4 14.25 3.5 1.51
Davies 19.096 51.5 116.2 53.72 39.6 17.08 3.57 1.83
Clark-63k 24.982 59.33 122.5 73 39.13 15.25 3.3 2.11
Crawford 20.264 55 116.7 67.23 46.3 15.33 3.57 1.73
Gishama 22.691 64.83 117.2 80.67 48.77 13.33 3.67 1.58
MEAN 23.233 60.02 118.71 71.72 47.75 14.82 3.61 1.78
CV 22.159 8.73 5.44 28.42 27.22 10.99 21.52 23.96
LSD 608.86 6.19 7.64 24.11 15.37 1.93 0.92 0.5
GY = grain yield(kg ha-1).

The combined result of the eight soybean varities evaluated under furrow
irrigation over the two off-seasons in 2018 and 2019 revealed highly significant
influence of the years on the varities performances. . The traits hundred seed
weight, seed per plant, seed per pod, plant height, days maturity and days to
flowering showed variation across the years. This might be due variation in
evaporation rate from the soil during 2018 offseasonHigh grain yield performance
was obtained from varieties Cheri and Wello with 26.15 Q ha-1, 26.074 Q ha-1
respectively. The materials used in this trial were medium maturing which needs
enough amount of water to produce as of their potential. However, the yield
obtained were low might be due to water supply shortage at flowering stage (R1)
to seed filling (R5). However, the two varietys namely Cheri, and Wello are
recommended for irrigation based production in north western Ethiopia and
similar agroecology.
Reference
Basediya, AL., Mishra, S., Gupta, R., Kumar, P., & Basediya, SS., 2018. Performance of
Ridge and Furrow System on the Growth and Yield Attribution of Soybean in
[313]
Barwani District of M.P. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences, 7(08), 499–505.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA), 2019. Agricultural sample survey report on area and
production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season). Volume I,
statistical bulletin 589, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Deresse H. and Gezahegn T., 2018. Participatory Varietal Selection and Evaluation of
twelve Released Soybeans [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] varieties for Lowland areas of
North Western Ethiopia, Pawe Agricultural Research Center, National soybean
Research Program, Pawe, Ethiopia. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop
Science Vol. 5(2), pp. 403-407, August, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org. ISSN:
2167-0449.
Deresse H., Mola M., Asmamaw A. and Gezahegn T., 2019. Genotype by Environment
Interaction and Yield Stability Studies on Medium Maturing Soybean Genotypes
Tested in Northwest, Southern and Western Parts of Ethiopia for two Consecuative
Years (2016-2017) Across Five Testing Locations.
Food and agriculture organization of the united nations (FAO), 2018. Guidelines on
irrigation investment projects. Rome.122 pp. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
Ibrahim SE., Han WY. Baek IY. and Cho Gyoung R., 2017. Evaluating Soybean
Germplasm for Agronomic Performance under Irrigated Cropping Environment in
Sudan. J. Korean Soc. Int. Agric., 29(4): 415~420.
Perez, Jorge E., High and low yielding soybean lines from an irrigated selection
environment: Performance evaluation in irrigated and droughted environments
[Dissertations]. 2017. ETD collection for University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2017.
United State Department of Agricalture(USDA) Foreign Agricultural Services, 2016.
Ethiopia’s Oilseed Production Forecast to Increase Despite Drought, Grain Report
No. ET1611, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
World agricultural production. United state department of agriculture foreign
agricultural service, circular series p7-9.
Ethiopia Oilseeds Report Annual. United state department of agriculture foreign
agricultural service, Grain Report No. ET2020-0001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye, A., Arega, A., Atero, B., Degu, T. and Hailemariam, M., 2018. Progress of
Soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] Breeding and Genetics Research in Ethiopia: A
Review. Ethiop. J. Crop Sci., 6(3):129-152.
Berger-Doyle J, Zhang B, Smith SF, Chen P, 2014. Planting Date, Irrigation, and Row
Spacing Effects on Agronomic Traits of Food-grade Soybean. Adv Crop Sci Tech 2:
4, 149.
Bajaj S, Chen P, Longer DE, Shi A, Hou A, Ishibashi T, Brye K, 2008. Irrigation and
planting date effects on seed yield and agronomic traits of early-maturing Soybean. J.
Crop Improv. 22: 47-65.
Dogan E, Kirnak E H, Copur O, 2007. Deficit irrigation during soybean reproductive
stages and CRPGRO-soybean simulations under semi-arid climatic conditions. Field
Crops Res. 103: 154-159.
Gerçek S, Boydak E, Okant M, Dikilitaş M, 2009. Water pillow irrigation compared to
furrow irrigation for soybean production in a semi-arid area. Agric. Water Manag. 96:
87-92.
[314]
Sincik M, Cadogan B N, Demirtas C, Büyükacangaz H, Yazgan S, Goksoy A T, 2008.
Deficit irrigation of soybean [Glycine max (L) Merr.] in a sub-humid climate. J.
Agron. Crop. Sci. 194: 200-205.
Pejic B, Bosnjak D, Mackic K, Rajic M, Josipovic M, Jug I, and Maksimović L, 2012.
Yield and Water Use Efficiency of Irrigated Soybean in Vojvodina, Serbia. Ratar.
Povrt. 49: 80-85.
Appendix
Appendix Table 1: - Levene's Test for Homogeneity Variance for yield and yield related traits of medium set released
soybean varieties
Sum of Squares Mean Square

Traits Year (1) Error (46) Year (1) Error (46) F Value Pr > F
YLD 30948.5 4090033 88913.8 30948.5 0.35 0.56
HSW 18.8021 61.1491 18.8021 1.3293 14.14 0.001
NB 1.325 18.521 1.325 0.4035 3.28 0.08
SdP 0.04 2.95 0.04 0.06 0.63 0.43
SdPP 1154 5761.3 1154 125.2 9.21 0.004
PPP 23.58 2932.5 23.58 63.75 0.37 0.55
PH 1900 4551.4 1900 98.94 19.2 <.0001
DM 1.39 675.9 1.39 14.69 0.09 0.76
DF 13.11 786.9 13.11 17.11 0.77 0.39
GY = grain yield(kg ha-1)
[315]
Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) Verities in Ethiopia
Birhanu Mengistu*1, Mohammed Abu1 and Fikadu Amsalu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. box 31, Holetta, Ethiopia, E-mail: yesilase07@gmail.com
Abstract
The experiment was conducted to evaluate the performance and adaptability of
introduced hybrids sunflower varieties in Ethiopia. On station and on farm trials
were executed in 2019/20 cropping season at six locations. Based on the combined
analysis of least square means highly significant mean values were observed (P < 1)
for the studied traits. The highest grain yield was recorded for PAN7057 (2249.1
kg/ha) and P65LL02 (1824.2kg/ha). The result confirms newly introduced hybrid
varieties (PAN7057 and P65LL02) exhibit the highest mean value for grain yield, oil
content and oil yield. Variety P65LL02 showed 49.9 and 43.6 percent yield
advantage over previously registered hybrid P63LL06 and open pollinated variety
(OPV) Oissa respectively. Whereas, 128.4 and 75.7 percent of oil yield advantage
were recorded over the P63LL06 and Oissa varieties respectively. Newly introduced
hybrid variety PAN7057 has 84.9 % grain yield and 128.4 % oil yield advantage
over the check hybrid variety P63LL06. Based on the result the introduced varieties
were observed as well adapted and outperform than the existing hybrid and open
pollinated varieties. Therefore, registering these varieties may help to boost the
sunflower production as an alternative variety in order to address the growing
demand of improved sunflower technology in Ethiopia.
Introduction
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) is one of the major sources of oil in the world
and assumed to be originated from southern United States where its progenitor or
wild H. annuus was found (Heiser 1978). The domesticated sunflower was
introduced from North America into Europe in the sixteenth century by the early
Spanish explorer (Putt, 1977) where the crop utilized as a garden ornamental.
Evidences suggested that sunflower was introduced to the North Horn of Africa
including Ethiopia by the Italians some 160 years ago.
Sunflower is being considered as an important oilseed crop of the world next to

rapeseed, soybean and cotton (Yadav et al., 2012). Cultivation of sunflower has
proved to be a cost-effective option in rotations systems with other grain crops.
The oil from sunflower, however, is a premium due to its light color, bland flavor,
high smoke point and good nutritional quality. Moreover, sunflower has a wide
adaptability, photoperiod insensitivity, high yield and easy for cultivation. In order
to improve the crop production of sunflower, different aspects of research through
plant breeding are being carried out for obtaining desirable genotypes.
[317]
Even though, sunflower is not widely grown in Ethiopia the country possesses
large agricultural land suitable for sunflower production. According to Central
Statistical Authority ten years report (2009/10- 2018/19); sunflower production
has a slight increase in area of production. But currently commercial private
farmers have started to grow due to high demand of raw material for oil-millers
and thus its coverage is started to increase from time to time. The government of
Ethiopia has also considered sunflower as a potential source of edible oil raw
material supply for the next ten years.
Beside its huge potential for food, feed and industrial application our country
misses the benefits because of lack of sufficient high yielding improved varieties,
biotic and abiotic factors (especially bird damage), no or very weak extension
service on sunflower production considered as the major constraints (Misteru and
Birhanu, 2021). In addition, Ethiopia has limited sunflower germplasm material
and narrow genetic bases for traits of economic interest. Therefore, identification
of high yielding, and disease resistance varieties either from local available
materials or from introduced genotypes will be very important. Besides their high
grain yield and oil content; hybrid varieties are better in uniformity, disease
resistance, manageable height and earliness. In order to boost sunflower
production, it is imperative to identify the best performing and well adapted
hybrid genotypes. Thus, the objective of the current study is to evaluate the
adaptability and performance of introduced hybrid sunflower varieties for their
grain yield, disease reaction and oil content.
Material and Methods
Experimental Design and Field Layout

The experiment was conducted in 2019/20 cropping season at seven locations
Holetta, Ambo, Kulumsa, D/Zeit, Fenotselam, Adadi and Arsi Negele. The
experimental materials were PAN7057 and P65LL02 newly introduced hybrid
varieties from South Africa by Pioneer Hi-Breed seed Ethiopia, one recently
registered hybrid variety (P65LL02) and one open pollinated variety Oissa were
evaluated for their performance both at on station and on farm sites in the tested
locations. In each location the standard plot size 100m2 (10m x 10m) was used
with 0.75m and 0.25m inter and intra row spacing respectively for each entry. A
seed rate of 10 kg/ha and fertilizer at a rate of 23/23 kg/ha of N/P 2O5 was applied
during planting. All agronomic recommendations were applied based on the
recommendations.
Data collection and data analysis

Agronomic characters such as date of 50% flowering, 90% maturity, plant height, head
diameter, number of seed per head, thousand seed weight , lodging, stand percent, seed
[318]
yield and oil content including disease reaction for powdery mildew, downy mildew and
blight were recorded. The hybrid varieties were evaluated by the National Variety Release
Committee at maturity. The conventional methods of variance-covariance parameter
estimation cannot be employed to analyze non-replicated trials or observations due
to lack of replication. Therefore, data analysis was done using intraclass
correlation coefficients (ICCs) analysis represent the correlation of two subsample
units within one experimental unit, where environments are the experimental units
with one environment per treatment, and the tasted genotypes within each
environment are the subsamples, or observational units. The ICC was computed
for each genotype as the ratio of the variability among the environment vs. the
total variability among the measured traits for the genotypes. By using the ICC
information, the data was analyzed using SAS PROC MIXED procedure (Perrett
and Higgins, 2006 and Kefyalew and Stephen, 2013). The ICC value was
computed based on the following formula proposed by Parrett, (2004).
Where s2 (w) is the pooled variance within subjects, and s2 (b) is the variance of
the trait between subjects.
If the value of the ICC is known, then it is possible to analyze unreplicated data by
plugging the known ICC into test statistic equations and basing error degrees of
freedom on the amount of within-treatment replication (subsampling).
The combined analysis of least square means revealed that highly significant mean
values were observed for the studied traits (Table 1 and 2). These shows the clear
difference of the varieties means performance for the evaluated traits across the
tested locations. The highest seed yield was recorded for PAN7057 (2249.1 kg/ha)
and P65LL02 (1824.2kg/ha). The lowest oil content observed for P65LL06 (31.2
%) and the highest mean value was recorded by P65LL02 (38.2 %). Misteru and
Birhanu, (2021); and variety registry book (MOA, 2015) reported the grain yield
of hybrid varieties ranged from 1700 – 3100 kg/ha Which is in agreement with the
present findings. But for oil content they reported a mean value ranged from 37 to
51 % which is higher than our finding. This may be caused by genetic factor,
environmental influence or genotype by environment interaction of the genotypes.
Significant variability among the sunflower genotypes for grain yield, maturity, head
diameter, oil content and thousand seed weight was reported by different scholars
(Kalukhe, et al., 2010; Dudhe et al., 2017).
[319]
Table 1. Combined Analysis of least square means and their probability value of Sunflower hybrid varieties tasted under
non-replicated experiment in 2019/20 cropping season in Ethiopia.
Least square means Estimate

Genotypes DF DM PH YELDK OIL OYLD TSW HD UNI SN
P65LL02 96.3*** 157.0*** 183.0*** 1824.2** 38.2*** 691.2** 55.9* * 16.8*** 92.5*** 7783.7***
PAN7057 95.4*** 157.4*** 192.2*** 2249.1*** 38.1*** 855.8*** 47.8*** 18.5*** 89.5*** 10493.0***
P63LL06 86.3*** 145.8*** 151.0*** 1216.6* 31.2*** 374.7ns 63.9*** 18.6*** 90.0*** 8465.0***
101.1*
Oissa ** 164.3*** 204.8*** 1270.3* 37.9*** 487.0* 57.8*** 18.4*** 74.4*** 8925.0***
*, **, *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 probability levels, ns =non- significant, DF = days to 50% flowering, DM =
days to 90% maturity, YELDK = yield kg/ha, OIL = oil percentage, OYLD = oil yield kg per hectare, TSW = thousand seed
weight , HD = head diameter, UNI uniformity, and SN =number of seed per head thousand
Moreover, open pollinated variety Oissa recorded the lowest grain yield value
(1270.3kg). The result confirms newly introduced hybrid varieties P65LL02 and
PAN7057 exhibited the highest mean value for grain yield, oil content and oil
yield. Even though, they are not considered as early maturing genotypes based on
the categorized sunflower maturity (IBPGR, 1985); they mature earlier than Oissa.
In terms of thousand seed weight, the hybrid varieties have poor performance than
the check varieties. This implies the importance of previously released varieties
for future breeding program to improve this important trait. hybrid variety
P65LL02 perform least for head diameter and number of seed per head. Hence,
head diameter and seed per head/plant have direct implications for grain yield; it is
vital to propose breeding strategy to improve both traits at same time. The direct
association of these trait with grain yield were reported by Heldwein et al., (2014)
and Castro and Leite (2018). In addition, significant relationship of thousand seed
weight and head diameter with grain yield had reported by Humera, et al., (2014).
In order to enhance grain yield considering the contribution of thousand seed
weight and head diameter had also reported by Kalukhe et al. (2010) and Hejazi-
Dehaghani, et al., (2012).
The candidate varieties P65LL02 and PAN7057 exhibited the highest mean for
seed yield; oil content and oil yield both in on farm and on station experiments
(Table 3a and 3b); which showed the consistency of the genotypes to produce
reasonable yield in all experimental units which is suitable for commercial or
small scale production in the future.
[320]
Table 2. Difference of least square means of Sunflower hybrid varieties tasted under non-replicated experiment in 2019/20 cropping season.
Traits Treatment pairs

DF Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate 0.9 9.97 -4.81 9.07 -5.711 -14.77
Pr> |t| 1.00 0.84 0.98 0.87 0.96 0.62
DM Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -0.4 11.22 -7.33 11.62 -6.93 -18.56
Pr> |t| 1 0.89 0.96 0.88 0.97 0.64
PH Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -9.22 31.93 -21.83 41.15 -12.61 -53.76
Pr> |t| 1.00 0.92 0.97 0.84 0.99 0.70
YELDK Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -424.9 607.54 553.87 1032.44 978.77 -53.67
Pr> |t| 0.95 0.87 0.90 0.5 0.61 1.00
OIL Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate 0.19 7.09 0.32 6.9 0.13 -6.77
Pr> |t| 1 0.43 1.00 0.45 1 0.47
OYLD Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -164.6 316.55 204.27 481.15 368.87 -112.28
Pr> |t| 0.95 0.73 0.91 0.40 0.62 0.98
TSW Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate 8.11 -8.00 -1.90 -16.11 -10.01 6.10
Pr> |t| 0.81 0.82 1.00 0.31 0.70 0.91
[321]
HD Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -1.7 -1.83 -1.66 -0.13 0.14 0.28
Pr> |t| 0.98 0.97 0.98 1 1 0.99
UNI Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate 3.0 2.5 18.1 -0.5 15.1 15.6
Pr> |t| 0.95 0.97 0.01 1.00 0.05 0.04
SN Treatment Pair trt 1 1 1 2 2 3
trt 2 3 4 3 4 4
Differences of LSMeans Estimate -2708.8 -681.33 -1141.3 2027.5 1567.5 -460
Pr> |t| 0.64 0.99 0.96 0.81 0.90 1.00
DF days to flowering, DM days to maturity, YELDK yield kg/ha, OIL oil percentage, OYLD oil yield kg per hectare, TSW: hundred seed weight, HD head diameter, UNI uniformity, and
SN number of seed per head; LSMeans: least square means
[322]
Table 3 Mean performance of agronomic, seed yield, oil content and disease reaction of Sunflower hybrid varieties across tested location 1a (on station) and 1b (on farm)
1a (on station)
Variety DF DM PH HD NS TSW YELDK OIL OYLDK UNI STN PM DoM BL
P65LL02 96.0 152.8 185.8 16.3 6503.0 54.4 2011.8 37.4 741.4 93.3 93.5 1.0 0.3 1.5
PAN7057 95.0 152.7 191.1 19.6 10280.3 46.1 2337.1 37.9 877.7 91.7 90.2 1.1 0.4 1.7
P63LL06 88.2 142.2 169.1 19.5 8763.3 61.8 1258.9 33.6 412.0 87.5 61.0 1.2 0.4 1.5
Oissa 100.3 159.0 199.8 18.9 8811.7 55.4 920.0 37.5 338.3 73.3 69.0 1.2 0.4 1.5
Grand Total 94.9 151.7 186.5 18.6 8589.6 54.4 1632.0 36.6 592.4 86.5 78.5 1.1 0.4 1.5
1b (on farm)
Variety DF DM PH HD NS TSW YELDK OIL OYLDK Uni STN PM DoM BL
P65LL02 95.3 163.0 184.9 17.1 9064.3 59.3 1735.5 39.7 688.2 95.0 81.5 0.9 0.6 2.0
PAN7057 96.5 163.3 198.3 16.7 10704.7 48.5 2476.3 39.0 968.0 90.0 86.8 0.9 0.6 2.0
P63LL06 82.3 145.8 129.5 17.0 8166.7 67.5 1049.3 28.9 298.0 91.3 50.5 1.1 0.6 2.8
Oissa 98.3 165.8 199.4 17.4 9038.3 60.9 1690.4 38.3 665.5 75.0 84.9 0.9 0.7 1.8
Grand Total 93.1 159.4 178.0 17.0 9243.5 59.0 1737.9 36.5 654.9 87.8 75.9 0.9 0.6 2.2
DF days to flowering, DM days to maturity, YELDK yield kg/ha, OIL oil percentage, OYLD oil yield kg per hectare, TSW hundred seed weight, HD head diameter, UNI
uniformity, and SN number of seed per head
[323]
The combined mean comparison of yield, oil and oil content was presented in
Table 4. Based on the result yield and oil advantage of candidate varieties over
the check; P65LL02 have 49.9 and 43.6 percent yield advantage over the hybrid
check P63LL06 and open pollinated variety (OPV) Oissa respectively. Whereas
128.4 and 75.7 percent of oil yield advantage were recorded over the P63LL06
and OPV variety respectively. Candidate hybrid variety PAN7057 has 84.9 %
seed yield and 128.4 % oil yield advantage over the check hybrid variety P63LL06
(Table 4). This result showed that there is a possibility of demonstrating the
outperformed new hybrid varieties for the growers.
[324]
Table 4. Combined Mean grain yield, oil content and oil yield advantage of candidate hybrid varieties over the standard check P63LL06 (Hybrid) and Oissa (OPV)
Yield Advantage (%) Oil Yield Advantage (%) Oil content Advantage (%)
Oil Yield Yield P65LL02 PAN7057 P65LL02 Vs. PAN7057 Vs. P65LL02 Vs. PAN7057
Genotype oil % (kg/ha) (Kg/ha) Vs. checks Vs. checks checks checks checks Vs. checks
PAN7057 38.3 691.3 1824.2
P65LL02 38.1 855.8 2249.1
P63LL06 31.2 374.7 1216.7 49.9 84.9 128.4 128.4 22.7 22.1
Oissa 38.0 487.0 1270.3 43.6 77.0 75.7 75.7 0.8 0.3
DF days to flowering, DM days to maturity, YELDK grain yield kg/ha, OIL percentage, OYLD oil yield kg per hectare, TSW: thousands weight, HD: head diameter, UNI uniformity, and SN
number of seed per head; vs.: versus
[325]
Conclusions
From the present study it can be concluded that the introduced sunflower hybrid
varieties P65LL02 and P65LL02 performed well in all the tested locations for
desired agronomic characters seed yield, oil content, pest and disease reactions.
Based on their agronomic performance and field evaluation by variety release
committee; PAN7057 has been registered for further demonstration and for
production in Ethiopia. Therefore, introducing this new hybrid variety to
Ethiopian Agriculture will boost the oilseed production as an alternative variety
and able to increase the local production of edible oil and achieve self-sufficiency
in this sector.
References
Castro C de, Leite RMVB de C. (2018). Main aspects of sunflower production in
Brazil. OCL; 25(1):D104. DOI:https: //doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2017056
Dudhe, M.Y., Rajguru, A.B., Bhoite, K.D. and Madhuri, P. (2017). Genetic
evaluation and identification of stable sunflower genotypes under semi-arid
dryland conditions of Telangana and Maharashtra state. Sabrao Journal of
Breeding and Genetics. 49(1), 83-93.
Heiser, C.B. (1978). Taxonomy of Helianthus and origin of domesticated
sunflower .In: Sunflower Science and Technology, J.F Carter (Ed.),
Agronomy Monograph 19, ASA-CSSA-SSsA, Madison, WI, USA,
pp.31-53.
Hejazi-Dehaghani, S.M.R. and Golparvar, A.R. (2012). Studies on relationship
between oil yield and its components in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)
cultivars. Research on Crops, 13(3), 992-995.
Heldwein AB, Loose LH, Lucas DDP, Hinnah FD, Bortoluzzi MP, Maldaner IC.
(2014). Yield and growth characteristics of sunflower sown from August to
February in Santa Maria, RS. Brazilian Journal of Agricultural and
Environmental Engineering. 18(9):908-913.
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807- 1929/agriambi.v18n09p908–913.
Humera Razzaq, Muhammad Hammad Nadeem Tahir & Hafeez Ahmad Sadaqat,
2014. GENETIC VARIABILITY IN SUNFLOWER (HELIANTHUS
ANNUUS L.) FOR ACHENE YIELD AND MORPHOLOGICAL
CHARACTERS. International Journal of Science and Nature. VOL.5 (4):
669-676
IBPGR, (1985). Descriptors for cultivated and wild sunflower, Rome.
Kalukhe, V.K., Moon, M.K., Magar, N.M. and Patil, S.S. (2010). Genetic
variability in sunflower (Helianthus annuusL.). Bioinfolet. 7(3), 197-200.
[326]
Kefyalew Girma and Stephen Machado, 2013. Use of non-replicated
observations and farm trials for guiding nutrient management
decisions. Western Nutrient Management Conference Vol.10. Reno,
NV.
Perrett, J.J. 2004. Using prior information on the intraclass correlation
coefficient to analyze data from unreplicated and under-replicated
experiments. Doctoral Dissertation, Kansas State University,
Manhattan, KS.
Perrett, J.J., and J. Higgins. 2006. A method for analyzing unreplicated
agricultural experiments.Crop Sci. 46:2482–2485.
Putt, E.D. (1997) Sunflower early history. In: A.A. Schneiter (Ed.),
Sunflower Production and Technology. Agronomy Monograph 35.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA, Madison, WI, USA, pp. 1–21.
Yadava DK, Vasudev S, Singh N, Mohapatra T & Prabhu KV (2012).
Breeding major oil crops: Present status and future research needs.
Book chapter in SK Gupta (ed.), Technological innovations in major
world oil crops, 1: Breeding.
[327]
Evaluation of Genotype by Environment
Interaction of Linseed Genotypes
Birhanu Mengistu1*, Mohammed Abu1 and Fikadu Amsalu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Holetta Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 31,
Holetta, Ethiopia; E-mail: yesilase07@gmail.com
Abstract
The study was carried out in 12 environments during 2018 and 2019 cropping season.
In order to determine the magnitude of genotype-by-environment interaction (GEI) on
seed yield and oil content of eight linseed genotypes. The experiment was laid out in
randomized complete block design with four replications. The combined analysis of
variance indicated significant effects (P ≤ 0.001) of environment, genotype and
genotype-by-environment interactions on seed yield and oil content. For oil content,
75.43 % of the total variation was attributed to environmental effects whereas, for seed
yield, 63 %, of the total variation was attributable to environmental. The additive main
effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI-1) bi-plot analysis of seed yield identified
genotype G2 and G7 the highest yielder but genotype G1 showed better stability and
contributed little to the GEI. Furthermore, S18, K19, AD18 and AD19 are the most
discriminating locations among the tested environments. Oil content AMMI-I bi-plot
analysis revealed genotypes G7, G4 and G6 were stable and less contribution to GEI
and K19, B19 and AS19 identified as the most discriminating environments. Genotype
Selection Index (GSI) indicates genotypes G1 which gave the highest seed yield
1671.7kgha-1 and the most stable genotypes. Whereas, G6 which gave the highest oil
content 38.6 % and having lower GSI is considered as the most stable genotypes.
Therefore, G1 and G6 will be recommended for wider growing environments and
integrating in the crossing program to incorporate desirable traits to the breeding
lines will be necessary.
Introduction
Linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) belongs to the genus Linum is one of the earliest
crop cultivated for its seeds and fiber. It has been under cultivation for its seed oil
(linseed) or stem fibers (flax) or both (dual purpose) for 1000 years. The center of
origin of cultivated flax is believed to be the Middle East, although secondary
diversity centers were identified in the Mediterranean basin, Ethiopia, Central
Asia, and India (Zohary and Hopf, 2000).
Ethiopia is the 5th major producer of linseed in the world after Canada, China,
United States and India. It is the second most important oil crop in the highlands
of Ethiopia in terms of area coverage and production (CSA, 2018). The crop
performs best in altitudes ranging from 2200 to 2800 meters above sea level.
Nowadays, with the increased consciousness of consumers towards the strong
relationship between food and health, linseed started to be considered a very
[329]
promising functional food. Almost every part of the linseed plant is utilized
commercially either directly or after processing. Linseed seeds are rich in nutrients
and biologically active compounds, such as fatty acids specifically α-linolenic acid
(ALA), phytoestrogenic lignans (secoisolariciresinol diglycoside (SDG)), high
quality proteins, dietary fibers and phenolic compounds (Tour and Xueming,
2010). Among these, alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) is one of the essential
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) representing the main functional component
of linseed. It is clearly demonstrated that linseed represents the best omega -3 fatty
acid source in vegetarian diets, having also the possibility to be used as additive in
the preparation of many dietary products (Reta and Nigussie, 2017).
In Ethiopia the linseed has been used for food and as a cash crop since ancient
times. It is commonly used as roasted, ground and mixed with spices and some
water to be served along with local breads. It also consumed in soups, soft drinks
and with porridges or cooked potatoes. The performance of any trait is a combined
result of the genotype (G) of the variety, the environment (E) and the interaction
between genotype and environment (GEI). To evaluate and develop linseed
genotypes that respond optimally and consistently across years and geographic
regions, it is necessary to conduct research on yield stability and GE interactions.
GEI exist when the responses of two genotypes to different levels of
environmental stress are not consistent. GE interaction can be quantified using
several procedures based on evaluation of genotypes under multiple environments.
These methods divided into univariate and multivariate stability statistics.
Additive main effects and multiplicative interaction (AMMI) model is a popular
and an alternative multivariate approach to the joint regression analysis in many
breeding programs to study GE interaction (Annicchiarico, 1997). This method
extracts genotype and environment main effects and uses interaction principal
components (IPCs) to explain patterns in the GE interaction or residual matrix,
which provides a multiplicative model (Romagosa and Fox, 1993). The AMMI
model combines ANOVA for main effects of the genotype and environment with
principal components analysis of GE interactions. Several AMMI parameters
were introduced for studying the stability of genotypes across multi environments.
AMMI stability value (ASV) (Purchase et al., 2000) is a reliable statistics for GE
interaction description and simultaneous selection of yield and stability.
Identification of linseed varieties with wider adaptability and stability is important

to achieve better economic benefits. Therefore, the main objectives of the present
study were to identify high-yielding stable promising linseed lines and determine
the areas where linseed genotypes would be adapted using AMMI model.
[330]
Planting Materials and Testing Locations
Eight linseed genotypes developed by hybridization were grown for two years
(2018 and 2019) during the main cropping season (June–November) in six
locations representing different linseed growing agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia.
Each year and location was treated as a separate environment, making 12 test
environments. Descriptions of the six test locations and the 8 test genotypes are
presented in Tables 1.
Table 1. Description of the testing locations and linseed genotypes used for evaluation during the 2018 and 2019
cropping season in Ethiopia.
Testing Environment Tested Genotypes

Genotype
No. Testing Environment Environment code No. Pedigree Code
1 Holetta 2018 H18 1 CDC 1747 X CI 1652/SPS8 G1
2 Holetta 2019 H19 2 CI 1652 X CDC 1747/SPS2 G2
3 Kulumsa 2018 K18 3 Chilalo X R12-N27G/SPS1 G3
4 Kulumsa 2019 K19 4 CI 1652 X R12-D33C/SPS105 G4
5 Adet 2018 AD18 5 CI 1652 X R12-N27G/SPS5 G5
6 Adet 2019 AD19 6 R12-100 X CI 1525/SPS1 G6
7 Asasa 2018 AS18 7 Bekoji-14 (Standard Check) G7
8 Asasa 2019 AS19 8 Check (Local Check) G8
9 Bekoji 2018 B18
10 Bekoji 2019 B19
11 Sinana 2018 S18
12 Sinana 2019 S19
Experimental Design
The experiments were laid out in Randomized Completely Block Design (RCBD)
with four replications. The gross plot size was 3.6 m2 (six rows spaced at 20 cm
and 3 m long). A seed rate of 25 kg/ha and fertilizer rate 23/23 N/P 2O5 was
applied to each plot at planting. Agronomic practices were carried out as per the
recommendations.
Statistical Data Analyses

AMMI Analysis
The AMMI model is a hybrid statistical model incorporating both analysis of
variance (ANOVA) (for additive component) and principal component analysis
(PCA) (for multiplicative component) for analyzing two way (genotype x
environment interaction) data structures Therefore, To evaluate the interaction
effects, the data were subjected to stability analysis following the AMMI model
based on the following mathematical Model:
ijN = + gi + ej +kYikjk + ij
[331]
Where;
ij = yield of ith genotype in the jth environment
= grand mean
giej = genotype and environment deviations from the grand mean
k = eigen value of the principal component analysis (PCA) axis k
Yik and jk = genotype and environment principal components scores for
axis k N = is the number of principal components in the AMMI model, andij =
residual term.
AMMI Biplot Analysis

A biplot of genotypes and environments were done to show a clear insight into
specific GEI combination and the general pattern of adaptation. The AMMI biplot
is developed by placing both genotype and environment values on the abscissa (X-
axis) and the respective PCA axis, Eigen vector on the Y- axis. The biplot was
also used to explore the interrelationships among environments by constructing
lines (environment vectors) from the biplot origin to markers for the
environments. The cosine of the angle between environments corresponds to the
degree of correlation between environments. The length of the vectors was used to
determine the discriminating ability of each of the test environments, with a
shorter vector implying that the environment was not well represented by principal
component 1 (PC1) and principal component 2 (PC2) (Yan and Tinker, 2005). A
polygon view was drawn by connecting genotypes that were furthest from the
biplot origin such that all genotypes were enclosed within the polygon to visualize
the performance of the genotypes in each environment and groups of
environments (Yan, 2002).
AMMI Stability Analysis

The Eigen value (EV) stability parameter of AMMI (Zobel et al, 1998) was
calculated according to the expression:
In this formula, EV is the genotype Eigen vector for axis n, and N is the number of
IPCs that were retained in the AMMI procedure via different F-test.
The sum of IPCs scores (SIPC) parameter is expressed as (Sneller et al, 1997):
Where, λ is the eigen value of the IPC analysis axis n. In this equation, N = 1 for
SIPC 1; and for SIPCF, N was the number of IPC that were retained in the AMMI
model.
[332]
ASV was calculated as described by Purchase et al., (2000) as follows:
Where SSIPC1/SSIPC2 is the weight given to the IPC1 value by dividing the
IPC1 sum of square by the IPC2 sum of square. The larger IPC score, either
negative or positive, the more specifically adapted a genotype is to certain
environments. Smaller ASV scores indicate a more stable genotype across
environments.
Genotype selection index (GSI) was calculated for each genotype which
incorporates both mean grain yield and stability index in single criteria (GSI) as
(Farshadfar and Sutka 2003):
GSI= RYi +RASVi,
Where: GSI = genotype selection index, RYi = rank of mean grain yield, RASV =
rank for the AMMI stability value for the genotypes.
AMMI Analysis for Seed Yield and Oil Content

The result from the AMMI analysis of variance for seed yield and oil content
revealed that the difference between genotypes (G), environments (E) and
genotype by environment interaction (GEI) were highly significant (P ≤ 0.001)
(Table 2). The results revealed that for seed yield 63% of the total variation was
attributable to environmental effects, 16.1% genotype effects and 20.9 to GE
interaction effects. For oil content 75.43% of the total variation was attributed to
environmental effects, 5.31 and 19.26 % attributed to genotype effects and GE
interaction effects respectively. Such a large sum and highly significant mean
squares of environment indicated that the environments were diverse with large
difference amount environmental means causing most of the variation on seed
yield and oil content. This shows the over powering influence that environments
can have on the yield and oil performance of linseed. Similar results on the effect
of environment and GEI were reported by Jacobs et al. (2015) and Adane and
Abebe, (2018) on linseed.
The significant effects of GE interaction reflected on the differential response of

genotypes in various environments demonstrated that it had remarkable effect on
genotypic performance in different environments. Therefore, it was possible to proceed
and calculate stability parameters.The application of AMMI model for partitioning the GE
interaction effect showed that the first two terms of AMMI were significant based on
Gollob’s F-test (Gollob, 1968) for both seed yield and oil content. In this study, the
proportion of IPC1 (59.7 % for seed yield and 65.89 % for oil content) to the interaction
sum of squares was far greater than that of IPC2 (Table 2).
[333]
AMMI model ANOVA for Seed yield and oil content of 8 linseed genotypes over 12 tested environments.
Table 2 AMMI model ANOVA for Seed yield and oil content of 8 linseed genotypes over 12 tested environments.
Seed yield Oil Content (%)
Variance
Variance
explained
Source of variation explained (%)
df SS MS df SS MS (%)
Total 383 104453737 272725*** 255 1806.3 7.08***
Treatments 95 68406771 720071*** 63 1806.3 28.67***
Genotypes 7 10981800 1568829*** 16.1 7 95.5 13.64*** 5.31
Environments 11 43129152 3920832*** 63.0 7 1364.6 194.95*** 75.43
Interactions 77 14295820 185660*** 20.9 49 346.1 7.06*** 19.26
Block 36 14813148 411476*** 24 0.0 0.00***
IPCA 1 17 8539943 502350*** 59.7 13 229.3 17.64*** 65.89
IPCA 2 15 2839373 189292* 19.9 11 42.2 3.83*** 12.41
Residuals 5 63139 12628 1 0.3 0.28
Error 252 21233818 84261 168 0.0 0.00
*, **, *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 probability levels, df =degree of freedom, SS = sum of square and MS = mean square
Biplot Analysis
[334]
The GEI was further explored through the genotype and (genotype x environment)
bi-plot analysis. The AMMI biplot analysis for seed yield and oil content of
linseed varieties tasted in 12 environments was presented in Figure 1a & 1b and
Figure 2a & 2b. The AMMI-1 biplot was plotted between the main effects of trait
mean (genotypic and environmental mean) and IPCA1 scores for both genotype
and environment (Figure 1a & 1b), whereas the AMMI-2 biplot has been plotted
taking scores of IPC1 versus IPC2 (Figure 2a & 2b).
Based on the analysis for seed yield G1 and G8 showed relatively low IPC1 scores
close to zero. Whereas, G2 and G5 showed greater magnitude of IPC1 score. They
found better adaptation to environment AS19 and AD19 respectively. In the bi-
plot some genotypes such as G1, G2, G6 and G7 have a similar sign with
environments S19, AS19 and S18 (Figure 1a). For oil content bi-plot analysis G2,
G4, G7 and G6 showed lower IPC1 score, but G5 and G8 mapped far from the bi-
plot origin. Positive interaction were observed with G5 and G6 with environment
H18 and H19. Conversely, G6 have opposite sign with AS19 (Figure 1b).
Environment S18, K19, AD18 and AD19 for seed yield and K19, H19 and AS19
for oil content have longer distance from the origin, which shows they are the
most discriminating locations of the test environments. (Figure 1a and 1b).
In AMMI-I bi-plot genotypes or an environment with IPCA-1 score closer to zero,

it has small interaction effect and they are stable across the testing environments,
whereas the larger scores depict more specific adaptation to environments with
IPC1 scores of the same sign. However, if genotypes far from zero, it is highly
responsive and does not perform consistently across the environments (Samonte et
al., 2005). But genotypes with high mean performance and large IPCA-1 scores
were considered as having specific adaptability to the environments. When a
genotype and environment have similar sign on IPCA-1 axis, their interaction is
positive and this genotype is well adapted to this environment. But if they have
opposite sign of IPCA-1 scores, their interaction is negative and the environment
is not suitable to this genotype (Crossa et al., 1990). Accordingly, genotypes such
as G1, G2, G6 and G7 showed positive interaction with environments S19, AS19
and S18 for seed yield. However, negative interaction for oil content was
observed between genotypes G1 and G6; and environment AS19, AS18 and B19.
[335]
1a 1b
q
Figure 1. AMMI-1 biplot Analysis of first interaction principal component axis (IPCA1) versus mean seed yields (kg/ha)
(1a) and oil content (1b).
The AMMI-2 biplot plotted between IPCA1 and IPCA2 revealed genotypes
specifically adapted to different locations in the study. AMMI-2 biplot was
generated using genotypic and environmental scores of the first two AMMI
multiplicative components to cross-validate the interaction pattern of the eight
linseed genotypes within twelve environments (Figure 2). In this study, G2, G3,
G4, G5 and G7 for seed yield; and G1, G2, G5 and G8 for oil content expressed
either positively or negatively high interactive behavior or contributed more to the
exhibited GEI.
To get detail insight of the GEI pattern and identify genotype or environment that
exhibit low, medium or high level of interaction, as discriminated in the figure,
some of the environments such as S18, K19 and H19 (for seed yield) (Figure 2a)
and AS19, K19, and B19 (for oil content) (Figure 2b) have long victors projected
from the origin. These indicate that the ability of these environments to
discriminate the tasted genotypes by providing information about the nature of the
GEI. Conversely, B19 and H18 (for seed yield) (Figure 2a) and B18 and AS19
(for oil content) (Figure 2b) having relatively the shortest vectors were identified
as least interactive environments with the tested genotypes and thus less powerful
in discriminating the genotypes evaluated.
The large magnitude of GEI in present study causes more dissimilarity in the
genetic systems which control the physiological processes conferring yield
stability in different environments. This result revealed that there was a
differential yield performance among genotypes across test environments due to
the presence of GE interaction. Hence, G3 was the best genotypes with respect to
environment B19. Whereas, G5 better adapted to environments AD18, AD19 and
B18. Similarly G2 better adapted to K19 and s19 (Figure 2a). From the present
[336]
study well adapted genotypes for oil content with their respective environment
were G5 adapted to H19 G3 adapted to H18 and G2 best performed in K19. In
addition, G4, G6 and G7 adapted to environment B18 and As18. The relative
contributions of GEI effects for seed yield in this study were similar to the
findings reported by Tadess (2017).
(2a) (2b)
Figure 2. AMMI biplot Analysis of first interaction principal component axis (IPCA1) versus mean seed yields (kg/ha) (2a)
and oil content (2b).
AMMI Stability Analysis

According to the AMMI stability Value (ASV) stability statistic presented in
(Table 3), a genotype with lower score value is considered to be more stable;
therefore G1, G4 and G8 are considered as stable but G2,G3 and G5 genotypes are
unstable for seed yield. The result confirmed the finding presented in AMMI bi-
plot analysis for G1 and G8 as stable genotypes and G5 as unstable genotypes
across the tested environments (fig. 1a). Based on ASV stability index for oil
content G4, G6 and G7 were stable but G3, G5 and G8 were unstable genotypes.
Similar result was presented in AMMI bi-plot analysis (fig. 1b). These showed
that using the first two IPCs is the most accurate of AMMI model for predicting
GEI of linseed genotypes.
ASV is the distance from zero in a two dimensional scatter gram of IPCA1
(interaction principal component analysis axis 1) scores against IPCA2 scores.
Since the IPCA1 score contributes more to GE sum of square. Of the several
stability measures, AMMI stability value (ASV) proposed by Purchase et al.
[337]
(2000) is the most popular which considers only the first two IPCs for
computation. Due to significance of the first two IPCs in the present study, it
seems that ASV is useful and adequate for determining the stable genotypes, and it
facilitates the interpretation of GEI and identification of superior genotypes.
Genotypes with smaller SIPC considered as the most stable and widely adapted
genotype (Sneller et. al., 1997). Therefore, for seed yield genotypes G1 and G5
were found the most stable and unstable genotypes respectively. Similarly, G3
was the most stable and G8 was unstable for oil content. Similar finding was
reported by Fessiha et al., 2015.
According to the Eigen value stability parameter (EV) stability statistic, a

genotype with lower EV is considered to be more stable. Therefore, G1 was the
most stable but G5 was unstable genotypes for seed yield. The EV score for oil
content revealed that G3 was the most stable but G1 was unstable genotypes.
When we compare the coefficient of determination (CV) value G3 considered as
stable genotype but G6 was unstable for seed yield whereas G8 was stable and G5
was unstable genotypes for oil content. As a general rule CV values with lowest
score are considered as stable genotypes across locations. The R value presented
in table showed G1 as stable but G5 unstable genotypes for seed yield but for oil
content G5 was stable whereas G8 was found unstable genotypes.
Generally based on the stability analysis for seed yield in the present study G1 was
selected as stable genotype by most of the parameters; it is also among the top
high yielder genotype and G5 is unstable and low yielder genotype based on mean
seed yield value. For oil content G3 and G4 was found stable considering the
SIPC, EV and CV parameters and moderately stable by ASV. This genotype is
among the top high yielder and high oil content genotypes. G8 was found with
low oil content and the least stable genotype by most of the stability parameters.
However, stability per se is not necessarily a positive factor and it is desirable only
when associated with a high mean yield (Yan and Hunt, 2002). Hence, both mean
and stability of performance should be simultaneously considered for selection of
genotypes to be effective and precise. Therefore, the Genotype Selection Index
(GSI) approach was used for selection of desirable genotypes employing trait
mean performance and stability across tested environments simultaneously
(Farshadfar and Sutka 2003). Low GSI value indicates high trait mean and stable
performance. In the present study, genotypes G1 which gave the highest seed yield
(1671.7kg ha-1) and having lower GSI is considered as the most stable genotypes
for all the environments under study. Whereas, G6 which gave the highest oil
content (38.6 %) and having lower GSI is considered as the most stable genotypes.
[338]
Table 3. Values of AMMI stability parameters for eight linseed genotypes.
Seed yield(Kg/ha) Oil content (%)

Pooled Pooled
Genotype ASV SIPC EV CV R GSI ASV SIPC EV CV R GSI
mean mean
G1 1671.7(3) 9.055(1) 7.074(1) 0.014(1) 25.825(5) 0.943(1) 4 38.2(4) 2.641(5) 3.200(7) 0.125(8) 8.01(6) 0.90(5) 9
G2 1708.4(1) 45.134(7) 24.906(7) 0.136(6) 24.495(3) 0.753(5) 8 38.2(2) 2.048(4) 2.438(3) 0.125(2) 5.30(2) 0.79(7) 6
G3 1597.6(5) 39.824(6) 19.925(4) 0.086(3) 23.624(1) 0.752(6) 11 38.0(5) 4.251(6) 2.113(1) 0.125(1) 8.16(7) 0.95(3) 11
G4 1306.9(7) 21.802(3) 22.957(6) 0.249(7) 23.853(2) 0.720(7) 10 37.2(7) 0.472(2) 2.337(2) 0.125(4) 7.31(5) 0.96(2) 9
G5 1233.0(8) 85.700(8) 30.288(8) 0.280(8) 28.016(7) 0.279(8) 16 38.2(3) 5.358(7) 3.141(6) 0.125(5) 9.25(8) 0.97(1) 10
G6 1599.9(4) 29.875(4) 19.187(3) 0.087(4) 29.145(8) 0.925(2) 8 38.6(1) 0.799(3) 2.604(5) 0.125(7) 7.04(3) 0.88(6) 4
G7 1705.8(2) 35.428(5) 22.263(5) 0.116(5) 27.010(6) 0.867(3) 7 37.5(6) 0.427(1) 2.487(4) 0.125(3) 7.16(4) 0.94(4) 7
G8 1527.4(6) 19.706(2) 11.866(2) 0.032(2) 25.775(4) 0.866(4) 8 36.6(8) 12.560(8) 3.286(8) 0.125(6) 5.16(1) 0.14(8) 16
ASV = AMMI stability Value; SIPC= sum of IPCs scores; EV = eigenvalue stability parameter; CV= Coefficient of variation
[339]
The present studies revealed that linseed oil content and seed yield were liable to a
significant fluctuation with changes in the growing environments. The study also
clearly demonstrated that the AMMI analyses models were found to be effective
for determining the magnitude and pattern of genotype x environment interaction
effect in the linseed genotypes. Analysis of variance for the AMMI model
indicated that genotypes, environments, GEI and AMMI components 1 and 2 were
significant. Thus, oil content, seed yield and IPC1 and IPC2 scores should be
taken into account simultaneously to utilize the useful effect of GEI and to make
recommendation of the genotypes more accurate. It showed that the GEI was an
important source of linseed oil content and seed yield variation and its bi-plots
were powerful for visualizing the response patterns of genotypes and
environments. According to the AMMI stability parameters and GSI G1 and G6
considered as wider adapted stable, high yielder and with high oil content.
Therefore, these two genotypes recommended to be evaluated for registration as a
variety and incorporating in the linseed crossing program for desirable traits
transfer to adaptive materials.
References
Adane C. C. and Abebe D. A. 2018. AMMI and GGE Biplot Analysis of Linseed
(Linum usitatissimum L) Genotypes in Central and South-Eastern Highlands
of Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 6(3), pp.117-127.
Annicchiarico, P., 1997. Joint regression vs AMMI analysis of genotype-
environment interactions for cereals in Italy. Euphytica, 94(1), pp.53-62.
Crossa, J., Gauch Jr, H.G. and Zobel, R.W. 1990. Additive main effects and
multiplicative interaction analysis of two international maize cultivar
trials. Crop Science, 30(3), pp. 493-500.
CSA, 2018. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical
Agency report on area and production of major crops. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Farshadfar E, Sutka J (2003). Locating QTLs controlling adaptation in wheat
using AMMI model. Cereal Res. Commun. 31:249-254
Gollob, H.F., 1968. A statistical model which combines features of factor analytic
and analysis of variance techniques. Psychometrika, 33(1), pp.73-115.
Jacobs, M. J., W. J. C. V. Merwe and M. M. V. Westhuizen. 2015. Additive Main
Effects and Multiplicative Interaction Analysis of European Linseed (Linum
Ustatissimum L.) Cultivars under South African Conditions. Advances in
Plants & Agriculture Research, 2: 120-124.
Purchase J L, Hatting H, van Deventer C S. 2000. Genotype × environment
interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Africa: II.
[340]
Stability analysis of yield performance. South Afric J Plant Soil, 17: 101–
107.
Reta D, Nigussie D (2017). Effect of Nitrogen and Sulphur on Nitrogen and
Sulphur Uptake in Linseed (Linumusitatissimum L.) in Sinana, Southeastern
Ethiopia. International Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences 3(5):111-
116
Romagosa, I., Fox, P.N., Del Moral, L.G., Ramos, J.M., Del Moral, B.G., De
Togores, F.R. and Molina-Cano, J.L., 1993. Integration of statistical and
physiological analyses of adaptation of near-isogenic barley
lines. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 86(7), pp.822-826.
Samonte, S.O.P., Wilson, L.T., McClung, A.M. and Medley, J.C., 2005. Targeting
cultivars onto rice growing environments using AMMI and SREG GGE
biplot analyses. Crop science, 45(6), pp.2414-2424.
Sneller, M.C., Wang, J., Dale, J.K., Strober, W., Middelton, L.A., Choi, Y.,
Fleisher, T.A., Lim, M.S., Jaffe, E.S., Puck, J.M. and Lenardo, M.J., 1997.
Clinical, immunologic, and genetic features of an autoimmune
lymphoproliferative syndrome associated with abnormal lymphocyte
apoptosis. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of
Hematology, 89(4), pp.1341-1348.
Tadesse, T. 2017. AMMI Model for Yield Stability Analysis of Linseed
Genotypes for the Highlands of Bale, Ethiopia. Plant, 5: 93-98.
Toure, A.; Xueming, X. 2010. Flaxseed lignans: Source, biosynthesis,
metabolism, antioxidant activity, bio-active components and health benefits.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 9, 261–269.
Yan, W. and Tinker, N.A., 2005. An integrated biplot analysis system for
displaying, interpreting, and exploring genotype× environment
interaction. Crop Science, 45(3), pp.1004-1016.
Yan, W., 2002. Singular‐ value partitioning in biplot analysis of multi
environment trial data. Agronomy Journal, 94(5), pp.990-996.
Yan, W., 2011. GGE biplot vs. AMMI graphs for genotype-by-environment data
analysis. Journal of the Indian Society of Agricultural Statistics, 65(2),
pp.181-193.
Yan, W., and L.A. Hunt. 2002. Biplot analysis of diallel data. Crop Sci. 42:21–30.
Zobel, R. W., M. J. Wright and H. G. Gauch. 1988. Statistical Analysis of a Yield
Trial. Agronomy Journal, 80: 388-393.
Zohary, D., Hopf, M., 2000. Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The Origin
and Spread of cultivated Plants in West Asia, Europe and the Nile Valley.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 316.
[341]
Evaluation of Advanced Rape Seed
(Brassica napus) Genotypes in the Central
Highlands of Ethiopia
Fekadu Amsalu1*, Birhanu Mengistu1 and Mohammed Abu1
1
Holetta Agricultural Research Center, P.O. box 31, Holetta, Ethiopia
E-mail: fekiamsalu@gmail.com
Abstract
Field experiment was conducted at Holetta and Kulumsa Agricultural Research
Centers in 2019 using simple lattice design to evaluate the agronomic performance
of 25 rapeseed genotypes. Analysis of variance showed that there were highly
significant differences among genotypes for date of flowering, seed yield, oil yield
and thousand seeds weight (TSW). The significant difference indicates the existence
of genetic variability among the genotypes, which is important for selection and
breeding programs. Ten genotypes had days to maturity less than the total grand
mean as well 20 genotypes less than the average mean of the standard checks, which
indicates possibility of improving these genotypes for earliness to a minimum of 17
days. This indicated there is an opportunity to find better genotypes than the existing
improved varieties in moisture stressed areas and these can be used as parents in the
hybridization program. Among the genotypes the maximum seed yield obtained from
the Sunder sel-3 was 3208 Kg ha-1, while the minimum seed yield was recorded for the
genotype Belinda sel-9 with1318 Kg ha-1. Oil content ranged from 41.6% to 48.6%,
while oil yield ranges from 603 to 1494 Kgha-1. The highest value of TSW (5.3g) was
recorded for genotype Bulder sel-9 and the lowest (4.1g) for Axana sel-1. Analysis of
variance revealed significant differences among genotypes for date of flowering,
seed yield, oil yield and TSW traits. Based on the agronomic performance, four
genotypes namely sunder sel -3, Sunder sel -5, Dodger sel -7 and sunder sel-8 were
identified and recommended for further evaluation.
Keywords: Agronomic performance, Oil yield, Rapeseed, Seed yield, thousand

seeds weight
Introduction
Rapeseed (Brassica napus) is one of the most important oilseed crops in the
world. It reached a seed production close to 69 million tons, contributing by more
than 12% of the global oilseed production, and ranking third after soybean and oil
palm (FAOSTAT, 2018). Rapeseed is oilseed crop which have been grown for
hundreds of years in Europe and Asia. It is a member of the mustard (Cruciferous)
family, which includes mustard, cabbage, broccoli, horseradish, radish and
Chinese cabbage. Rapeseed is produced mainly in Canada and Western Europe.
Rapeseed oils also make good feed stocks for the biodiesel and the bio-lubricant
industry. Worldwide, rapeseed is the most common feedstock used for biodiesel.
[347]
Oil yields from rapeseed production will be nearly twice that of soybeans per acre
at the same grain yield levels. The crop also can be a beneficial rotational cover
crop. It produces a large amount of biomass and its deep tap root system can help
alleviate soil compaction and improve soil tilt.
Rapeseed oil is commonly used for cooking, lighting and industrial uses.
Rapeseed contains approximately 49% oil (Getinet et al 1992). Moreover, the oil
is also a high-grade lubricant and fuel additive; therefore, conversion to biodiesel
is just one of its several potential final uses (Herkes, 2019). Rapeseed also used as
a feed especially rapeseed meal and rapeseed cake, which are by-products of oil
(Getinet et al., 1992).Rapeseed feeds contain more mineral ingredients (calcium,
iron, manganese, phosphorus, magnesium, and selenium) than soybean meal
(Woźniakand Twardowski, 2018). Rapeseed meal is used as valuable feed;
however, there are strict limitations concerning the amount used in animal
feeding, due to its specific properties (Herkes, 2019). Rapeseed contains
glucosinolates, which are the main anti-nutritional factors that hinder the animal
nutrition by making chelates with minerals, which cause unavailability of essential
minerals during digestion (Kaczmarek et al., 2016). However, the high fiber
content (up to 16%) that affects the digestibility of animals must be highlighted.
In Ethiopia, research on rapeseed started in late 1960s in IAR by introducing

materials from Canada and West Germany with broad objective of breeding to
develop high yielding varieties of good nutritional value (Getinet et al 1992).
These introduced rapeseed genotypes were early maturing and high in their oil
content than Ethiopian mustard genotypes. Rapeseed cultivars suitable for
mechanical harvesting were developed and used for large-scale production in state
farms. However, the narrow rotation system in the sector had aggravated the black
leg incidence (Leptosphaeria muculans) and severity on the popular varieties has
forced the state farms to abandon rapeseed production in the late 1980s and as a
result the crop was remaining devastated (Getinet et al. 1992). To alleviate this
problem and bring the crop back into production and improvement evaluation for
yield and agronomic traits for releasing varieties with high seed and oil content
with good nutritional valueis crucial. Therefore the present experiment was
conducted in order to evaluate the agronomic performance of available rapeseed
genotypes.
[348]
Description of testing Site

The experiment was conducted at Holetta and Kulumsa Agricultural Research
Centers in 2019/2020 main cropping season. Holetta (West Shewa Zone) and
Kulumsa(West Arsi Zones of Oromia Region) are located at latitude 9oN and
longitude 38o E, altitude of 2400 masl, (8° 01' N latitude and 39° 09' E
longitude, altitude of 2200 masl), respectively. These two locations are the
representatives of oil seed Brassica napus growing areas in the central highlands
of Ethiopia.
Plant Materials
A total of twenty five rapeseed breeding materials were used in this study. The
majority of the materials were selected lines from different introduced rapeseed
varieties and that are maintained at Holetta agricultural research center of High
and mid land oil crop breeding program. The details of the breeding rapeseed
breeding lines used in the experiment are given in table1.
Table 1. Description of the experimental materials rapeseed genotypes used at the two locations in 2019/20
No Treatment Original source Current status

1 Dodger Sel.7 Dodger –variety Late maturing, taller height, high TSW
2 Sunder sel-3 Sunder –variety Medium maturing, taller height, high yielder, high TSW
3 Sunder sel-5 Sunder-variety Late maturing, taller height, high TSW
4 Sunder Sel-8 Sunder-variety Late maturing, taller height, high TSW
5 Sunder Sel-9 Sunder-variety Late maturing, taller height
6 Axana Sel-1 Axana-variety Late maturing, taller height
7 Axana Sel-3 Axana-variety medium maturing, taller height
8 Belinda sel-3 Belinda-variety medium maturing, taller height
11 Bulder sel-1 Bulder-variety medium maturing, taller height, high TSW
12 Bulder sel-4 Bulder-variety Late maturing, taller height
15 Bulder sel-9 Bulder-variety medium maturing, taller height
16 Pura sel-1 Pura-variety medium maturing, taller height
19 Pura sel-6 Pura-variety Late maturing, taller height
23 Pura sel-25 Pura-variety medium maturing, high TSW
24 Axana Axana-variety Late maturing, taller height
25 Swifter Swifter-variety Late maturing, taller height
Where: TSW: thousand seed weight; Ddodger, Sunder, Belinda, Bulder, Axana and swifter are introduced genotypes
[349]
Experimental design and management
The experiment was laid out in simple lattice design with two replications. A plot
of seeds sample was taken from harvested four central rows of each three-meter
long and 30cm spacing between rows and used for agronomic performance data
collection. Each replication had five blocks and each block was represented by
five plots. The path between blocks was 2 m and the spacing between plots with
in sub-blocks was 0.6 m. Each entry was manually drilled a rate of 5 Kg ha-1 and
urea and phosphorous fertilizers were applied at the rates of 46/69 Kgha-1 N/P2O5,
respectively following the national recommendations (Hiruy. 1984). All other
recommended agronomic and cultural practices were carried out following
practices described by Adefris (2005).
Data collection and trait measurements
No Traits Description
1 Days to flowering (Df The numbers of days from date of sowing to a stage at which 50% of the plants
in a plot open flowers
2 Days to maturity (Dm) The number of days from date of sowing to a stage at which 50% of the plants
have reached physiological maturity
3 Plant height (PHT) The average height of five randomly selected plants was measured in meters
from the ground surface to the top of the main stem
4 Stand percent (SP) The proportion of plants at vegetative stage and at harvest as visually assessed
in percentage
5 Seed yield Seed yield measured in grams after moisture of the seed was adjusted to 7
percent
6 Oil content (Oc) The proportion of oil in the seed to total oven dried seed weight measured by
nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscope
7 Oil yield (Oy) The amount of oil in grams obtained by multiplying seed yield per plot by
corresponding oil percent
8 Thousand seed weight (TSW) The weight (g) of 1000 seeds from randomly sampled grains
9 Downey mildew Depending on the proportion of flowering braches attacked. (0; no severity,1:
less sevior,2:modretly sevior,3:sevior,4: highly sever 5: extremely sever
10 Black leg: Depending on the proportion of stem and flowering braches attacked. (0; no
severity,1: less sevior,2:modretly sevior,3:sevior,4: highly sever 5: extremely
sever
11 Aphid: Depending on the proportion of flowering braches attacked. (0; no severity,1:
less sevior,2:modretly sevior,3:sevior,4: highly sever 5: extremely sever
12 Lodging Inclinations from less than 450 to 00 (when plants lay flat) are all considered as
lodging
13 Sterility The pollen grains fail to germinate through the style and thus will there be no
fertilization at all or the embryo may abort under conditions of scorching heat if
they prevail
14 Shattering Estimates of percent of seed loses by shattering
[350]
Data Analysis: The data collected for each agronomic trait was subjected to the
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for simple lattice design using SAS program
software version 9.2, (SAS, 2008). All significant pairs of treatment means was
compared using the least significant test (LSD) at 5% level of significant.

Combined analysis of variance across two locations showed that there were
significant differences among rapeseed genotypes tested for date of flowering,
seed yield per plot, oil yield and thousand seed weight for the genotypes compared
(Table 2). On other hand none significant difference was recorded for date of
maturity, plant height, stand, sterility, black leg and bird damage traits. The
significant difference indicates the existence of genetic variability among the
genotypes that is important for selection and breeding.
Table 2. Mean squares for different sources of variations for agronomic traits of 25 rapeseed genotypes
Characters Genotype (24) Rep (1) Block(rep)(8) IBE(16) L*G(24)

Date of flowering 14.9633** 3.9200 15.1200 17.1950 16.5033
Date of maturity 102.72ns 208.08 35.70 79.20 64.70
Seed yield per plot 707754** 5096986 1125976 482504 696995
Oil yield 182033** 957216 260637 147452 185180
Plant height 119.46ns 669.78 286.16 121.15 176.15
Thousand seed weight 0.1702** 0.5000 0.1593 0.1266 0.1375
Stand percent 19.79ns 1300.50 46.75 7.06 20.29
Sterility 0.3717ns 0.5000 0.8750 0.1250 0.3750
Black leg 0.4583ns 28.8800 1.0300 0.1175 0.4217
Shattering 0.1050ns 0.9800 0.2050 0.05500 0.1050
Bird damage 0.08333ns 8.0000 0.2500 0.0000 0.08333
*, ** significant at p = 0.05 and 0.01 significance level, respectively; ns= non-significant; IBE: Intra block error; L*G:
Location by genotypes
The mean and range values for agronomic and disease traits are presented in
Table 3.Wide ranges were observed for traits such as days to flowering, days to
maturity, plant height, stand percent, seed yield per plot, oil content, oil yield, and
thousand seed weight. Maximum days to flowering (71 days) were recorded by
genotype Bulder sel-8, while the minimum was recorded by genotype Pura sel-3
(60days). Similarly, maximum days to maturity (156 days) were recorded by
genotypes Dodger sel7 and Axana sel- 1, while the minimum (137 days) was
recorded by the genotype Pura sel-19. Ten genotypes had days to maturity less
than the total grand mean as well 20 genotypes less than the average mean of the
standard checks, indicating the possibility of improving earliness trait by a
minimum of 17 days. In addition, there is an opportunity to identify genotypes that
perform better than the existing varieties in moisture stressed growing areas and
[351]
can beused as parents for hybridization programs. Among the test genotypes,
Sunder sel-3 gave the maximum seed yield of 3208 Kgha-1, while the minimum
seed yield of 1318 Kg ha-1 was recorded by Belinda sel-9. Mean plant height
ranged from 129 cm for genotype Pura sel-3 to 151 cm for Bulder sel-8 with mean
value of 139 cm (Table 3). On the other hand, highest stand percent was for
genotypes Blindasel-3, Blindasel-7, Blindasel-9, Bulder sel 6, Bulder sel and
lowest for genotypes Bulder sel -1(Table 3).
The highest value for thousand seed weight (5.3gm) was recorded by genotype
Bulder sel-9 and the lowest (4.1g) was recorded by genotype Axana sel-1. There
was no variation among genotypes for the traits sterility percent, black leg and
bird damage.
[352]
Table 3 . Combined mean agronomic performance of the 25 rapeseed genotypes evaluated at Holetta and Kulumsa in 2019/20 cropping season.
No Treatment Df Dm Ph Sta Yield OC OY TSW Dmi Aph Lod Str Bl Sha BD
1 Dodger Sel.7 67 156 137 82 2743 47.2 1283 5.1 1.5 2.3 1 5 5 4 4
2 Sunder sel-3 67 149 144 87 3208 47.3 1494 5.1 1.4 2.1 1 5 5 4 4
3 Sunder sel-5 66 148 135 87 2951 47.1 1370 5.0 1.4 2.1 1 5 6 4 4
4 Sunder Sel-8 67 150 139 84 2711 48.2 1277 5.1 1.4 2.2 1 5 5 4 4
5 Sunder Sel-9 66 150 138 88 2223 47.6 1051 4.7 1.5 2.2 1 5 5 4 4
6 Axana Sel-1 67 156 145 86 2467 47.8 1170 4.1 1.5 2.7 1.2 6 5 4 4
7 Axana Sel-3 65 146 131 88 2324 48.0 1107 4.5 1.5 2.1 1.2 6 5 4 4
8 Belinda sel-3 65 145 143 90 2161 48.0 1025 4.4 1.5 1.9 1.2 6 5 4 4
9 Belinda sel-7 61 142 137 90 2684 47.8 1272 4.8 1.5 2.1 1 6 6 4 4
10 Belinda sel-9 66 141 143 90 1318 47.3 603 4.7 1.4 1.8 1.3 6 5 4 4
11 Bulder sel-1 69 154 137 81 2205 47.2 1046 5.2 1.5 2.5 1.2 5 5 4 4
12 Bulder sel-4 67 151 137 86 1908 45.5 865 4.5 1.5 2.2 1.2 5 5 4 4
13 Bulder sel-6 66 152 142 90 1934 47.9 917 4.3 1.5 2.2 1.3 6 5 4 4
14 Bulder sel-8 71 152 151 86 1425 48.4 689 4.4 1.5 2.3 1.2 6 5 4 4
15 Bulder sel-9 61 138 145 90 2262 48.0 1067 5.3 1.7 2.2 1.9 6 5 4 4
16 Pura sel-1 65 138 135 84 2086 46.8 968 4.4 1.6 2.1 2.25 5 5 4 4
17 Pura sel-3 60 139 129 86 1891 48.1 888 4.6 1.5 2.3 1 5 5 4 4
18 Pura sel-5 66 139 139 89 2137 46.8 995 4.9 1.6 2.3 1.2 5 6 4 4
19 Pura sel-6 69 152 136 83 1990 47.7 944 4.7 1.5 2.4 1.2 5 5 4 4
20 Pura sel-7 64 147 146 89 1986 47.0 924 4.3 1.6 2.1 1 6 5 4 4
21 Pura sel-19 62 137 136 84 2329 43.4 926 4.4 1.6 2.0 2 5 5 4 4
22 Pura sel-20 69 148 141 85 2189 48.3 1052 4.9 1.5 2.3 1.4 6 6 4 4
23 Pura sel-25 61 146 146 84 2489 48.6 1200 5.0 1.5 1.9 1.2 5 5 4 4
24 Axana 64 153 132 88 2289 47.9 1084 4.3 1.6 2.1 1 5 5 4 4
25 Swifter 67 154 141 90 2235 48.0 1068 4.6 1.5 2.2 1 6 5 4 4
Mean 65 147 139 87 2246 47.3 1051 4.7 1.5 1.2 1.2 5.4 5.2 5.4 3.6
CV (%) 4.5 5.1 8.7 4.9 24.3 1.5 13.6 4.9 7.8 15.0 37 6.6 8.4 6.6 3.9
LSD (5%) 1.2 10.7 17 6.2 1043 1.02 267.3 0.22 Ns Ns 0.65 ns ns Ns Ns
Df; date of flowering, Dm: date of maturity. Ph: plant height, sta: stand, OC: oil content, Oy: oil yield, TSW: thousand seed weight, Dmi: doweny mildew, Aph: aphid, lod: lodging, sterility,
Bl: black leg: sha: shattering, BD: bird damage.
[353]
Performance of the tested genotypes
There was variation among the genotypes for the oil content ranged from 43.4 %
to 48.6 % and oil yield ranges from 603 Kg ha-1 to 1494 Kg ha-1 (Table4). The
maximum oil content than standard checks Swifter and Axana was recorded for
genotypes Sunder sel-8 (48.2%), Bulder sel-8 (48.45%), Pura sel-3, Pura sel-20
(48.35%), Pura sel-25 (48.6%) and the minimum was also recorded for the Pura
sel-19 (43.4%) (Table4). The maximum oil yield was recorded for the genotype
Sunder sel-3 (1494 Kg ha-1) and the minimum oil yield was recorded for genotype
Blinda sel-9 (603Kgha-1). The mean value of the 15 (60%) genotypes tested for
this study had shown greater oil content percent than the grand mean of the tested
genotypes. Similarly, 12(48%) genotypes showed greater oil yield than the grand
mean of oil yield. Among the tested genotypes, Sunder sel-3(1494 Kg ha-1),
Sunder sel-5 (1370 Kg ha-1) and Dodger sel-7 (1284Kg ha-1) ranked first, second
and third in oil yield, respectively. The lowest oil yield across locations was for
Blinda sel -3 (603 Kgha-1). Eight genotypes (Sunder sel-3(1496 Kgha-1), Sunder
sel-5(1370Kgha-1),Dodger sel-7(1284Kgha-1), Sunder sel-8(1277Kgha-1),
Belinda sel-7(1272Kgha-1), Pura sel-25 (1200Kgha-1), Axana sel-1 (1170 Kgha-
1) and Axana sel 3 also gave higher oil yield than the two standard check mean.
Mean oil content percentage ranged from 43.45% for Pura sel -19 to 48.65 % for
Pura sel -25. The oil content percentage mean was high at Holetta and least at
Kulumsa with mean oil percentages of 50.1 and 44.8, respectively (Table 4).
The highest mean thousand seed weight (6.4 gm) was recorded at Kulumsa for
genotype sunder sel-3 , sunder sel-5, sunder sel-8and Bulder sel-1 and the least
(3.2 gm) for genotype Pura sel-1at Holetta (Table4) . The mean thousand seed
weight was highest for the genotype Bulder sel- 9 (5.3 gm) and the lowest for
Axana sel-1 (4.1 gm). Among the tested genotypes Dodger sel-7, Sunder sel-3,
Sunder sel-5, Sunder sel-8, Bulder sel-1, Bulder sel-9 and Pura sel-25 showed
above average mean performance in thousand seed weight, while 14 genotypes
and two standard checks showed below-average performance in thousand seed
weight.
[354]
Table 4. Combined mean oil content and oil yield of 25 rapeseed genotypes tested at Holetta and Kulumsa testing sites during 2019/20 cropping season
Oil content (%) Oil yield (kg ha-1) TSW(g)
No Genotype Holetta Kulumsa Mean Holetta Kulumsa Mean Holetta Kulumsa Mean
1 Dodger Sel.7 49.5 44.9 47.2 1120 1696 1283 4 6.2 5.1
2 Sunder sel-3 49.8 44.8 47.3 1219 2157 1494 3.9 6.4 5.1
3 Sunder sel-5 49.7 44.4 47.05 1238 1738 1370 3.7 6.4 5
4 Sunder Sel-8 51 45.3 48.15 928 1766 1277 4 6.4 5.1
5 Sunder Sel-9 50.1 45.1 47.6 1135 1383 1051 4.1 5.6 4.7
6 Axana Sel-1 50.4 45.3 47.85 1071 1313 1170 3.9 4.4 4.1
7 Axana Sel-3 50.6 45.3 47.95 1139 1259 1107 4.1 4.8 4.5
8 Belinda sel-3 50.7 45.4 48.05 997 1085 1025 3.6 5.2 4.4
9 Belinda sel-7 49.6 46 47.8 1120 1361 1272 3.8 6 4.8
10 Belinda sel-9 49.6 45 47.3 437 982 603 3.9 5.6 4.7
11 Bulder sel-1 49.7 44.7 47.2 990 872 1046 3.9 6.4 5.2
12 Bulder sel-4 44.5 46.5 45.5 841 797 865 3.8 5.2 4.5
13 Bulder sel-6 49.8 46 47.9 643 948 917 3.7 5 4.3
14 Bulder sel-8 51.1 45.8 48.45 521 516 689 3.6 5.2 4.4
15 Bulder sel-9 51 44.9 47.95 796 1274 1067 4.7 6 5.3
16 Pura sel-1 50 43.8 46.9 736 963 968 3.2 5.2 4.4
17 Pura sel-3 50.9 45.3 48.1 508 1169 888 3.8 5 4.6
18 Pura sel-5 49.9 43.8 46.85 949 791 995 3.9 5.6 4.9
19 Pura sel-6 50.4 45.1 47.75 797 744 944 3.3 6 4.7
20 Pura sel-7 49.6 44.2 46.9 847 930 924 3.5 5 4.3
21 Pura sel-19 51.7 35.2 43.45 701 1140 926 3.9 4.8 4.4
22 Pura sel-20 50.8 45.9 48.35 1011 1220 1052 4 5.6 4.9
23 Pura sel-25 50.5 46.8 48.65 1047 1329 1200 4.3 5.6 5
24 Axana 50.7 45.1 47.9 920 1128 1084 3.7 4.8 4.3
25 Swifter 49.9 46.1 48 1106 1188 1068 4.1 5 4.6
Mean 50.1 44.8 47.4 913 1190 1051 3.9 5.9 4.7
Range 44.5-51.7 35.2-46.8 43.5-48.8 437-1238 516-2157 603-1494 3.2- 4.7 4.4-6.4 4.1-5.3
*TSW: thousand seed weight
[355]
Conclusion
The analysis of variance showed that there were significant differences among the
tested rapeseed genotypes for date of flowering, seed yield, oil yield and thousand
seeds weight traits. This indicates the existence of variability among the genotypes
tested that is important for selection and breeding program. Mean performance of
the genotypes Sunder sel -3, Sunder sel -5, Dodger sel -7and sunder sel-8 gave
highest seed yield, highest oil yield and thousand seed weight across locations
than the two standard checks Axana and Swifter. Therefore these genotypes were
proposed to be advanced and tested across multi locations recommended to be
utilized as a parental material in rapeseed improvement program.
Acknowledgement:
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from EIAR.
Collaborative research center Kulumsa and all research staff of the Holetta
National High and Midland Oilseeds research program for their immense
contributions for the accomplishment of the experiment.
Reference
Adefris Teklewold. 2005. Diversity Study Based on Quality Traits and RAPD
Markers and Investigation of Heterosis in Ethiopian Mustard. Ph.D. diss.
Georg-August Univ. of Göttingen, Germany. 161p.
Hiruy Belayneh. 1984. Highland Oil Crops production and research in Ethiopia.
Pages 62-69 in Oil Crops: Proceedings of a Workshop held in Cairo, Egypt,
3-8 September1983, (K. Riley ed.)
FAOSTAT. 2018. Available from http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/(last
consult: 2018/28/12).
Herkes, J. (2019). Rapeseed and canola for biodiesel production.
Getinet Alemaw, Adefris Tekele-wold,Mengistu Negi and Tesefay Getachew,
1992.IAR, Oilseeds research and development in Ethiopia. Proceedings
of the First National Workshop. 3-5 December 1991, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. 243p.
Kaczmarek, P., Korniewicz, D., Lipiński, K., and Mazur-Kuśnirek, M. (2016).
Chemical composition of rapeseed products and their use in pig nutrition.
Pol. J. Nat. Sci.31, 545–562.
Woźniak, E., and Twardowski, T. (2018). GMO Nauka3, 155–173.
[356]
Phenotyping of Black Seeded Soybean Genotypes
for Yield and Yield Related Raits at Jima, South
Western Ethiopia
Yechalew Sileshi1*; Masresha Yirga1; and Behailu Atero1
1
division; 2International Institutes of Tropical Agriculture, PMB 5320, Oyo Road 200001, Ibadan, Nigeria
Abstract
Soybean is becoming one of the important oil crops in Ethiopia. It can be classified
in to different groups based on the seed color. Black seeded soybean is one of the
preferred soybean types due to its nutritional and economical values. In Ethiopia
twenty-six yellow seeded soybean varieties are under production. However, black
seeded soybean variety is not released for our country so far. Therefore, evaluation
of the performance of black seeded soybean genotypes has been made with 64 black
introduced soybean genotypes from university of Illinois USA since 2015. These
were tested in various trials along with yellow seeded genotypes. Only Black seeded
soybean genotypes were evaluated using triple lattice design in the year 2019 main
cropping season at Jimma, All agronomic, disease, lodging score and grain yield
data were collected. The statistical analysis showed significant difference at
P<0.05 among the varieties for all parameters. Mean grain yield ranged from 0.5
t/ha (T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F4) to 2.59 (T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B6) t/ha. Out of the
total tested soybean genotypes 47 black seeded soybean genotypes produced better
grain yield than the most adapted check variety Clark63k. Similarly, 17 genotypes
produced better grain yield than the second check variety Coker-240. This result
indicates the possibility of developing black seeded soybean varieties to increase
productivity. Consequently, it is recommended to advance promising black seeded
soybean genotypes for further test and use as commercial variety.
Introduction
Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) has been the most widely used raw material for
industry. Based on seed color soybean can be classified into black; yellow; red;
green and brown. Black seeded soybean is native to tropical Asia. Black soybean
is one of the largest sources of edible oil and account for roughly 50% of the total
oilseed production of the world (Berk, 1992). Black soybean genotypes have
many advantages, both in terms of health and several economic benefits. It has the
top list highest antioxidant activity compared to other types of soybean. Black
color on the seed coat indicates that soy contains anthocyanin compounds, which
is one source of anti –oxidants. Anthocyanins, a group of reddish or purple
flavonoids, are reported to be the primary pigments in the black soybean
genotypes (Choung et al. 2001; Kuroda and Wada 1933; Lee et al. 2009;
Yoshikura and Hamaguchi, 1969). Anthocyanins are groups of reddish or purple
flavonoids which have been reported to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease
(Stocker and O’Halloran 2004; Waterhouse 1995). Anthocyanins are also known
[353]
to have anti-cancer (Hyun and Chung 2004; Kamei et al. 1995; Zhao et al. 2004),
hypoglycemic (Tsuda et al. 2003), and anti-inflammatory effects (Tsuda et al.
2002) and have been used in the treatment of various circulatory disorders (Bettini
et al. 1985).
Recently, consumption of black soybean is rapidly growing due to their nutritional

value and potential to develop healthy functional food ingredients in different
countries. In recent times, beside the use as a raw material in food industries, it is
becoming biofuel alternative (Chindy et al, 2015). Soybean is believed to be
introduced to Ethiopia in the 1950’s and to date 26 soybean genotypes are released
for production for different agro ecologies; but all of them are yellow seed color.
Hence, it was imperative to work with black seeded soybean genotypes to develop
high yielding disease resistant genotype that meet the requirement of the current
market demand. Therefore, this study was conducted with the objective of
evaluate the performance of black seeded soybean genotypes and advance
promising genotypes for further test.

This study was conducted at Jimma Agricultural Research Center located in
Oromia region of South Western Ethiopia. Jimma agricultural research center is
located at an altitude of 1,754 m.a.s.l and coordination of 07o 30’N and 36047’E.
The place has a mean maximum and minimum temperature of 26.3 and 11.60C
respectively with mean annual rainfall of 1,572mm. The soil type is nitosoil.
Experimental materials and Design

A total of 62 black seeded soybean genotypes and two yellow seeded check
varieties were evaluated in triple lattice design. The experiment was planted in 4
rows plot of 4 m length. The spacing used was 60 cm between rows and 5 cm
between plants. Two seeds /hill were planted and were thinned 4 weeks after
planting in to 1 plant/hill. The fertilizer 121kg NPS /ha applied at planting time.
All agronomic practice applied as per the recommendation.
Data Collection
Days to flowering, days to maturity, hundred seed weight, disease severity and
yield were collected on plot basis. Five plants from the central rows were
randomly selected for data collection on plant basis and the averages of the five
plants in each experimental plot were used for statistical analysis for traits such as
plant height, number of pods/plant and number of seeds/plant.
[354]
Data Analysis
The collected data were subjected to Analysis of variance using SAS Software
after testing the ANOVA assumptions; and treatment means were separated with
the Least Significant Difference (LSD) at 5% probability level.

The analysis of variance indicates significant to highly significant (P≤0.01)
differences for all of the studied traits (Table 1). Genotype T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-
H16 was found the earliest with days to 50% flowering of 37.5 days; while
genotype T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-14 showed the latest for flowering of 69.3days.
Days to maturity ranged from 119 for the genotype T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B9 to
147.5 days for the genotype T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F11 with mean value of 128.2
days to maturity (Table 2). Trends of variability in phonology were also reported
in soybean from 30 to 57 days to 50% flowering and a range of 79 to 101 days to
maturity (Singh et al., 1996). Similarly, differences were reported for days to
maturity in different genotypes (Adiyata et al. 2011). In the present study out of
the total tested soybean genotypes the tallest plant height was recorded for
genotype T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E5 (69 cm) and the shortest for genotype T2-EL-
LG-90-JM17-F17 (51.2) with a mean value of 61.2cm.
The maximum number of pod per plant was observed on the genotypes T2-EL-
LG-90-JM17-H24 (38.8) and the minimum from the genotypes T2-EL-LG-90-
JM17-B1 (13.7). The result is comparable to result of pod per plant ranged from
19.20 to 53.93 with a general mean of 28.82 pods per plant reported by Shankar
(2014). . EL-LG-90-JM17-H24 showed the largest number of seed per plant
(71.9), while genotypes T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B1 showed the lowest number of
seed per plant (25.4) (Table 2).
The maximum hundred seed weight was recorded from the genotype T2-EL-LG-
90-JM17-B19 (20.7 g), while the minimum from the genotypes T2-EL-LG-90-
JM17-F25 (9.9 g). Out of the total tested soybean genotypes 47 genotypes
produced grain yield better than the check Clark 63k; while 17 genotypes
produced better grain yield than the second check Coker -240. Genotypes T2-EL-
LG-90-JM17-B6 was found high yielder (2.59 t/ha) on contrary genotypes T2-EL-
LG-90-JM17-F4was found with lowest yield (0.5t/ha) (Table 2).
[355]
Table 1. Analysis of variance summary for yield and related traits of black seeded soybean genotypes at Jimma
in 2019
Source Df DTF DTM PH NOP NOS NB HSW YLD
Replication 1 4.5 258.78 21.36 7.12 12.5 0.09 1.20 40917.66

Var 63 25.16** 49.03** 29.28** 45.63** 127.32* 0.74** 5.99** 438076.92**
Error 49 5.51 23.75 10.54 20.19 70 0.22 2.08 71238.08
Remarks;- Where DF = days to 50% flowering, DM = days to maturity, PH = plant height, NP = number of pods per plant,
NS= seed per plant, NB= number of branches per plant; HW =hundred seed weight,* = significant at (P≤0.05), and **=
significant at (P≤ 0.01) .
Table 2. Mean grain yield (t/ha) and other parameters of black seeded soybean genotypes evaluated at Jimma in
the year 2019
HSW Yield
Genotype DF DM PH NPDP NSP NB Rust (gm) (T/ha) Rank
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B21 57.5 119.5 57.5 26.4 52.4 3.6 5.0 13.0 2.04 11
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B7 58.5 120.0 59.1 31.4 56.8 4.2 5.0 12.9 2.49 3
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B9 55.5 119.5 60.2 25.6 49.9 3.6 5.0 14.4 1.73 35
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-C2 57.5 125.5 61.9 35.7 57.5 3.3 7.0 13.2 2.49 2
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-C17 57.0 132.0 62.8 27.1 37.1 3.7 6.0 13.2 1.69 38
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-C25 61.5 132.5 56.9 26.5 43.0 4.2 4.0 14.2 0.83 58
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D3 57.0 133.0 67.4 27.4 43.1 4.8 5.0 12.7 1.61 44
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D5 58.5 134.0 64.8 29.8 49.8 5.2 5.0 14.5 1.40 49
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D7 58.5 130.0 54.8 23.4 35.0 3.5 6.0 13.2 1.01 52
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D8 57.0 132.0 61.8 28.0 54.1 3.9 4.0 16.3 0.91 56
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D11 56.0 124.0 64.1 25.4 44.0 3.3 6.0 11.8 1.81 30
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D15 56.5 126.5 57.8 27.5 43.5 3.8 5.0 12.8 1.24 51
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D17 57.0 131.0 66.2 32.7 56.8 5.2 5.0 12.1 1.63 40
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D18 57.5 140.0 60.6 26.1 41.6 3.8 5.0 11.8 0.50 64
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D24 55.5 124.5 54.2 24.3 40.8 3.4 5.0 12.6 2.08 9
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D27 56.5 125.0 64.3 27.8 52.5 3.6 7.0 12.3 1.95 20
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-D32 56.5 129.5 57.3 32.0 51.9 3.3 7.0 14.4 2.34 4
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E2 56.5 125.0 60.1 37.7 65.1 3.6 7.0 11.7 1.72 36
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E4 58.5 124.5 62.6 25.4 44.5 3.7 7.0 13.1 1.83 28
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E5 56.0 132.5 69.0 27.4 44.2 4.3 6.0 14.5 1.73 34
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E7 58.0 131.5 58.1 27.2 44.4 3.7 7.0 15.9 0.98 53
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E9 56.0 122.0 59.8 30.1 53.8 3.2 7.0 11.8 2.01 15
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-E10 56.0 133.0 58.5 23.5 34.5 3.8 5.0 16.2 0.89 57
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F3 55.5 128.0 67.5 36.8 53.3 3.8 6.0 11.6 1.98 16
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F4 57.0 129.0 66.9 30.1 49.3 4.2 6.0 13.8 1.55 45
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F5 56.5 129.0 60.1 29.3 55.8 3.8 7.0 12.7 1.75 33
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F7 56.5 144.5 53.1 33.9 55.9 4.2 4.0 15.0 1.33 50
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F8 55.0 123.5 61.8 32.8 56.2 4.0 6.0 12.3 2.05 10
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F9 57.5 126.0 65.7 37.6 64.4 4.2 6.0 13.7 1.90 23
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F11 56.0 147.5 51.2 28.2 47.8 3.3 3.0 14.7 0.70 60
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F15 56.5 131.5 60.7 32.1 50.5 4.2 6.0 13.6 1.78 32
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F16 56.5 127.0 63.9 31.5 57.4 3.9 7.0 11.5 1.81 29
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F20 55.5 123.5 58.6 27.4 43.1 2.9 7.0 11.5 1.70 37
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F22 57.5 127.5 61.3 36.1 51.6 3.8 6.0 14.3 1.90 22
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F23 56.5 135.5 54.8 33.5 52.5 3.3 4.0 15.3 0.92 55
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F25 56.5 120.0 64.1 34.1 54.0 4.0 7.0 9.9 1.95 19
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F27 55.5 125.5 62.7 34.2 58.5 3.8 7.0 12.0 2.03 12
[356]
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-F29 56.0 128.0 66.2 35.7 57.4 4.2 6.0 11.8 1.53 47
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G1 57.0 135.0 59.6 23.9 38.6 4.2 5.0 12.3 0.61 63
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G3 57.0 125.5 62.4 32.5 50.9 4.1 7.0 12.3 1.96 17
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G4 59.5 126.5 65.6 38.1 71.9 3.8 7.0 11.9 2.30 5
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G6 56.0 128.5 63.9 33.5 56.8 4.1 7.0 10.3 2.21 7
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G10 57.5 127.5 60.1 35.5 60.6 4.1 7.0 13.0 1.85 27
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G13 56.5 128.0 63.9 32.4 47.7 4.2 6.0 14.9 2.09 8
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G15 57.0 132.0 60.5 26.9 40.4 3.3 7.0 13.5 0.74 59
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G29 55.0 125.5 60.9 35.1 58.4 4.5 7.0 13.8 1.80 31
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-G31 56.5 124.5 62.1 33.6 47.0 4.1 6.0 11.8 1.86 26
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H8 57.0 128.5 60.5 25.5 36.6 3.5 5.0 14.5 0.61 62
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H16 37.5 124.5 67.3 36.2 55.9 4.0 7.0 12.0 2.26 6
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H18 58.0 126.5 58.7 27.0 49.8 4.0 6.0 12.5 1.62 42
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H20 58.0 123.0 62.0 24.6 37.1 3.1 7.0 12.9 1.62 41
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H22 53.5 129.0 65.7 23.9 43.9 3.6 5.0 13.2 1.53 46
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-H24 56.0 142.5 63.0 38.8 71.4 4.1 6.0 12.0 1.86 25
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-I3 47.5 128.0 56.0 38.2 53.8 3.3 7.0 12.2 2.01 14
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-I4 69.3 125.0 65.0 28.9 43.0 3.2 7.0 12.3 1.65 39
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-I9 68.0 124.5 58.1 27.9 49.3 3.8 6.0 12.5 1.90 21
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B1 57.5 130.5 54.6 13.7 25.4 1.5 3.0 19.8 0.95 54
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B2 56.0 122.0 55.8 22.7 36.1 3.8 5.0 13.6 1.61 43
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B6 56.5 121.5 62.6 28.1 52.4 3.2 5.0 15.7 2.59 1
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B11 57.0 120.0 54.5 24.7 45.1 3.1 5.0 13.5 1.86 24
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B13 56.0 128.5 63.0 37.3 58.4 4.1 6.0 11.6 2.02 13
T2-EL-LG-90-JM17-B19 57.0 126.5 61.5 18.4 29.4 1.6 5.0 20.7 0.64 61
Clarck 63-K(C1) 56.5 129.0 64.7 35.6 48.5 4.9 5.0 11.7 1.49 48
Coker 240(C2) 55.5 130.5 67.7 26.9 48.8 5.0 5.0 18.3 1.95 18
Min 37.5 119.5 51.2 13.7 25.4 1.5 3 9.9 0.50 11
Max 69.3 147.5 69 38.8 71.9 5.2 7 20.7 2.59
Mean 59.2 128.21 61.2 29.9 49.4 3.8 5.82 13.34 1.65
CV 4.0 4.0 5.3 15.0 17.0 12.6 12.46 11.8 17.10
LSD 4.8 9.8 6.8 9.6 16.8 1.0 1.44 2.90 0. 53
Conclusion
Soybean can be classified in to different class based on seed color and seed color
has its own nutritional value. Black seeded soybean color has premium price and
better nutritional value as compared to the yellow seeded color. The result of this
study indicates significant variation among the genotypes. The yield ranges 0.5
t/ha to2.59 t/ha and about 17 genotypes resulted with better yield than the two
yellow seeded standard checks. . It is recommended to further evaluate these
soybean materials for agronomic and quality related traits across location and year
to release the best black seeded soybean varieties.
[357]
References
Akiyama, T., Ishida, J., Nakagawa, S., Ogawara, H., Watanabe, S., Itoh, N.,
Shibuya, M. and Fukami, Y. 1987.Genisten,aspecificinhibitoroftyrosine-
specific protein kinases. Journal of Biological Chemistry 262: 5592–5595
AOAC, 2000. Official Method of Analysis 988.05 (17th Edition) Volume I.
Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Inc. Maryland, USA.
Balitkabi. 2012. Kedelai Hitam: Kaya Gizi dan Bernilai Ekonomi. Dipetik Juli 28
2013, dariBalitkabiDeptan: http://balitkabi.litbang.deptan.go.id
Barnes, S. 2010. The biochemistry, chemistry and physiology of the isoflavones in
soybeans and their food products. Lymphatic Research and Biology 8(1):
89–98
Berger, M., Rasolohery, C.A., Cazalis, R. and Dayde, J. 2008. Isoflavone
Accumulation Kinetics in Soybean Seed Cotyledons and Hypocotyls:
Distinct Pathways and Genetic Controls. Crop Science 48: 700-708
Berk Z. Technology of production of edible flours and protein products from
soybeans. Rome, Italy: FAO; 1992.
Cesco, S., Mimmo, T., Tonon, G., Tomasi, N., Pinton, R., Terzano, R., Neumann,
G., Weisskopf, L., Renella, G., Landi, L. and Nannipieri, P. 2012. Plant-
borne flavonoids released into the rhizosphere: impact on soil bio-activities
related to plant nutrition. A review. Biology and Fertililty of Soils 48: 123–
149.
Chindy Ulima Zanettaa *, Budi Waluyob , Meddy Rachmadic , Agung
Karuniawan. Oil Content and Potential Region for Cultivation Black
Soybean in Java as Biofuel Alternative.2015. Conference and Exhibition
Indonesia - New, Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation (The 3rd
Indo-EBTKE ConEx 2014)
Chun H-K., Cho S-M., Park, K-M., Russell, R.M., Blumberg, J.B. and Yeum, K-J.
2010. Composition and stability of phytochemicals in five varieties of black
soybeans (Glycine max). Food Chemistry 123: 1176–1184.
Colpas, F.T., Ono, E.O., Rodrigues, J.D. and de Souza
Passos,J.R.2003.Effectsofsomephenoliccompounds
onsoybeanseedgerminationandonseed-bornefungi. Brazilian Archives of
Biology and Technology 46: 155-161.
Correa, C.R., Li, L., Aldini, G., Carini, M., Chen, C.Y.O.,
Cvejić, J., Tepavčević, V., Bursaća, M., Miladinović, J. and Malenčić, D. 2011.
Isoflavone composition in F1 soybean progenies. Food Research
International 44: 2698–2702.
Dakora, F.D. and Phillips, D.A.1996. Diverse functions of Isoflavonoids in
legumes transcend ant-microbial definitions of phytoalexins. Physiological
and Molecular Plant Pathology 49:1-20
Dhaubhadel, S. 2011. Regulation of Isoflavonoid Biosynthesis in Soybean Seeds.
In Ng, T-B. (Ed). Soybean-Biochemistry, Chemistry and Physiology.
[358]
Retrieved at November 20, 2012 From INTECH Website
:http://www.intechopen.com/books/soybean- biochemistry-chemistry-and-
physiology/regulation- of-isoflavonoid-biosynthesis-in-soybean-seeds
Griffith, A.P. and Collison, M.W. 2001. Improved
methodsfortheextractionandanalysisof
Hui, E. 1998. The Soybean and Cardiovascular Health, Nutrition Noteworthy
Jain, R. K., & Bal, S. 1997. Physical Properties of PearlMillet.Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 66, 85-91
Lee, J.H. and Cho, K.M. 2012. Changes occurring in compositional
components of black soybeans maintained at room temperature for different
storage periods. Food Chemistry 131:161–169.
Lee,J.,Renita,M.,Fioritto,R.J.,St.Martin,S.K.,Schwartz,
Lee, S.J., Yan, W., Ahn, J.K. and Chung, I.M. 2002. Effects of year, site, genotype
and their interactions on various soybean isoflavones. Field CropsResearch
4150: 1–12.
S.J.andVodovotz,Y.2004.Isoflavonecharacterization and antioxidant activity of
Ohio Soybeans. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 52:2647–2651.
Sharma, S. K., Dubey, R. K., & Teckchandani, C.K. 1985. Engineering Properties
of Black Gram, Soybean and Greean Gram. Proceedings of The Indian
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 3, 181- 185.
Zanetta, C.U., B. Waluyo,. A. Kurniawan, 2013. Karakteristik Fisik dan
Kandungan Kimia Galur-galur Harapan Kedelai Hitam Unpad Sebagai
Bahan Baku Kecap. Prosiding Seminar Nasional HasilPenelitian Tanaman
Kacang-kacangan dan Umbi-umbian. Malang. JawaTimur.
[359]
Effect of time of N Fertilizer Application on
Performance of Tef (Eragrostic tef ) in the
Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Almaz Meseret1*, Sisay Eshetu1, Bizuwork Tafes1, and Gebrekidan Feleke1
1
Agronomy and crop physiology Department, Debre Zeite Agricultural Research Center,
P.O.Box 32 Debre Zeit; E-mail: almimeseret@gmail.com
Abstract
Nitrogen use efficiency requires splitting N between a starter and top-dress
applications. However information on tef N application time was not available for
Minjar and Ude areas where tef is a major food crop. Therefore, on-farm field
experiment was conducted for three consecutive years (2017 to 2019) under rain-
fed condition to determine appropriate N fertilizer application time for improved
tef productivity at Minjar and Ude districts. The study had two varieties and eight
N application times as factors and hence 16 treatments. The experiment was laid
out in a split-plot design with three replications. The two varieties (Boset and
Kora) were assigned to the main plots and the N application times were to the
subplots. The N application times in sequence of planting-tillering-flag leaf-
heading and N magnitudes (kg ha-1) were, 0-0-0-0, 100-0-0-0, 50-25-25-0, 50-25-
12.5-12.5, 0-50-25-25, 50-17-16-17, 0-100-0-0, and 50-50-0-0 respectively. The
results showed that variety and time of N application had significant effects on
growth parameters, yield and yield components of tef at both locations. Kora
variety gave higher growth parameters of tef at both locations and higher yield
(2239 kg/ha) at Ude. Regarding the time of N application, the highest yield (2346
kg/ha) was obtained in 4 times application (50-25-12.5-12.5), but was not
significantly different from other split applications at Ude. However, at Minjar,
split application didn’t show any significant difference of grain yield with that of
full applications. Partial budget analysis showed that N application of 50-25-
12.5-12.5 and 50-25-25-0 gave the highest net benefit at Ude and Minjar,
respectively. Therefore, four split application of N (50% at planting, 25% at
tillering, 12.5% at flag leaf, and 12.5% at heading) and three times split
application of N (50% at planting, 25% at tillering, and 25% at flag leaf) can be
recommended for higher economic yield of tef at Ude and MInjar area,
respectively.
Introduction
Tef is one of the most important and dominant staple cereal crops in Ethiopia. The
crop has high nutrition values and it is free of gluten (Spaenij-Dekking et al.,
2005), a causal agent for celiac disease; and hence tef is becoming globally
popular as a lifestyle crop (Provost and Jobson, 2014). It ranks first in terms of
production and consumption (Tarek, 1981). The crop is cultivated almost entirely
under rain-fed conditions by subsistence farmers. Tef has the second-largest share
of cereal crop production (17.11%) after maize and the first largest share of
cultivated area (24.11%) (CSA, 2020). Tef production area continues to expand,
[361]
and a greater number of farmers are producing tef. Approximately 6.78 million
farmers were growing tef in 2020 compared with 4.4 million farmers in 2001.
Similarly, its area coverage increased from 1.8 million hectares in 2001 to 3.08
million hectares in 2020 (CSA, 2020).
Although production of tef is expanding over time and the crop has a significant
role on Ethiopian agriculture, food and trade sectors, productivity is relatively low
with the national average grain yield of 1.76 t/ha (CSA, 2019). Among the yield-
limiting factors, poor agronomic practices and low soil fertility are most important
(Olani et al, 2005). The low soil fertility status in many parts of the country is
partly explained by the continuous cultivation of the land by the same crop year
after year. Fertilizer use as a means of alleviating the problem is now widely
accepted (Gorfu et al, 2003). Nitrogen fertilizer is vital for plant growth, grain and
biomass yield productivity. Although N is the key element in increasing
productivity, only 40-50% of N fertilizer is taken up by cereal crops (Carranca,
2012), being 16-34% for tef (Tulema et al., 2005), due to low N uptake efficiency
of nature cereal crops. The other amount of the applied N is lost through leaching,
denitrification and runoff especially in Vertisols, which resulted in inefficient use
of N fertilizer. Thus, it is important to determine appropriate nitrogen application
time depending on tef growth stages in addition to the recommended management
practices that minimize N losses from agricultural fields (Bundy L.G, 1998).
Split application of N is one way of improving N use by the crop while reducing
nutrient loss through leaching, denitrification, runoff and volatilization (Gehl et
al., 2005). Improving N-use efficiency of tef generally requires splitting the N
during application to plant between a starter-band application and a side/top-dress
application. Delaying nitrogen application for 4 to 6 weeks after planting will
avoid early-season nitrogen losses due to heavy rains in the Central Highlands of
the country and provide available fertilizer nitrogen to the crop when it needs it
most. Similarly, Anthony et al. (2003) reported that late-season N application as
dry fertilizer material was effective in attaining higher N recovery and use
efficiency. The timing of side/top-dress nitrogen applications is critical. In most
crops, split application of N is reported as beneficial rather than basal application
of all N fertilizers. Two times split application of N as top dress is a common
practice for wheat cultivation in Ethiopia, but in the case of tef, nitrogen fertilizer
applied as basal during planting is common.
Since N can be lost from cropping systems through several pathways, a single
solution to best managing N is unlikely (Binder et al., 2000). Split applications of
N would improve tef grain yield when compared with a single application at
planting. However, limited research has been done on the effect of split
application of N for tef and its association with grain yield and nutrient use
efficiency NUE in Ethiopia, particularly in the central part, where the rainfall is
high and the soil is Vertisol. Therefore, the objective of this study was to
[362]
determine the appropriate time of N fertilizer application during the crop growth
cycle for increased tef production.

Site description
The field experiments were conducted at Ude and Minjar farmer’s fields during
2017 to 2019 cropping seasons. Ude is located at 9°5´52.8˝ N and 36°58´37.2˝ E
with 1970 meter elevation while Minjar is located at a latitude of 9° 09' 60.00" N
and longitude of 39° 19' 60.00" E at an 1040 masl. Those areas are typical of the
rain-fed tef-growing regions of Ethiopia with an average annual rainfall of
912 mm and 826 mm at Ude and Minjar, respectively. The dominant soil type of
Ude and Minjar are Vertisol, which are known for their high water logging and
drainage problems (Table 1). Figure 1 and 2 shows monthly total rainfall at the
experimental site over the 3-year study periods at Ude and Minjar, respectively.
Before planting, the surface (0–30 cm) soil samples from ten spots across the
experimental field were collected, composited and analyzed for determining
selected soil physicochemical properties at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research
Center following standard procedure. Values for the selected physicochemical
properties of both locations are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 and 2 shows
monthly total rainfall at the experimental site over the 3-year study periods at Ude
and Minjar, respectively.
Table 1. Soil physio-chemical properties (0-30 cm depth) of the experimental sites
Ude Minjar
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Clay (%) 56.6 55.6 56.3 42.2 43.1 43.7
Silt (%) 32.9 34.3 33.3 33.2 32.6 31.7
Sand (%) 10.5 10.1 10.4 24.6 24.3 24.6
pH (1: 2.5 H2O) 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5
CEC [Cmol(+) kg-1 soil] 38.5 38.7 39.0 37.1 37.2 37.0
Organic matter (%) 1.34 1.37 1.24 1.14 1.35 1.27
Total N (%) 0.24 0.173 0.140 0.124 0.143 0.140
[363]
200
150
100 2017 RF
50 2018 RF
2019 RF
0
Figure 1. Precipitation mm/10 days during tef growing seasons in 2017, 2018 and 2019 at Minjar
250
200
150
2017 RF
100
2018 RF
50
2019 RF
0
Figure 2. Precipitation mm/10 days during tef growing seasons in 2017, 2018 and 2019 at Ude
Experimental design, treatments and crop management

A split-plot experimental arrangement, laid out in a randomized complete block
design with replications, was used for the experiments. The main plot factor was
two tef varieties differing in maturity period (Kora, which is late maturing and
Boset, which is early maturing Variety). The sub-plot factor was N application
time with eight levels. The N timing levels were set based on tef growth stages
such as planting, tillering, flag leaf and heading [control (0-0-0-0), 100-0-0-0, 50-
25-25-0, 50-25-12.5-12.5, 0-50-25-25, 50-17-16-17, 0-100-0-0, and 50-50-0-0].
Time of N application treatments was arranged based on a fixed rate of 100 kg/ha
of Urea (46 kg/ha of N). Subplot size of 4 m x 4 m = 16 m2 was used for all
treatments. The spacing between main plots and subplots was 1m and 0.5 m,
respectively.
Tef grain was sown by drilling in rows at the recommended rate of 15 kg ha−1. The
recommended rate of 100 kg/ha of TSP equivalent of 20 kg/ha P was applied to all
treatments at planting. Weeds were managed manually. Other agronomic practices
[364]
were as needed based on recommendations. The crop was harvested manually at
physiological maturity when the vegetative parts net plots.
Data Collection and Measurements

Plant height was measured from the base of the plant to the tip of the panicle at
maturity time. Panicle length was measured from the node (the first panicle branch
started) to the tip of the panicle. The number of tillers per plant was determined by
counting the number of additional plants growing from the main stem. The
samples for the above parameters were taken from 10 randomly taken plants.
Above-ground biomass was determined by taking the total weight of the harvest
including the grains from each net plot area. The straw yield was measured by
subtracting grain yield per net plot from the total above-ground biomass. Grain
yield (kg/ha) was measured after threshing the grains harvested from the net plots.
Harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to above-ground biomass.
To compare the economic feasibilities of split time of N applications, partial

budget analysis and marginal rate of return were done as described by CIMMYT
(1988). The average grain and straw yield was adjusted downwards by 10% to
reflect the difference between the experimental yield and the expected yield of
farmers from the same treatment. The costs that vary were calculated by adding
costs of labor requirement for N application. The mean market price of tef grain
(40 birr/kg) and straw cost (3 birr/kg) were used.
The data were subjected to combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) over years
after confirmation of homogeneity of error variance using SAS software program
using the split plot model. Separate analyses were conducted for each location
because of heterogeneity of error variance. The means were compared by Tukey
method at 0.05 probability level.

Tef Phenology
The effects of variety and time of N application on phonological parameters of tef
at Ude and Minjar over 2017-2019 cropping season are presented in Table 2.
Results showed that year had no a significant (P< 0.05) effect on days to heading
and days to maturity of tef at both locations. The main effect of variety had a
significant effect on day’s to maturity, but not on days heading at both locations.
At both locations, Kora variety mature 3 days earlier than Boset variety. This
result is in line with Abebe and Wondwosen (2017) who reported significant
(p<0.005) differences among tef varieties for days to heading and days to
maturity.
[365]
Days to heading and days to maturity were significantly affected (P<0.05) by the
main effect of time of N application at both locations. Maximum days of heading
(52.6 days) were observed in control and minimum days of heading were observed
in full application of N at planting at both locations. This could be because the
plant received full rates of N at planting encouraged for the early establishment,
rapid growth and development. Maximum days to physiological maturity (103
days) were observed when 50, 25, and 12.5% were applied at planting, tillering,
and at flag leaf and heading stages respectively. In contrast, minimum days to
attain physiological maturity were observed in control treatment. This could be
due to the longer time required to establish, grow and complete the vegetative
growth. This result is in agreement with Tesfaye et al. (2019) who reported that
the application of N ½ at planting and ½ at tillering gave a shortened heading of
tef than the control.
Tef growth and yield component parameters

Plant height
Plant height was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the main effect of year, variety
and time of N application at both locations (Table 3). However, the interaction
effect of variety and time of N application did not significantly (P>0.05) affect
plant height of tef at both locations (Table 3). The maximum plant height (122.4
cm and 116.19 cm) was observed in 2018 cropping season and the minimum plant
height (104.1 cm and 104.68 cm) was observed in 2017 cropping season at Ude
and Minjar, respectively. This might be due to the monthly rainfall amount in
pick rainy seasons and the cumulative rainfall was considerably better in 2019 and
2018 as compared to 2017 cropping season.
[366]
Table 2. The main effects of year, variety and time of N application on phenological
parameters of tef at Ude and Minjar during 2017-2019 cropping seasons
Treatment Ude Menjar

DH DM DH DM
Year
2017 51.93 99.79 51.94 99.09
2018 51.93 98.59 51.94 98.79
2019 52 99 52 98
LSD (P<0.05) ns ns ns ns
Variety
Kora 52.0 100.20a 52.04 100.17a
Boset 51.8 97.4b 51.83 97.42b
LSD (P<0.05) ns 0.44 ns 0.45
Time of N (%)
0-0-0-0 52.6a 97.7e 52.6a 97.67c
100-0-0-0 51c 98.2cde 51c 98.17b
50-25-25-0 51.83 abc 98.8bcd 51.8abc 99.17ab
50-25-12.5-12.5 52abc 100.3a 52abc 100.33a
0-50-25-25 52.5ab 99bc 52.5ab 99 abc
50-17-16-17 52.3ab 99.2ab 52.3ab 99.17ab
0-100-0-0 51abc 98de 51.7abc 98.00bc
50-50-0-0 51.5bc 99.2b 51.0bc 98.83bc
LSD (P<0.05) 1.08 0.89 1.08 10.31
CV (%) 2.56 1.11 2.56 1.11
*DH, days to heading, DM, days to maturity
Higher plant height (120.77 cm and 125.7 cm) of tef was observed in Kora variety
as compared to Boset variety (107.3 cm and 112.3 cm) at Ude and Minjar,
respectively. The difference of growth parameters between the two tef varieties
was due to the variation in their genetic makeup and adaptability to soil and
climatic conditions. The result is in agreement with Gezahegn et al. (2019) who
reported a highly significant (P≤ 0.01) difference in plant height among tef
varieties.
Split application of N fertilizer 50, 25, 12.5 and 12.5% at planting, tillering, flag
leaf and at heading stages respectively gave the highest plant height (118.6 cm and
111.98cm) of tef at Ude and Minjar, respectively, but was not significantly
different from other split application of N treatments. In contrast, control gave the
lowest plant height of tef (105.58 cm and 105.28cm) at Ude and Minjar,
respectively. Application of N full at planting or tillering gave shorter tef as
compared to split application N. The plant height obtained from all N treated plots
was significantly higher than the unfertilized plot. This might be attributed to the
importance of nitrogen fertilizer in plant growth. Split application N gave taller tef
[367]
as compared to one time application of N at planting or tillering. This might be
due to splitting the nitrogen into three to four doses might have provided enough
time space for the plant to take up N according to its demand, resulting in better
synchrony of growth with the supply of the nutrient. Similarly, Tolossa and
Ayalew (2016) reported a significant effect of time of N application on plant
height of tef.
Table 3. The main effects of time of N application, year and variety on growth and yield components of tef at Ude and
Minjar during 2017-2019 cropping season
Treatment Ude Minjar

PH (cm) NPT PL (cm) PH (cm) NPT PL (cm)
Year
2017 104.45c 3.13b 30.75c 103.68b 2.78c 32.72b
2018 122.4a 3.64a 42.76a 116.19a 3.47b 41.38a
2019 114.14b 3.58a 41.65b 106.98b 4.70 a 41.66a
LSD (P<0.05) 5.00 0.28 1.47 4.076 0.21 1.8
Variety
Kora 120.77a 3.64a 40.68a 125.7a 3.96a 45.82a
Boset 107.34b 3.36b 36.09b 112.3b 3.54b 37.22b
LSD (P<0.05) 4.08 0.23 1.20 4.12 0.17 1.84
Time of N (%)
0-0-0-0 105.58c 3.21b 35.76c 105.28b 3.36c 36.22b
100-0-0-0 109.97bc 3.42ab 37.35bc 107.68ab 3.66bc 38.12ab
50-25-25-0 116.51ab 3.36ab 40.52a 110.89ab 4.02a 39.36a
50-25-12.5-12.5 118.6a 3.68a 38.95ab 111.98a 4.22a 40.23a
0-50-25-25 114.81ab 3.59ab 38.99ab 110.58ab 3.62bc 37.87ab
50-17-16-17 115.32ab 3.43ab 38.63ab 108.88ab 3.90ab 39.17a
0-100-0-0 111.94bc 3.48ab 38.09bc 106.17ab 3.68bc 38.85ab
50-50-0-0 114.62ab 3.41ab 38.78ab 110.14ab 3.55c 38.88ab
LSD (P<0.05) 8.17 0.46 2.41 6.65 0.34 2.94
CV (%) 10.87 20.5 9.49 9.25 11.72 13.75
*PH= plant height, NPT= number of productive tiller per plant, PT = panicle length
Number of productive tiller per plant

The number of productive tillers per plant was significantly (P<0.05) affected by
the main effect of year, variety and time of N application at both locations (Table
3). However, the interaction effect of variety and time of N application did not
significantly (P>0.05) affect the number of productive tiller per plant of tef at both
locations (Tabel 3). The number of productive tillers was higher (3.64 and 3.58)
in 2018 and 2019, respectively as compared to 2017 (5.13). The year differences
might be due to the inconsistency of rainfall amount and its distribution in the
cropping seasons.
[368]
The higher number of productive tiller per plant (3.64 and 3.96) of tef was
observed in Kora variety as compared to Boset variety (3.36 and 3.54) at Ude and
Minjar, respectively. The difference in the number of tiller between the two tef
varieties was due to the variation in their genetic makeup and adaptability to soil
and climatic conditions.
Split application of N fertilizer 50, 25, 12.5 and 12.5% at planting, tillering, flag
leaf and at heading stages, respectively gave the highest plant height (3.68) of tef
but was not significantly different from other split application of N at Ude. At
Minjar, the highest number of productive tiller per plant were obtained when N
was applied at a split 50, 25, 12.5 and 12.5% at planting, tillering, flag leaf and at
heading stages, respectively. In contrast, control gave the lowest number of
productive tiller per plant (105.58 cm and 105.28cm) of tef at Ude and Minjar,
respectively. The highest number of tiler in split application might be due to
splitting the nitrogen into three to four doses might have provided enough time
space for the plant to take up N according to its demand, resulting in better
synchrony of growth with the supply of the nutrient. Similarly, Tolossa and
Ayalew (2016) reported a significant effect of time of N application on a number
of the effective tiller of tef.
Panicle Length
Panicle length was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the main effect of year,
variety and time of N application at both locations (Table 3). However, interaction
effect of variety and time of N application did not significantly (P>0.05) affect
panicle length of tef at both locations (Tabel 3). The tallest panicle length (42.76
cm) was observed in 2018 and the shortest panicle length (30.75 cm) was
observed in 2017 at Ude. Similarly, at Minjar, the tallest panicle length (41.38 cm
and 41.66 cm) was observed in 2018 and 2019, respectively and the shortest
panicle length was observed in 2017. The year differences might be due to the
inconsistency of rainfall amount and its distribution in the cropping seasons.
Kora variety gave higher panicle length (40. 68 cm and 45.82 cm) than Boset
variety at Ude and Minjar, respectively. The difference in growth parameters
between the two tef varieties was due to the variation in their genetic makeup and
adaptability to soil and climatic conditions. The result is in agreement with
Gezahegn et al. (2019) who reported that Kora variety gave longer panicle length
than Boset variety.
The highest panicle length of tef was obtained when N was applied 50, 25 and 25
% at planting, tillering and at flag stage, respectively but was not statistically
(P>0.05) difference from other split application of N at Ude. Application of N full
at planting or tillering gave shorter panicle length tef as compared to split
application N. At Minjar, the highest panicle length (40.23) of tef was obtained
[369]
when N was applied at a split of 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and at flag
stage, respectively but was not significantly different from other N application
treatments. In contrast, control gave the lowest panicle length of tef (3.21 cm and
3.36) at Ude and Minjar, respectively. This result is consistent with Kidu (2016)
who reported that panicle length was highly significantly (P≤ 0.05) influenced by
the application timing of N fertilizer. The lower plant growth of tef at the full
application of N fertilizer could be attributed to the fact that application of a full
dose of nitrogen at one time to crops may lead to loss due to leaching as nitrate ion
(NO3-) as stated by Mengel and Kirkby (2001).
Yield Parameters
Grain yield
Grain yield of tef was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the main effect of year
and time of N application. However, the main effect of variety and interaction
effect of variety with the time of N application did not significantly (P>0.05)
affect grain yield of tef at Ude (Tabel 4). At Minjar, the grain yield of tef was
significantly affected by the main effect of year, variety and time of N, but the
interaction effect of variety with time of N application was not significant on grain
yield of tef (Table 4).
At Ude, higher grain yield (2217 kg/ha and 2129kg/ha) of tef was obtained during
2018 and 2019 cropping season, respectively and the lowest grain yield (1728
kg/ha) was obtained during 2017 cropping season. Similarly, at Minjar, the
highest grain yield (2169 kg/ha) of tef was obtained in 2019 cropping season and
the lowest grain yield (2002 kg/ha) of tef was obtained in 2017 cropping season.
Variations in distribution and amount of rainfall registered during the cropping
periods prompted variations in grain yield of tef at both locations.
Kora variety gave a significantly higher grain yield (2239 kg/ha) of tef than Boset
variety (1919 kg/ha) at Minjar. At Ude, even though non-significant difference
(P>0.05), kora variety gave a higher grain yield (2117 kg/ha) than Boset variety
(1932 kg/ha). This result is in line with Bekele et al. (2019), who reported that
under normal cropping season Kora produces more grain yield than Boset.
Similarly, Abebe and Wondwosen (2017) reported that Kora was among the
highest yielding cultivars followed by Boset (1827 kg/ha) and Dukem (1750
kg/ha).
At Ude, the highest grain yield (2346 kg/ha) of tef was obtained when N was
applied 50, 25,12.5 and 12.5 % at planting, tillering , flag leaf and at heading,
respectively but was not statistically (p<0.05) different grain yield with other split
application of N. All split application of N treatments gave higher grain yield of
tef as compared to the full application of N at planting or tillering. This result may
[370]
be related to rainfall amount and distribution of the location that may lead to
runoff and leaching due to mismatch N application and time of crop N demand.
Therefore, under conditions where N losses are likely, application of N fertilizer
as close as possible to the time of crop uptake should improve N-use efficiency
thereby crop yield (Löpez-Bellido et al 2006a, b). The result is in line with
Habtegebrial and Singh (2006) who reported that yield response and NUE of the
tef crop could be improved with split N and S fertilizer applications. In contrast,
the lowest grain yield (1521 kg/ha) of tef was obtained in the control treatment.
At Minjar, split application of N and full application of N at planting or tillering
gave the statistically same (P<0.05) grain yield, but higher grain yield than
control. This might be due to the rain fall distribution during the growing season is
even and the soil has low waterlogged. Similarly, Tiessen et al. (2005, 2006)
reported that under low rainfall conditions, denitrification and leaching losses are
small, and N may be able to remain in the soil for a substantial time with minimal
losses, thus limiting the potential benefits of split applications.
Biomass yield
Biomass yield of tef was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the main effect of year
and time of N application. However, the main effect of variety and interaction
effect of variety with the time of N application did not significantly (P>0.05)
affect biomass yield of tef at Ude (Tabel 4). At Minjar, biomass yield of tef was
significantly affected by the main effect of year, variety and time of N, but the
interaction effect of variety with the time of N application was not significantly on
biomass yield of tef (Table 4).
At Ude, the highest biomass yield (7926 kg/ha) of tef was obtained during 2019
cropping season and the lowest biomass yield (7344 kg/ha and 7311 kg/ha) was
obtained during 2017 and 2018 cropping season, respectively. Similarly, at
Minjar, the highest biomass yield (10311 kg/ha) of tef was obtained in 2019
cropping season and the lowest biomass yield (9073 kg/ha and 9011 kg/ha) of tef
was obtained in 2017 and 2018 cropping season, respectively.
Kora variety gave significantly higher biomass yield (10289 kg/ha) of tef than
Boset variety (8642 kg/ha) at Minjar. At Ude, even though non-significant
difference (P>0.05), Kora variety gave a higher biomass yield (7686 kg/ha) than
Boset variety (7368 kg/ha). The result is in agreement with Abebe and
Wondwosen (2017) who reported that Kora variety gave higher biomass than
Boset variety.
Regarding time of N, at Ude, the highest biomass yield (8528 kg/ha) of tef was
obtained when N was applied 50, 25,12.5 and 12.5 % at planting, tillering , flag
leaf and at heading, respectively, but was not statistically (p<0.05) different
biomass yield with split application of N 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and
at flag leaf respectively, split of N 50, 17,16 and 17 % at planting, tillering , flag
[371]
leaf and at heading, respectively and split of N 50, 25 and 25 % at tillering, flag
leaf and at heading stage, respectively. This showed that N availability must be
adequate at each vegetative stage to ensure the maximum biological yield. In
contrast, the lowest biomass yield (5168 kg/ha) of tef was obtained in the control
treatment. At Minjar, the highest biomass yield (10101 kg/ha) of tef was obtained
when N was applied 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and at flag leaf
respectively but was not statistically (p<0.05) different biomass yield with other
split application of N and full application of N at planting or tillering. However, the
lowest biomass yield (8356kg/ha) of tef was obtained in the control treatment. The
highest biomass in four times split application of N was related to the highest plant
height and number of tillers in this treatment. Application of nitrogen fertilizer at
right time increased vegetative growth, which contributes to higher biomass yield.
The result is in agreement with Akhter et al. (2017) who reported that three times
split application of N gave the highest biomass yield of wheat due to better plant
and vegetative growth characters.
Table 4. The effects of time of N application and variety on yield and yield component of tef at Ude and Minjar during
2017-2019 cropping season
Treatment Ude Minjar

GY BY SY (kg/ha) HI GY (kg/ha) BY SY HI
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Year
2017 1728B 7344b 5616ab 0.24b 2002b 9073b 6905b 0.24a
2018 2217A 7311b 5709a 0.28a 2066b 9011b 7009b 0.23a
2019 2129A 7926a 5183b 0.30a 2169a 10311a 8245a 0.16b
LSD (P<0.05) 231.91 554.05 525.72 0.03 166.6 542.98 486.78 0.02
Variety
Kora 2117 7686 5754 0.28 2239a 10289a 8050a 0.22
Boset 1932 7368 5251 0.26 1919b 8642b 6723b 0.22
LSD (P<0.05) ns ns ns ns 153.93 443.34 397.45 ns
Time of N
application (%)
0-0-0-0 1521c 5168e 3647d 0.29 1681b 8356c 6675c 0.19
100-0-0-0 1885bc 6957d 5072c 0.27 2129a 9753ab 7624ab 0.21
50-25-25-0 2249ab 8340ab 6090ab 0.27 2197a 10101a 7905a 0.21
50-25-12.5-12.5 2346a 8528a 6617a 0.28 2237a 9770ab 7534ab 0.22
0-50-25-25 2068ab 8057abc 5882abc 0.26 2067a 9066bc 6999bc 0.22
50-17-16-17 2158ab 8228ab 5998ab 0.26 2179a 9271ab 7092bc 0.22
0-100-0-0 1911b 7317cd 5247bc 0.26 2120a 9884ab 7764ab 0.21
50-50-0-0 2059ab 7623bcd 5465bc 0.27 2023a 9522ab 7498ab 0.20
LSD (P<0.05) 378.7 904.76 858.5 ns 307.86 886.68 794.9 ns
CV (%) 21.59 18.16 23.57 22.28 22.41 14.18 16.29 20.13
*GY= Grain yield, BY= biomass yield, SY= straw yield and HI= harvest index
[372]
Straw yield
The straw yield of tef was significantly (P<0.05) affected by the main effect of
year and time of N application. However, the main effect of variety and
interaction effect of variety with the time of N application did not significantly
(P>0.05) affect the straw yield of tef at Ude (Tabel 4). At Minjar, straw yield of
tef was significantly affected by the main effect of year, variety and time of N, but
the interaction effect of variety with the time of N application was not
significantly on straw yield of tef (Table 4).
The highest straw yield (5709 kg/ha) of tef was obtained during 2018 cropping
season and the lowest straw yield (5183kg/ha) was obtained during 2019 cropping
season at Ude. However, at Minjar, the highest straw yield (8245 kg/ha) of tef
was obtained in 2019 cropping season and the lowest straw yield (6905 kg/ha and
7009kg/ha) of tef was obtained in 2017 and 2018 cropping season, respectively.
Regarding variety, Kora variety gave a significantly higher straw yield (8050
kg/ha) of tef than Boset variety (6723 kg/ha) at Minjar. This result is in agreement
with Gezahegn et al. (2019) who reported a higher straw yield of tef in Kora as
compared to Boset variety.
At Ude, the highest straw yield (6617kg/ha) of tef was obtained when N was
applied 50, 25,12.5 and 12.5 % at planting, tillering , flag leaf and at heading,
respectively, but was not statistically (p<0.05) different biomass yield with split
application of N 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and at flag leaf respectively,
split of N 50, 17,16 and 17 % at planting, tillering , flag leaf and at heading,
respectively and split of N 50, 25 and 25 % at tillering, flag leaf and at heading
stage, respectively. In contrast, the lowest straw yield (3647 kg/ha) of tef was
obtained in the control treatment. At Minjar, the highest straw yield (7905 kg/ha)
of tef was obtained when N was applied 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and
at flag leaf respectively but was not statistically (p<0.05) different straw yield with
other split application of N and full application of N at planting or tillering.
However, the lowest straw yield (6675kg/ha) of tef was obtained in the control
treatment. The highest straw yield under split application was attributed to the
availability of an adequate quantity of nitrogen during critical stages of plant
growth might have resulted in better growth characters and yield components at
various phenological stages and finally on the yield of tef. This result is in
agreement with that of Tolosa and Ayalew, (2016) who reported enhancement of
straw yield in response to applying nitrogen in split doses compared to applying
the whole dose of the nutrient at seeding or tillering stages of tef.
Harvest Index
The main effect of the year had a significant effect (P<0.05 on harvest index of tef.
However, the main time of N and interaction effect of variety with the time of N
application did not significantly (P>0.05) affect the harvest index of tef at both locations
(Tabel 4).
[373]
At Ude, a higher harvest index (0.28 and 0.30) of tef were obtained during 2018 and 2019
cropping seasons, respectively and the lowest harvest index (0.24) was obtained during
2017 cropping season. Similarly, at Minjar, the highest harvest index(0.24 and 0.23) of
tef were obtained in 2017 and 2018 cropping season and the lowest harvest index(.016) of
tef was obtained in 2019 cropping season.
Economic Analysis
The economic desirability of split fertilization ultimately depends on the magnitude of
additional labor and equipment costs about the benefits from more efficient fertilizer use
and the reduction of negative externalities. Partial budget analysis showed that N was
applied 50, 25,12.5 and 12.5 % at planting, tillering , flag leaf and at heading gave higher
net benefit (100,042 birr /ha) followed by 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and at flag
leaf respectively (95767 birr/ha). At Minjar location, the highest net benefit was observed
when N was applied 50, 25 and 25 % at planting, tillering and at flag leaf respectively
(99234 birr/ha), but almost similar net benefit with than of full application (99116
birr/ha). The result is in line with Mathukia et al. (2014) who reported higher net returns
and benefit: cost ratio with the application of nitrogen at 120kg/ha in three splits. Akhter
et al. (2017) also reported application of nitrogen in three splits with reduced basal dose in
the ratio of 25: 50: 25 gave the highest cost-benefit ratio.
[374]
Table 5. Partial budget analysis as affected by different time of N application at Ude and Minjar
Ude Minjar
Time of N application GY (kg/ha) SY (kg/ha) GB (ETB) TCV (ETB) NB (ETB) GY (kg/ha) SY (kg/ha) GB (ETB) TCV (ETB) NB (ETB)
0 1369 3282 64603 0 64603 1513 6008 78539 0 78539
100-0-0-0 1697 4564 81554 1320 80234 1916 6862 97229 1320 95909
0-100-0-0 1720 4722 82963 1320 81643 1977 7115 100436 1320 99116
50-25-25-0 2024 5481 97407 1640 95767 2013 6781 100874 1640 99234
0-50-25-25 1861 5294 90329 1640 88689 1860 6299 93309 1640 91669
50-50-0-0 1853 4919 88880 1640 87240 1961 6383 97592 1640 95952
50-25-12.5-12.5 2111 5955 102322 2280 100042 1908 6988 97283 2280 95003
50-17-16-17 1942 5398 93883 2280 91603 1821 6748 93073 2280 90793
GY= grain yield, SY= straw yield, GB= gross benefit, TCV= total cost vary, NB= net benefit
[375]
Conclusion
N fertilizer either applied once at planting/tillering or split applied improved
growth and yield of tef compared with the control. Split application of N
significantly increased tef yield by 9-24 % from the full application at Ude. At
Minjar, split application didn’t show any significantly increased grain yield of tef
over full application, but increased biomass and straw yield of tef. The partial
budget and marginal analysis also showed the economic advantage of split
application of N fertilizer at both locations. Split application of N 50, 25, 12.5 and
12.5 % at planting, tillering , flag leaf and at heading and 50, 25 and 25 % at
planting, tillering and flag leaf gave the highest net benefit at Ude and Minjar,
respectively. Therefore, four split application of N (50% at planting, 25% at
tillering, 12.5% at flag leaf, and 12.5% at heading) and three times split
application of N (50% at planting, 25% at tillering, and 25% at flag leaf) can be
recommended for higher economic yield of tef at Ude and MInjar area,
respectively.
References
Abebe Bogale and Wondwosen Wondum (2017). Evaluation and selection of some
improved tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) varieties in Three Districts of Bechena
Maji Zone, Ethiopia.Dol:10.3923/ajara 98.102.
Akhter, S., Kotru, R., Lone, B. A., & Jan, R. (2017). Effect of split application of
potassium and nitrogen on wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth and yield under
temperate Kashmir. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 62(1), 49-53.
Anthony, G., Woodard, B., & Hoard, J. (2003). Foliar N application timing influence on
grain yield and protein concentration of hard red winter and spring wheat. Agron. J,
95, 335-338.
Binder, D. L., Sander, D. H., & Walters, D. T. (2000). Maize response to time of nitrogen
application as affected by level of nitrogen deficiency. Agronomy Journal, 92(6),
1228-1236.
Bundy L.G. (1998). Corn Fertilization. Wisconsin-Madison and University of Wisconsin-
Extension, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, Cooperative Extension
Publishing, 432 N. Lake St., Rm. 103, Madison, WI 53706.
Carranca C. (2012). Nitrogen use efficiency by annual and perennial crops. In: Lichtfouse
E, editor. Farming for food and water security. Berlin: Springer. p. 57–82.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) (1988). From
Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual.
Completely revised edition. Mexico, DF. 79p.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2019). Agricultural Sample Survey 2018/2019, report
on area and production of major crops, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Gehl, R. J., Schmidt, J. P., Maddux, L. D., & Gordon, W. B. (2005). Corn yield response
to nitrogen rate and timing in sandy irrigated soils. Agronomy Journal, 97(4), 1230-
1238.
[376]
Gezahegn, A.M., Desta, B. T., Takele, A., & Eshetu, S. (2019). Productivity of tef
[Eragrostis tef] under conservation tillage practices in central Ethiopia. Cogent
Food and Agriculture, 5(1), 1707038
Gorfu, A., Kuhne, R. F., Tanner, D. G., and Vlek, P. L. G., (2003). Recovery of 15N-
Labelled Urea applied to wheat (Tritivum aestivium L.) in the Ethiopian highlands
as affected by P fertilization. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 189: 30-38.
Habtegebrial, K. and Singh, B.R., (2006). Effects of timing of nitrogen and sulphur
fertilizers on yield, nitrogen, and sulphur contents of Tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)
Trotter). Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 75(1-3), 213-222.
López-Bellido JRR and López-Bellido L (2001). Efficiency of nitrogen in wheat under
Mediterranean conditions: effect of tillage, crop rotation and N fertilization. Field
Crop Res.;71(1):31–46.
Mengel, K. and Kirkby, E.A. (2001). Principles of Plant Nutrition, Panimo Publishing
Corporation, New Delhi, India.
Provost C and Jobson E. (2014). Move over quinoa, Ethiopia's teff poised to be next big
super grain. The Guardian, January 23, 2014.
Spaenij-Dekking, L., Kooy-Winkelaar, Y., & Koning, F. (2005). The Ethiopian cereal tef
in celiac disease. New England Journal of Medicine, 353(16), 1748-1749.
Tareke Berhe (1981). Inheritance of lemma color, seed color and panicle form among four
cultivars of Eragrostis tef (zucc) Trotter. PhD thesis, University of Nebraska,
Linclon.
Tesfaye, Y., Teshome, G., & Asefa, K. (2019). Effects of Nitrogen and Phosphorus
Fertilizers Rate on Yield and Yield Components of Tef at Adola District, Guji
Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Research, 4, 57.
Tiessen, K. H., Flaten, D. N., Bullock, P. R., Burton, D. L., Grant, C. A., & Karamanos,
R. E. (2006). Transformation of fall‐ banded urea: Application date, landscape
position, and fertilizer additive effects. Agronomy journal, 98(6), 1460-1470.
Tiessen, K. H. D., Flaten, D. N., Grant, C. A., Karamanos, R. E., & Entz, M. H. (2005).
Efficiency of fall-banded urea for spring wheat production in Manitoba: Influence
of application date, landscape position and fertilizer additives. Canadian Journal of
Soil Science, 85(5), 649-666.
Tolosa, S., & Ayalew, T. (2016). Response of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] to time
of nitrogen application and variable seed rates at Dilla district, southern Ethiopia.
International Journal of Current Research, 8(03), 28047-28052.
Tulema, B., Zapata, F., Aune, J., & Sitaula, B. (2005). N fertilisation, soil type and
cultivars effects on N use efficiency in tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotte]. Nutrient
cycling in agroecosystems, 71(2), 203-211.
[377]
Soil Tillage Interval and Varieties Effect on Lentil
(Lensculinaris mediuks) Productivity and Weed
Suppression in Ethiopia
Bizuwork Tafes Desta1*, Sisay Eshetu1,

Almaz Meseret 1, and Gebrekidan Feleke 1
1
Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research at Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; E-mail: b.tafes@gmail.com
Abstract
The investigation was undertaken to find out the effect of tillage intervals to reduce
weed infestation and increase the seed yield of lentil. The field experiments were
conducted at Ude and Dekebora on a farmer’s field from 2018–2019. The
experimental design was a split-plot with three replications. Main plot treatments
were assigned the four tillage interval viz., T0, T10, T15, and T20 after the first
plowing and subplot treatments were three lentil cultivars. Results showed that
tillage interval had a significant effect on most measured traits both at Ude and
Dekebora. Lentil cultivars were also a significant effect on phenology at Ude and
only days to maturity at Dekebora. The number of seeds per pod and seed yield was
affected by tillage and cultivars interaction at Dekebora. At Ude, seed yield was
affected by the year × cultivars × tillage system. At Dekebora, seed yield was on
average 50.7% more with soil tillage with a T15 combined with Alemaya cultivar
compared to T0 with R-186 cultivar. At Ude, lentil seed yield was also 49.6% more
soil tillage with T15 combined Alemaya cultivar in 2018 as compared to 2019
cropping season to that of T0 with R-186 cultivar. It was concluded that
subsequenttillage operation carried at the right time beneficial effects on lentil
productivity and reduced weed infestation.
Introduction
Soil tillage is among the important factors affecting soil properties and crop yield.
Among the crop production factors, tillage contributes up to 20% (Hernanz et al.,
2002) and affects the sustainable use of soil resources through its effect on soil
properties (Sharma et al., 2005). The primary aims of soil tillage, to support seed
germination, seedling establishment, and plant growth (Lal, 2004). Further, soil
tillage has been used to improve soil conditions, such as soil-water and soil-
temperature regimes, soil aeration, seed-soil contact, nutrient availability,
porosity, pore size distribution, and pest activity (Promil et al., 2018).
Lentil is a cool-season food legume crop mainly grown in the highlands of

Ethiopia where rainfall is usually high. This crop is very useful in a crop rotation
system that is dominated by cereals (Jarso et al., 2009). Annual agricultural
sample survey by the central statistic authority (CSA) indicated that the country
lentil production shows an increasing pattern from 1992/1999 till 2015/2016.
[379]
However, its production was a decline in 2016-2018 cropping seasons (CSA
(Central Statistics Authority), 2018). This happened due to biotic and abiotic
factors. At the farm level, the most important bottlenecks in lentil production, poor
land preparation, and weed infestation are the major ones (Abraham, 2015).
Farmers in Ethiopian, particularly at Ada’a, plow their fields three to four times
using traditional Maresha and the first plowing done from May to early June
(Korbu, 2009). The second and third plowing operations are implementing more
than a month intervals from the first plowing (Bijiga et al., 1996; Korbu, 2009)
due to this wheat and/or tef straw residue from the previous crops should not be
finely incorporated and decomposed. As a result, lentil seedlings emerging
through poorly decomposed of crop residue and inferable soil, the crop will have
exposed to poor seedling emergence, soil bore diseases, post emergence weed, and
pest. Improper decomposition of crop residue, which can provide organic matter,
is probably the most common reason for the failure of good crop growth (Promil
et al., 2018). Elsewhere, several investigators also reported that poorly
decomposed crop residue was placed on the soil surface a lack of seed-to-soil
contact caused a reduction in the emergence of crop seedlings by approximately
30% because of the restriction in available moisture that limited the ability for
seed imbibition (Morris et al., 2009). Moreover, crop residues are often associated
not only with implement blockages but with lower yields resulting from poor crop
emergence and establishment (Kaspar & Erbach, 1998). Therefore, it was
considered that the method of straw incorporation should be of greater concern.
Plant residue supports the growth and infection of potential plant pathogenically
infection (Alexandra et al., 2004). It is known that better incorporation wheat or
tef straw to ensure lentilseedling emergence and reduced weed infestation. Several
studies on the effects of well straw incorporation on soil quality have addressed
the productivity and yields of various crops (Mulumba & Lal, 2008; Sonnleitner et
al., 2003; Wilhelm et al., 2007). Moreover, decomposing straw and stubbles of
wheat are supposed to release phytotoxins in the rhizosphere that might suppress
the germination of some weed species (Khaliq et al., 2011).
Subsequent tillage carried out at the right time to speed up the decomposition of
crop residue, improve soil quality, reduces the bulk density of soils for increased
infiltration from the following rains with less and reduces evaporation thereby
improving soil moisture (Verhulst et al., 2010). The overall agronomic benefit of
subsequent soil tillage with the right time is crop residue decomposed
management and production sustainability (Melesse et al., 2007). However, less
effort has been made to know the right time of subsequently tillage operation to
well crop residue incorporation and managing weed infestation for maximizing
lentil yield. Hence, the present investigation was undertaken to find out the effect
of tillage intervals on the weed infestation and the productivity of lentil.
[380]
Description of the Experimental Sites
The field experiments were conducted at Ude and Dekebora on farmer’s field
under a rain-fed condition in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons. Ude is located at
9°5´52.8˝ N and 36°58´37.2˝ E with1970-meter elevation. The soil order was clay
soil with wet aggregate. Soil texture, mean soil bulk density, and SOC for the 0-
0.3 meter soil layer were clay loam (48% clay), 1.12 g cm-3, and 14 g kg-1,
respectively. Rainfall was well distributed over the crop growing season (June–
October) in 2018 with 521.55 mm and in 2019 with 805.34 mm (Figure 1).
Dekebora is located at 8°24´57.6˝ N and 39°19´15.6˝ E with 1950-meter elevation.
Soil texture, mean soil bulk density, and SOC for the 0-0.3 m soil layer were also
clay loam (52.1 g kg-1 clay), 1.21 g cm-3, and 10 g kg-1, respectively. Seasonal
rainfall of lentil growing months (June–October) at Dekebora was 460.93 mm in
2018, and 656.9 mm in 2019 of relatively long duration (Figure 2).
400 Year 2018

Year 2019
Total Rain fall
(mm)
200
0
June July Augustmonths
Lentil cropping September October
Figure 1. Rainfall distribution of lentil growing months from 2018 to 2019 at Ude
Year 2018
Year 2019
300
200
Rainfall (mm)
100
0
June July August September October
Lentil cropping months

Figure 2. Rainfall distribution of lentil growing months from 2018 to 2019 at Dekebora
[381]
Field Experiments
The experimental design was a split-plot with three replications. Main plot
treatments were assigned the four tillage interval, viz., one plow + round-up spray
(To), soil tillage with a 10-day interval (T10), soil tillage with a 15-day interval
(T15), and soil tillage with a 20-day interval (T20) after the first plowing and
subplot treatments were three lentil cultivars (Alemaya, Denbi, and R-186). The
main plots were 15 m × 10 m; each main plot was spaced 1 m out from the next.
Along the 15 m side, each main plot was split into three subplot 3 m width with in
the main plot each subplot was spaced 0.5 m width out from the next. Each plot
consisted of 15 rows and spaced 20 cm apart. The net central unit areas of each
plot consisting of eight central rows of 2.80 m long were harvested and used for
yield determination. The two outermost rows were kept as border plants. The T0
plots were kept intact fallow until they were sprayed with the non-selective
herbicide glyphosate (N-(phosphono-methyl) glycine) at 1 L ha-1 20 days before
sowing for the control of weed in untilled plots. The remaining tillage treatment
plots (T10, T15, and T20 day interval after the first plowing) were tilled according
to the local practice of tilling soil using the oxen-drawn “Maresha” plow. Tillage
with a Maresha is slowmoving, at about 0.15 m depth and involves pushing soil to
left and right with partial inversion. The soil tillage implementations of the
experimental plots are presented in T1 and T2.
Table 1. Soil tillage implementation at Dekebora in 2018 and 2019 cropping season
2018 Cropping Year 1st plowing 2nd round 3rd round 4th round Planting date
plowing plowing plowing
10-days Interval June 11 June 21 July 01 July 11 July 21
15-days Interval June 11 June 26 July 11 - July 21
20-days Interval June 11 July 01 - - July 21
One plow + round-up spray - - - - July 21
2019 Cropping Year
15-days Interval June 13 June 28 July 13 - July 23
One plow with round-up spray - - - - July 23
Table 2. Soil tillage implementation at Ude in 2018 and 2019 cropping season
2018 Cropping Year 1st plowing 2nd round 3rd round 4th round Planting date
plowing plowing plowing
15-days Interval June 18 July 03 July 18 - July 28
one plow with round-up spray - - - - July 28
2019 Cropping Year
15-days Interval June 20 July 05 July 20 - July 30
One plow + round-up spray - - - - July 30
[382]
Field Management
Lentil cultivars were planted in 20 cm row spacing maintaining 80 kg ha-1 seed.
For the one plow with round-up spray, the land was prepared in a single operation
using a hand hoe plow and the seeds were planted in the freshly tilled field and
covered by the soil. All the plots received NPS fertilizer at a rate of 121 kg NPS
(19 N, 38 P2O5, 7S) per hectare. All NPS fertilizer was applied at planting.
Data Collected
Observations on days to 50% flowering and days to 90% maturity were recorded
on the plot basis of each site. Plant height, number of pods/plant (NPPP), and
number of seeds/pod (NSPP) were randomly taken from 10 plants from the middle
rows. At maturity, the whole aboveground plant parts, including leaves, stems, and
seeds from the net plot area (8 rows) in each plot was harvested and sun-dried in 5
days until constant weight gained. Seed yield (SY) from the net plot area of each
plot was recorded by measuring the SY and adjusted at 10% seed moisture
content. Harvest index (HI) was determined as the ratio of adjusted SY and AGBY
(seed + haulm) multiplied by 100. Weed count and identification, for estimating
weed abundance and dominance at 30 days after sowing (DAS) was recorded with
the help of a quadrate (0.5m x 0.5m) placed randomly at four spots in each plot.
After the weed was counted, it was removed manually from all plots to avoid
competition with the crop plants.
Data Analysis
Data were tested for normality using a normal probability plot followed analyzed
using SAS software (version, 2017) over years after confirmation of homogeneity
of error variance while separate analyses were conducted for each location
because of heterogeneity of error variance. The means were compared by the least
significant difference (LSD) method at 0.05 probability level. The data on weed
species were summarized using the formula described by (Taye and Yohannes,
1998) as depicted below.
Abundance; Population density of weed species expressed as the number of individuals of

weed plants per unit area.
A =∑
Where, A = abundance; W = number of individual species/ sample; N = sample number.
Dominance; Abundance of an individual weed species with total weed abundance
D = A*100/ ∑
Where, D = dominance; A = abundance; ∑ = total abundance (of all species)
[383]
Lentil phenology and growth
The effect of year, cultivars, and tillage on growth parameters of lentil at Ude and
Dekebora is illustrated in Table 3. At Ude, the effect of year was significant on the
plant height but not days to flowering and days to maturity. The effect of the year
did not have significance for all measured growth parameters at Dekebora (Table
3).
At Ude, the effect of cultivars on the days to flowering and days to maturity,
tillage intervals on the days to maturity, and plant height had a significant (p <
0.05) effect. But the effect cultivars on the plant height and tillage intervals on the
days to flowering did not have a significant (Table At Dekebora, both cultivars
and tillage had a significant (p < 0.05) effect on the days to flowering, but only
tillage treatment had a significant effect on the plant height of lentil (Table 3). The
effect of cultivars on the plant height and tillage interval on the days to maturity
did not have a significant impact (Table 3). The interaction effects of cultivars ×
tillage and year × cultivars × tillage were not significant for all measured growth
parameters of lentil at both locations (Table 3).
The plant height of lentil during 2018 was taller than in 2019 at the Ude location.
This might be due to rainfall during the lentil growing period was better
distributed in 2018 but irregularly distributed in 2019 (Figure 1). At Dekebora,
plant height length did not affect by year (Table 3). The possible reason might be
due to the rainfall amount and its distribution was more or less similar in both
(2018 and 2019) cropping seasons (Figure 2), as a result plant height was not
affected by the year.
Cultivar R-186 took longer days to flowering and maturity period as compared to
Alemaya and Dendi cultivars at Ude. At Dekebora, cultivar R-186 also took
longer days to flowering compaired with Dendi cultivar but statistical at par with
cultivar Alemaya. Cultivar Alemaya at Ude and Dendi at Dekebora took the
shortest days to flower (Table 3). The difference between these phenology
parameters between tested cultivars was due to the variation in their genetic
difference, temperature, soil conduction, and the length of the growing period of
the experimental sites. In general, the differences in the vegetative phases of each
cultivar are genetic factors. In agreement with the current result, Alemayheu et al.
(2014) reported that high variability was observed among genotypes tested for
days to flowering, maturity, and grain filling period of lentil.
At Ude, days to maturity and at Dekebora, days to flowering varied with the
tillage interval (Table 3). The days to maturity and days to flowering at Ude and
Dekebora, respectively, were lower in the T0 than soil tillage with a T15 but
[384]
statistically at par with that of T10 and T20 (Table 3). Generally, the number of
days to maturity and days to flowering was delayed by about 4.8% and 4.4%,
respectively; in T15 as compared to that of T0. This may be due to T15 better for
the decomposition of crop residue and reduced weed infestation were plots tilled
in this tillage interval. Well-incorporated wheat straw can provide an important
source of P to the crop (Noack et al., 2012) and reduced weed infestation as result
crops have better uptake nutrients with the minimum competition, which increases
vegetative growth of crops whereby it delays flowering and maturity time.
Table 3. Means of days to flowering, days to maturity, plant height of lentil as affected by the main effect of year, variety,
and soil tillage interval at Ude and Dekebora in 2018 and 2019 cropping years
Ude Dekebora
Treatment DF DM PH (cm) DF DM PH (cm)
Year
2018 59.3 102.6 43.3a 58.1 98.6 53.3
2019 58.4 102.4 35.3b 58.2 97.2 53.2
LSD (0.05) ns ns 2.61 ns ns ns
Variety
Alemaya 56.2b 98.7b 37.9 58.7a 98.4 51.4
Denbi 58.5b 99.3b 40.7 56.8b 99.2 54.1
R-186 63.2a 109.3a 39.2 59.0a 98.2 54.3
LSD (0.05) 2.75 3.28 ns 1.2 ns
Tillage Interval
One plow + Round-up 57.3 99.4b 37.3b 56.8b 98.7 50.3b
Soil tillage 10-days interval 60.9 101.7ab 39.4ab 57.3ab 99.7 53.3ab
Soil tillage 15-days interval 59.1 104.4a 38.3b 59.3a 98.0 53.3ab
Soil tillage 20-days interval 60.0 104.2a 42.2a 59.1a 98.1 56.2a
LSD (0.05) ns 3.79 3.21 2.2 ns 5.6
CV (%) 8.0 5.5 14.0 5.6 5.1 15.6
Variety x tillage ns ns ns ns ns ns
DF, Days to flowering; DM= Days to maturity; PH= Plant height; Means with the same letter in columns are not
significantly different at 5% level of significance; LSD= least significant differences at 5%; CV (%) = Coefficient of variation
At both Ude and Dekebora locations, plant height was lower in T0 compared with
the other tillage treatments (Table 3). In T20, increase plant height by 11.2% and
10.5% at Ude and Dekebora, respectively, as compared to T0, probably due to
improved soil conditions. Similarly, subsequent tillage operation with longer day
interval increased plant height compared to plowing one time which had the
lowest plant height (Alemayehu et al., 2008; Tenaw, 2010). Tilled soil allows
seedlings to emerge from deeper in the soil compared from untilled soil or one
plow (Franke et al., 2007), and seedling has deeper roots is better nutrient uptake
cumulatively increases plant height.
Lentil yield components

The NPPP, AGBY, and HI of lentil as affected by cultivars and tillage treatments
in the 2018 and 2019 main cropping seasons are presented in Table 4. The NPPP
and HI were affected by year at Ude, but with no effects at Dekebora (Table 4). At
Dekebora, the effect of cultivars was a significant effect on the HI. The main
[385]
effect of tillage treatments was observed a significant (p < 0.05) effect on the
NPPP, AGBY, and HI of lentil at both locations (Table 4). However, the effect of
year on the AGBY at both locations and the effects of cultivars on the NPPP,
AGBY, and HI at Ude and NPPP and AGBY at Dekebora did not have a
significant effect (Table 4). Interaction effects of cultivars × tillage, as well as year
x cultivars x tillage treatment, also were not significant on the NPPP, AGBY, and
HI at both locations (Table 4). Results demonstrated a significant effect of year on
NPPP and HI at Ude. The highest NPPP and HI were achieved in 2018 compared
to 2019 (Table 4). The probably due to rainfall during the crop-growing period
was better distributed in 2018 than 2019 (Figure 1). Both at Ude and Dekebora
locations, NPPP and AGBY were affected by tillage treatment in the two growing
seasons, the highest NPPP and AGBY were achieved in the T15 but at par, with
the other tillage intervals while the lowest in the T0 (Table 4). Soil tillage T15
increases NPPP by about 24.7% at Ude, and 57.4% at Dekobora and AGBY by
about 28.0% at Ude and 45.9% at Dekebora as compared to T0. This might be due
to tilled soil appeared to be comparatively better reduced weed infestation and the
beneficial effect of residue incorporation may be visible on NPPP and AGBY of
lentil.
Result from the past studies points out that tillage and residue management
practices resulted in significant variation in yield attributes of soybean (Monsefi et
al., 2014). The lowest NPPP and AGBY were under T0, presumably due to soil
compaction and increased infestation of weeds (Figures 6 and 7). Moreover, low
soil disturbance system is likely to leave to a large proportion of the weed seed
bank on or near the soil surface after the crop sowing resulting in higher seedling
emergence than higher soil disturbance (Feldman et al., 1997) as a result weed
highly computes the crop.
Contrastingly, T0 significantly increased the HI of lentil as compared to the other

soil tillage interval treatments both at Ude and Dekebora (Table 4). Treatment
causing maximum biomass yield did not have higher HI. In fact, in most legumes
crops like lentil, the higher foliage growth and biomass production do not
necessarily lead to higher SY because of mutual shading effects and poor
translocation of accumulated carbohydrates (Monsefi et al., 2014), as a higher
biomass yield resulted in lower HI because HI is the ratio of yield to the biomass
yield.
[386]
Table 4. Means of number of pods per plant, aboveground biomass yield and harvest index of lentil as affected by the
main effect of variety and soil tillage interval at Ude and Dekebora in 2018 and 2019 cropping years
Ude Dekebora
Treatment NPPP AGBY HI NPPP AGBY HI
(kg/ha) (%) (Kg/ha) (%)
Year
2018 142.3a 2822.1 0.42a 74.9 3347.9 0.29
2019 102.9b 3003.7 0.34b 74.7 3347.9 0.29
LSD 20.53 ns 0.04 ns ns ns
Variety
Alemaya 121.1 2721.5 0.41 73.0 3495.8 0.31a
Denbi 117.8 2985.0 0.35 75.9 3195.8 0.29a
R-186 128.9 3032.2 0.40 75.5 3352.0 0.25b
LSD (0.05) ns ns ns ns ns 0.03
Tillage
One plow + round-up 101.3b 2297.5b 0.43a 43.7d 2311.1c 0.31a
Soil tillage 10-days interval 130.1ab 3130.6a 0.35b 65.2c 3000.0b 0.30a
Soil tillage 15-days interval 134.5a 3193.5a 0.36b 102.5a 4269.3a 0.27b
Soil tillage 20-days interval 124.6ab 3029.9a 0.37b 87.9b 3811.1a 0.26b
LSD (0.05) 29.04 420.37 0.06 14.4 465.1 0.03
CV (%) 22.3 24.8 21.0 18.1 20.7 16.2
Variety x tillage ns ns ns ns ns ns
NPPP= Number of pods per plant; AGBY= Aboveground biomass yield; HI= Harvest index; Means with the same letter in
columns are not significantly different at 5% level of significance; LSD= least significant differences at 5%; CV (%) =
Coefficient of variation
Number of Seed per Pod and Seed Yield of Lentil

The NSPP was affected by cultivars and tillage interaction at both Ude and
Dekebora (Figure 3(a, b)), respectively. The T15 combined with Almemaya
cultivar gave the highest mean NSPP of lentil as compared to the T0 combined
with local cultivar at both locations (Figure 3(a,b)) respectively. This seed number
advantage was achieved, due to the genetic makeup of the cultivar (Alemayheu et
al., 2014), and the positive effect of subsequent tillage (Monsefi et al., 2014) that
had increased pod length, and fertile seed per pod that cumulatively increased
NSPP.
The SY of lentil was significantly (p < 0.05) affected by the interaction of

cultivars x tillage, and year x cultivars x tillage at Dekebora and Ude, respectively
(Figures 4 and 5). However, the interaction effect of the year x cultivars x tillage
did not have a significant effect on the SY of lentil at Dekebora.
[387]
(A) Ude
2.5 Alemaya
Denbi
2 R-186 a
Number of seed per pod
ab
ab
bc ab
1.5 bc bc
bc bc bc
c c
1
0.5
0
One plow + Soil tillage 10 Soil tillage 15 Soil tillage 20
roundup spray days interval days interval days interval
Treatment
2.5 Alemaya (B) Dekebora

Number of seed per pod
Denbi
2 a
ab ab ab
1.5 bc bc bc
bc bc bc
c cd
1
0.5
0
roundup spray days interval days interval
Treatment days interval
Figure 3. Number of seeds per pod as affected by soil tillage × variety interaction for lentil at Ude (A) and Dekebora (B) in
the central highland of Ethiopia; Different letters within the figure components indicate significant differences at
LSD 0.05. a-c = abc, c-e, cde.
At Dekebora, SY was on average 50.7% more with T15 combined with Alemaya
cultivar as compared to that of T0 with R-186 cultivar (Figure 4). This is probably
the subsequent tillage operations carry out T15 after the first tillage is convenient
because of better incorporation of straw into the soil after the previous year
harvest that improved stand establishment of the crop and soil nutrient availability
in one hand, and on the other hand, the genetic makeup of the cultivar
cumulatively increased seed yield. The previous research result also showed that
indigenous soil P is made more available to plants as a result of decomposition of
crop residues such as wheat straw (Noack et al., 2012). Simillarly, Karami et al.
[388]
(2012) reported that straw incorporation had positive effects on soil productivity
and crop yields, and Wang et al. (2014) concluded that the incorporation of straw
significantly increased the yield of crops. In agreement with this finding (Melesse
et al., 2007) reported the subsequent tillage carried out at the right time reduces
the bulk density of soils for increased infiltration from the following rains with
less compaction and reduces evaporation thereby improving soil moisture.
In contrast, the lowest yield was obtained in T0 or low soil disturbance combined
with local cultivar. The possible reason might be because of high weed infestation
(Figure 6) was observed in these treatments as this weed computes the crop in one
hand and on the other hand, poor genetic make-up of the local cultivars, as a result
of reduced SY. Similarly to that of Feldman et al. (1997), low-soil-disturbance
tillage is likely to leave a large portion of the weed seed bank on or near the soil
surface after crop sowing resulting in higher seedling emergence than high-soil-
disturbance tillage. As a result lentils compete poorly with weeds for light, water,
and nutrients without adequately controlled, weed infestations can reduce yields
by as much as 75% (Getahun, 2016). At Ude, lentil SY was more T15 combined
Alemaya cultivar in 2018 as compared to 2019 cropping season (Figure 5).
Improved soil friability and the genetic potentials of the cultivar in 2018 cropping
season could be contributed to the higher SY. It is noteworthy that the tillage
effects on yield occurred in 2018 but not in 2019, demonstrating that variation in
the total rainfall during the cropping season and offset of the rain season. The poor
performance of lentils in 2019 could be to the unfavorable rainfall distribution,
which started too late in June, followed by heavy storm events in August, and
stopped longer (Figure 1) than the 2018 year. Consequently, although the
treatment effect was not fully manifested due to the adverse weather conditions, it
was significant on the seed yield of lentil.
[389]
Alemaya
Denbi
1400
R-186
a
1200 ab ab ab
b b
Seed yield (kg/ha)
1000 c cd
cd cd d
800
e
600
400
200
0
roundup days interval days interval days interval
Treatment
Figure 4. The interaction effect of variety by tillage on the SY of lentil at Dekebora in the central highland of Ethiopia;
Different letters within figure components indicate significant differences at LSD 0.05.
1800
Alemaya
1600 a Dendi
1400 aba-c
a-d
1200 a-da-c a-ca-d
b-f a-e b-f
b-h
1000 c-h
e-h d-h f-h f-h f-h
800 f-h
Seedyield (kg/ha)
h F-h gh gh
h
600
400
200
0
One Soil Soil Soil One Soil Soil Soil
plow + tillage tillage 15tillage 20 plow + tillage tillage 15 tillage 20
roundup 10days days days roundup 10d ays days day
2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2019 2019 2019
Figure 5. The interaction effects of year by variety by tillage on the SY of lentil at Ude in the central highland of Ethiopia.
Different letters within figure components indicate significant differences at LSD 0.05.
Weed Abundance and Dominance

The experimental plots were mainly colonized by broadleaf and grass weeds, grass
weed being dominant (Figure 6 and 7). These included Phalaris paradoxa L.,
Digitaria abyssinica, Amaranthus hybridus L., Setaria verticillata, Xanthium
[390]
spinosum L., Argemone mexicana L, Cynodon dactylon (L.), Cyperus esculantus
L., and Erucastrum arabicum Fisch.
At Dekebora, the abundance and dominance values of the species varied from 0.23
to 3.34 and 0.37 to 4.75 plants/m2, respectively. The highest abundance
(3.34plants/m2) and dominance (4.75) value were recorded by Phalaris paradoxa
in one plow + round-up followed by soil tillage 10-days interval as compared to
soil tillage 20-days interval (Figure 6A and 6B). In the one plow with round-up
treatment, this increase accounted for weed abundance 50% and dominance 44%
compared to soil tillage with a 20-days interval. Similarly, the reduced tillage
system is believed to increase weed infestation of crops (Wozniaka and Sorokab,
2014).
At Ude, the highest abundance (9.0) and dominance (9.21) values were recorded
by Setaria verticillata also in one plow + round-up (Figure 7C and 7D). This
suggests that subsequent tillage operation with the right time decreased the weed
population during crop growing season through enhancing weed emergence at the
time of pre-sowing and thereby reducing the weed seed bank in the soil. Weed
population due to tillage was reduced by 20 to 26% in comparison with no-till
(Tenaw, 2010). Also other studies (Gruber et al., 2012; Santín-Montanyá et al.,
2013; Woźniak et al., 2015) reported that greater weed infestation of crops in the
no-tillage than in the repeated tillage system. In contrast, Assefa et al. (2000)
reported reduced weed density under minimum tillage (one-time plow). In general,
subsequent tillage implemented with the right time interval, significantly reduced
weed infestation.
4 Minimum Tillage + raundup

(A) Soil tillage after 10 days
3.5
Soil tillage after 15 days
3 Soil tillage after 20 days
2.5
2
Weed abundence
1.5
1
0.5
0
Amaranthus Digitariya. Phalaris. Setaria pumila Xanthium
hybridus Abyss. Paradoxa Spinosum
[391]
Minimum Tillage + raundup
(B) Soil tillage after 10 days
5
4.5
4
Weed dominace
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Amaranthus Digitariya. Phalaris. Setaria pumila Xanthium
hybridus Abyss. Paradoxa Spinosum
Figure 6. Weed abundance (A) and dominance (B) at Dekebora
Minimum Tillage + raundup

(C) Soil tillage after 10 days
9
8
7
Weed Abundence
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
[392]
10 Minimum Tillage + raundup
9 (D) Soil tillage after 10 days
7
Weed Dominace
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Figure 7. Weed abundance (C) and dominance (D) at Ude

Soil tillage is an important agronomic practice for the incorporation of crop
residue to ensure soil quality, seedling emergence and reduced weed infestation.
From the current investigation, a consistent trend was found between the soil
tillage with 15-days intervals and improved variety for increased lentil yield and
advocate weed infestation. It is concluded that subsequent tillage operation cared
out at the right time provided better to reduced weed infestation, speed up crop
residue decomposition and improved seed yield of lentil compared to less soil
disturbed. Results from this investigation suggest that subsequent tillage operation
carried out at the right time interval was reduced weed infestation and improved
lentil seed yield.
References
Abraham R (2015) Lentil (Lens Culinaris Medikus) Current Status and Future Prospect of
Production in Ethiopia. Advanced Plants Agricultural Research 2(2): 00040. DOI:
10.15406/apar.02.00040.
Alemayheu Dugassa, Hirpa Legesse and Negash Geleta. 2014. Genetic Variability, Yield
and Yield Associations of Lentil (Lens culinaris Medic.) Genotypes Grown at Gitilo
Najo, Western Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal. 3(4): 10-
18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org /10.4314/star.v3i4.2.
Assefa Alemayehu, Minale Liben, Tilahun Tadesse and Belsti Yeshalem. 2008. The
Effect of Tillage Frequency and Weed Control on Yield of Tef (Eragrostis tef) in
[393]
Yielmana-Densa Area, Northwestern Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences; 2
(1) 35-40.
Bijiga G, Eshetu M, Anbessa Y (1996b) Improved cultivars and production technology of
lentil in Ethiopia. Research Bulletin No. 3. Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center,
Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistics Authority) (2017) Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on Area
and Production of Crops, Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season. Statistical
Bulletins, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Feldman, S.R., Alzugaray, C., Torres, P.S., Lewis, P., 1997. The Effect Of Different
Tillage Systems On The Composition Of The Seed Bank. Weed Research 37, 71–76.
Franke A., Singh S., McRoberts, N., Nehara A., Godera S., Malik R., Marshall G. 2007.
Phalaris minor seed bank studies, longevity, seedling emergence and seed
production as affected by tillage regime.
Getahun Mitiku. 2016. Review on Agronomic Practices for Improving Production and
Productivity of Lentil in Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare; 6
(13): ISSN 2224-3208 (Paper) ISSN 2225-093X www.iiste.org.
Gruber, S., Pekrun, C., Möhring, J., Claupein, W., 2012. Long-term yield and weed
response to conservation and stubble tillage in SW Germany. Soil Till. Res. 121, 49-
56.
Hernanz J.L., López R., Navarrete L., Sánchezgirón V., 2002. Long-Term Effects of
Tillage Systems And Rotations On Soil Structural Stability And Organic Carbon
Stratification In Semiarid Central Spain. Soil Till Res 66, 129-141.
Hernanz, J.L., Lopez, R., Navarrete, L., And Sanchez-Giron, V. 2002. Long-Term Effects
Of Tillage Systems And Rotations On Soil Structural Stability And Organic Carbon
Stratification In Semiarid Central Spain. Soil Till. Res. 66:129-141.
Karami A., Homaee M., Afzalinia S., Ruhipour H., and Basirat S., 2012. Organic resource
management: Impacts on soil aggregate stability and other soil physico-chemical
properties. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 148, 22-28.
Jarso M, Korbu L, Gebeyehu S, Alemayehu F. 2009. Improved Crop Production Practices
for Major Pulses of Ethiopia; a training manual prepared for training of trainers
Organized by Rural Capacity Building Project (RCBP).Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kaspar, T.C., Erbach, D.C., 1998. Improving stand establishment in no-till with residue-
clearing planter attachments. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural
Engineers 41, 301–306.
Khaliq, A., Matloob, A., Aslam, F. and Bismill Ahkhan, M. 2011. Influence of wheat
straw and rhizosphere on seed Germination, early seedling growth and bio-chemical
Attributes of trainthema portulacastrum . Planta Daninha, Viçosa-MG, v. 29, n. 3, p.
523-533.
Korbu L (2009) Improving Production and Productivity of Chickpea and Lentil in
Ethiopia Production Manual. Melkasa, Ethiopia.
Lal, R., 2004a. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food
security. Science 304, 1623–1627.
Melesse Temesgen a, J. Rockstrom, H.H.G. Savenije, W.B. Hoogmoed, Dawit Alemu.
2007 Determinants of tillage frequency among smallholder farmers in two semi-arid
areas in Ethiopia. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth; 33: 183–191.
[394]
Monsefi A. A.R. Sharma, N. Rang Zan, U.K. Behera, T.K. Das. 2014. Effect of tillage
and residue management on productivity of soybean and physico-chemical
properties of soil in soybean–wheat cropping system. International Journal of Plant
Production 8 (3), ISSN: 1735-6814 (Print), 1735-8043 (Online) www.ijpp.info.
Morrisa N.L., P.C.H. Miller, J.H. Orsona, R.J. Froud-Williams (2009).The effect of wheat
straw residue on the emergence and early growth of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) and
oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Europian Journal of Agronomy; 30: 151–162.
Mulumba L. And Lal R., 2008. Mulching Effects On Selected Soil Physical Properties.
Soil Till. Res., 98(1), 106-111.
Noack Sarah R. and Mike J. McLaughlin & Ronald J. Smernik & Therese M. McBeath &
Roger D. 2012. Armstrong Crop residue phosphorus: speciation and potential bio-
availability. Plant Soil; 359:375–385. DOI 10.1007/s11104-012-1216-5.
Promil Mehra, John Baker, Robert E. Sojka, Nanthi Bolan, Jack Desbiolles, Mary B. Kirkham,
Craig Ross, Risha Gupta. 2018. A Review of Tillage Practices and Their Potential to
Impact the Soil Carbon Dynamics. Advances in Agronomy.ISSN 0065-2113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.03.002.
Santín-Montanyá, M.I., Martín-Lammerding, D., Walter, I., Zambrana, E., Tenorio, J.L.,
2013. Effects of tillage, crop systems and fertilization on weed abundance and
diversity in 4-year dry land winter wheat. Eur. J. Agron. 48, 43-49.
Sharma K, Mandal Uk, Srinivas K, Vittal K, Mandal B, Grace Jk, Ramesh V 2005: Long-
Term Soil Management Effects On Crop Yields And Soil Quality In A Dryland
Alfisol. Soil Tillage Res. 83, 246–259. Doi:10.1016/J.Still.2004.08.002.
Sonnleitner R, Lorbeer E, Schinner F (2003) Effects Of Straw, Vegetable Oil And Whey
On Physical And Microbiological Properties Of A Chernozem. App Soil Ecol 22:
195–204.
Taye T, Yohannes T (1998) Qualitative and quantitative determination of weeds in tef in
west Shewa zone. In: Reda F, Tanner DG (Eds.), Arem. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 4:
46 -60.
Tenaw Workayehu . 2010. Effect of Plowing Frequency and Weeding Methods on Weeds
and Grain Yield of Wheat at Arsi Negelle, Ethiopia. East African Journal of
Sciences: 4 (2) 114-122.
Verhulst N, Govaerts B, Verachtert E, Castellanos-Navarrete A, Mezzalama M, Wall P,
Deckers J, Sayre KD (2010). Conservation agriculture, improving soil quality for
sustainable production systems? In: Lal R, Stewart BA (eds) Advances in soil
science: food security and soil quality. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 137–208.
Wang X., Jia Z., and Liang L., 2014. The effect of straw incorporation on soil moisture,
evapotranspiration, and rainfall-use efficiency of maize under dry land farming. J.
Soil Water Conserv., 69(5), 449-455.
Wilhelm W., Johnson J.M.F., Karlen D.L., And Lightle D.T., 2007. Corn Stover To
Sustain Soil Organic Carbon Further Constrains Biomass Supply. Agron. J., 99,
1665-16.
Woźniak, A., Soroka, M., 2015. Biodiversity of weeds in pea cultivated in various tillage
systems. Rom. Agric. Res. 32, 231-237.
[395]
Optimum Phosphorus Rate and Inter Row
Spacing for Lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) on
Vertisol in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia
Bizuwork Tafes1*, Sisay Eshetu1, Almaz Meseret1, and Gebrekidan Feleke 1
1
Ethiopia Institute of Agricultural Research, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 32,
Debre Zeit, Ethiopia; E-mail: b.tafes@gmail.com
Abstract
Poor agronomic management such as nutrient management and plant density are
critical challenges of lentil production in Ethiopia. Therefore, study was conducted
to determine the effects of different row spacing and phosphorus (P) applications
on yield of lentil at Ude and Minja, in 2017 to 2019. The treatments were comprised
of factorial combination of three levels of inter row spacing (20, 30 and 40 cm) and
four levels of P fertilizer (0, 30, 60 and 90 P 2O5 kg/ha). The result revealed that at
Ude, the inter row spacing x P fertilizer interaction was significant on lentil
biomass, seed, and haulm yield. However only the main effects of inter row spacing
and P fertilizer had significant effect on biomass, seed, and haulm yield of lentil at
Minjar. The economic analysis revealed that 20 cm inter row spacing and 30 kg
P2O5 kg/ha fertilizer application gave the highest net benefit and acceptable
marginal rate of return (MRR) as compared to the others P rates and inter row
spacing’s. Therefore, 20 cm row spacing and 30 kg P2O5 kg/ha rate can be
recommended to enhance the productivity of lentil in the study areas.
Introduction
Lentil is an important cool-season food legume and 'break' crop in the highlands of
Ethiopia (Getachew, 2016). The crop is very useful in a crop rotation system,
where cereal mono-cropping has dominated (Erana, 2020). Like other legume
crops, lentil can fix atmospheric N and hence improves soil fertility, principally in
poorer areas, besides building human health by providing protein-rich grains
(Unkovich and Pate, 2000). In Ethiopia, the production area of lentil is about
119,046.04 hectares and annual seed production is about 1.6 tons (CSA, 2016).
Despite the growing attention has given to lentil as a high-value commodity, the
crop is still considered as a subsistence crop, and the majority of farmers produce
without fertilizer application. This is because of the historical generalization and
assumption that legume can fulfill all of its nutrient requirements through the
natural N-fixation and uptake of residual P from the soil. The Ethiopian highland
Vertisol crop production is characterized by a subsistence rain-fed system where a
large number of farmers depend on for livelihoods (Clarke et al., 2017;
Abdulkadir et al., 2017). In this system, legumes are often considered secondary
to cereals and are generally promoted as crops that require no inputs. The
beneficial effect of fertilizer application (specifically NPK, and occasionally S) on
[397]
legume yield gains is a fact across the world (Verma and Pandya, 2003; Saeed et
al., 2004).
Phosphorus (P) is critical in plant metabolism. P plays an important role in cellular
energy transfer, respiration, photosynthesis and it is a key structural component of
nucleic acid coenzymes, phospho-proteins, and phospholipids. Research results
showed that phosphorus has a positive effect on nodule formation and nitrogen
fixation in legume crops (Sepetoglu, 2002). The lentil crop can be quite responsive
to P fertilization, particularly where soils test low in available P (Turk et al.,
2003). However, little is known about the impact of P applications on lentil grain
yield, and its nutrient requirement. Past research findings in Ethiopia revealed
non-significant difference between P-fertilized (30, 60, and 90 kg P2O5 kg/ha) and
their unfertilized counterparts (Eshete, 1994). However, the past studies had at
least two technical limitations: (i) soil P status before conducting the trials was not
studied and all the trials were conducted on a single testing site and critically lacks
site-season replication (i.e., the wide-ranging growing conditions were not
adequately represented). Hence, it is evident that earlier studies on the responses
of lentil to P fertilizer application, in general, were not adequate. Recent studies;
however, reported significant response of lentil to P application at planting which
enhanced early seedling development and improved plant growth (Kaneez Fatima
et al., 2013). Further, Turk et al. (2003) and Zike et al. (2017) determined the
nutritional requirement of lentil and reported that lentil cultivars studied attained
their highest yields using 20 – 52 kg P per ha. .
Optimum plant density is one of the significant subjects increasing yield and
quality of lentil. The yield response of lentil to inter row spacing has been
discussed by several workers, and different relative responses for haulm and seed
yield to planting density were found (McEwen et al., 1988; Martin et al., 1994;
Noffsinger and Santen, 1995; Tawaha and Turk, 2001). Parveen and Bhuiya
(2010) reported that the highest plant population per unit area gave the highest
yield for lentil crops. However, plant density is cultivar and soil fertility dependent
because of the wide range of growth habits among cultivars and soil nutrient
viabilities in the fields. In addition to this, an optimum level of a single factor may
not cause an appreciable increase in the yield itself, but a combination of factors
contributes to the ultimate yield of lentil. Therefore, this investigation was aimed
at determining appropriate inter row spacing and phosphorus fertilizer rates to
enhance the productivity of lentil.

Description of the Study Sites
The trials were carried out on farmer's field under rain-fed condition for three
consecutive cropping seasons (2017 to 2019) at Ude and two consecutive cropping
[398]
seasons (2017 and 2018) at Minjar. Ude is located in East Shewa Zone of Oromia
Regional State of Ethiopia. It is found at 52 km away from South East of the
capital city of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa. Its geographical location is 9o5´52.8˝ N and
36o58´37.2˝ E. The altitude is about 1970 meter above sea level while the majority
of soil type is heavy black soils (Vertisol). Total rainfall during lentil growing
months in the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 were approximately 609.8.6 mm, 460.9
mm, and 656.9 mm, respectively (Figure 1). The average minimum and maximum
temperatures were 18.3, and 23.8 for 2017, 18.1 and 23.7 for 2018, and 17.9 and
23.3 for 2019, respectively. Minjar is located in North Shewa Zone of Amhara
Regional State of Ethiopia. It is found at 147 km in North East of Addis Ababa. Its
geographical location is 9.09 latitude and 39.19 longitudes. The altitude is about
1040 meters above sea level. The soil type is slightly Vertisol. Total rainfall
during lentil growing months in the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 was approximately
698.2mm, 521.6 mm and 805.3mm, respectively (Figure 2). The average
minimum and maximum temperatures were 14.7 and 25.8 for 2017, 14.4 and 25.6
for 2018 and 14.8 and 24.8 for 2019, respectively.
250 Year 2017

Year 2018
200
150
Rain fall (mm)
100
50
0
Lentil growing months
Figure 1. Rainfall distribution of lentil growing months in 2017 to 2019 at Ude
[399]
Year 2017
Year 2018
250 Year 2019
200
150
Rainfall (mm)
100
50
0
Lentil growing months

Figure 2. Rainfall distribution of lentil growing months during 2017 to 2019 at Minjar
Soil Physico-chemical Properties before Planting

The results of the soil physio-chemical properties analysis of the experimental site
are presented in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1. Soil physio-chemical properties at Ude
Ude Minjar
Soil Property
Depth (cm) Depth (cm)
0-5 5-15 15- 30- 60- 100- 0-5 5-15 15- 30- 60- 100-
30 60 100 200 30 60 100 200
Clay (%) 32.1 31.6 29.1 31.9 32.8 31.9 32.2 33.1 33.7 34.5 33.9 34.0
Silt (%) 39.7 40.5 42.3 39.1 38.8 38.7 33.2 32.6 31.7 30.7 31.9 33.2
Sand (%) 8.2 27.9 28.6 29.0 28.4 29.4 34.6 34.3 34.6 34.8 34.2 32.8
pH (1: 2.5 H2O) 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.8 8.0 8.1
CEC [Cmol(+) kg- 38.5 38.7 39.0 39.3 40.3 40.7 37.1 37.2 37.0 37.8 38.8 38.6
1 soil]
Organic matter 3.00 1.87 1.24 0.89 0.93 0.77 2.64 1.55 1.27 0.91 0.65 0.48
(%)
Total N (%) 2.24 1.73 1.40 1.16 1.10 0.95 1.24 0.73 0.40 0.16 0.10 0.095
Available P 9.23 7.21 5.32 4.58 3.12 1.25 11.34 10.11 6.18 5.54 0.92 0.25
(mg/kg)
Experimental Treatments, Design and Field Managements

The trial was laid out using Completely Randomized Block Design (RCBD) in a
factorial arrangement and replicated three times. The treatment consisted of four
different phosphorus doses (0, 30, 60 and 90 kg P2O5/ha) and three different inter
row spacing (20, 30 and 40 cm). Plot size of 3m x 3m (9 m2) was used for the
experiment. The experimental field was tilled with oxen plough by local
‘Marsha’, which is slow-moving at about 0.2 m depth and involves pushing soil to
[400]
left and right with partial inversion. The first and second tillage was in late May
and early June at Ude and in mid-June and late-June at Minjar, respectively, while
the third tillage was at planting time. The crop was planted on 22, 24 and 23 July
in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively at Ude. At Minjar, it was planted on 18 and
20 July in 2017 and 2018, respectively. The lentil variety Alemaya was used for
the study. Seeds of 80 kg/ha were sown by hand drilling. Weeding was managed
manually. Harvesting was done from the net plot area by leaving boarder rows.
Data Collection and Measurements

Observations on days to 50% flowering and days to 90% maturity were recorded
on a plot basis.. Plant height, number of pods per plant, and number of seeds per
pod were taken from 10 randomly selected plants from middle rows. At maturity,
the whole aboveground plant parts, including leaves, stems, and seeds from the net
plot area in each plot was harvested and sun-dried for 6 days until constant weight
and then the aboveground biomass was weighed and recorded in kg/ha. Seed yield
from the net plot area of each plot was recorded by measuring the seed yield and
adjusted at 10% seed moisture content. Haulm yield per net plot was calculated by
subtracting the total seed yield weight from the total biomass yield for the
respective treatments. To compare the economic advantages of applied P fertilizer
rates with the control were carried out using partial budget analysis. In this
experiment, the costs that vary were calculated by adding the costs of fertilizer and
labor for fertilizer application. However, other management and fixed costs were
assumed to be constant for all and not included in the calculation. The cost of P
fertilizer was 1450 Birr/100 kg. The price of the lentil seed was 55.50 ETB/kg.
The average seed yield was adjusted down ward by 15%, where 10% to reflect the
difference between the experimental yield and the farmers' yield that expected
from the same treatment and 5% was considered for the plot size. Following the
CIMMYT partial budget analysis methodology, total variable costs (TVC), gross
benefits (GB), and net benefits (NB) were calculated. To identify treatments with
maximum return to the farmer's investment, marginal analysis was performed on
non-dominated treatments. For a treatment to be considered as a worthwhile
option to farmers, the marginal rate of return needs to be at least 100%
(CIMMYT, 1988).
Data were tested for normality using a normal probability plot and subjected to the
combined analysis of variance (ANOVA) over years after confirmation of
homogeneity of error variance using the SAS-software program. Separate analyses
were conducted for each location because of the heterogeneity of error variance.
The means were compared by the least significant difference (LSD) method at
0.05 probability level.
[401]
Lentil Phenology
The combined analysis of variance over years of lentil phenology is illustrated in
Table 2. The main effects of the year on the plant height, and P fertilizer rates on
the days to flowering, days to maturity, and plant height of lentil were significant
at Minjar (Table 2). At Ude, lentil plant height varied more with year compared
with row spacing and phosphorus fertilizer due to slow development in 2017
compared with other years (Table 2). The effect of inter row spacing on the days
to flowering was significant at Ude. The inter row spacing by phosphorus
interaction was not significant on lentil phenology at both locations.
At Ude, plant height in 2019 was higher compared to 2017. However, at Minjar
plant height of lentil in 2017 was higher than in 2018. The year differences in
plant height might be due to the irregularly distributed of rainfall amount during
the crop seasons (Figures 1& 2).
At Ude, the longest days to flowering (55 days) was recorded at 20 cm row
spacing and the shortest days to flowering (54 days) was recorded from the wider
(40 cm) row spacing arrangement (Table 2). The prolonged days to flowering in
the narrow plant spacing could be attributed to faster canopy closure and reduced
soil moisture loss through evaporation between the rows, which ultimately took
longer days of flowering. A prolonged day to flowering produced by narrow row
spacing of lentil has been reported previously (Turk et al., 2003).
Application of 90 kg P2O5 per ha hastened flowering and maturity of lentil by 5
and 8 days, respectively, at Minjar. This might be due to P application increased
the rate of crop development from emergence to floral initiation and advanced
anthesis, as a result, hasten the crop phenology. A variation in the days to
flowering and maturity were by the P fertilizer rate were also reported by (Turk et
al., 2003; Getachew, 2016; and Zike et al., 2017).
[402]
Table 2. Means of lentil phenology at different inter row spacing and phosphorus applications at Minjar and Ude from
2017 to 2019 cropping years
Minjar Ude
Treatment Days to Days to Plant Days to Days to Plant
flowering maturity height (cm) flowering maturity height (cm)
Year
2017 60.2 107.8 46.81a 56.2 103.8 42.2b
2018 61.0 106.2 42.24b 55.5 105.6 41.0b
2019 - - - 54.5 103.5 53.2a
Row spacing
20 cm 61.3 107.7 46.50 54.9a 103.3 46.4
30 cm 59.8 103.9 44.10 54.8a 103.9 47.0
40 cm 60.7 106.4 42.97 53.9b 103.4 47.9
P (kg P2O5/ha)
0 65.3a 111.3a 40.48b 54.3 103.3 46.6
30 59.9b 104.6b 45.79a 54.7 104.2 47.2
60 57.2b 104.3b 46.52a 54.2 104.0 47.2
90 60.0b 103.7b 45.30a 54.9 102.7 47.5
CV (%) 8.6 6.4 14.3 2.6 2.1 7.1
Row spacing x P ns ns ns ns ns ns
Means with the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% level of significance; CV (%) = Coefficient of
variation
Lentil Yield Components

The main effect of row spacing and phosphorus (P) fertilizer on the number of
pods per plant and number of seeds per pod of lintel at Ude and Minjra are
presented in Table 3. There were statistically significant differences (P<0.05)
among the number of pods per plant over a year at Ude (Table 3). The main effect
of P fertilizer rate significantly affected the pod number and seeds per pod of lentil
at both Ude and Minjar (Table 3). However, the main effect of row spacing at both
locations had not a significant effect on the number of pods per plant and seeds
per pod of lentil (Table 3). The interaction effects of row spacing and P fertilizer
on the above-mentioned parameters were not significant at both locations. The
highest number of pods (55.8 pods per plant) was obtained in 2019 cropping year,
while the lowest number of pods (37.2 pods per plant) was obtained in 2018
cropping year at Ude (Table 3).
At both locations, the highest (51.4 and 51.9) number of pods per plant and seed
(1.6 and 1.5) per pod were recorded in 60 kg P2O5/ha, but statistically, at par with
30 kg P2O5/ha. While, lowest number of pods (35.6 pods per plant) and seeds (1.2
seed per pod) were obtained from the control treatment (nil kg P2O5/ha) (Table 3).
The current result indicated that the number of pods per plant and seeds per pod
was enhanced by the application of P fertilizer up to 60 kg P2O5/ha, but beyond
the above rate, the number of pods and seeds tended to decrease. This implies that
the adequate application of P fertilizer enables the crop to make rapid growth and
intercept more solar radiation and thus helps the crop to pro Similar results were
reported by Tuncturk (2011) and Datta et al., (2013).
[403]
Table 3. Means of yield components at different row spacing and phosphorus applications on lentil at Minjar and Ude
from 2017 to 2019 cropping years
Minjar Ude
Treatment Number Number Number Number
of pods/plant of seeds/pod of pods/plant of seeds/pod
Year
2017 46.1 1.6 41.5b 1.4
2018 42.3 1.5 37.2b 1.3
2019 - - 55.8a 1.4
Row spacing
20 cm 46.4 1.5 46.8 1.2
30 cm 43.3 1.4 43.2 1.3
40 cm 42.7 1.6 49.6 1.4
Phosphorus(kg P2O5/ha)
0 37.6b 1.2b 35.6b 1.2b
30 44.5ab 1.6a 50.9a 1.4a
60 51.4a 1.6a 51.5a 1.5a
90 43.1b 1.6a 48.0a 1.4a
CV (%) 25.9 18.9 18.2 22.9
Row spacing x P ns ns ns ns
Means with the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% level of significance; LSD= least significant
differences at 5%; CV (%) = Coefficient of variation
Lentil Yields
The effects of different phosphorus and row spacing on lentil biomass, seed, and
haulm yields at Minjar was illustrated in Table 4, and at Ude in Figure 3, 4 and 5.
The main effects of row spacing and P fertilizer significantly affected the
productivity of lentil at Minjar. At Ude, significant effects were observed by the
interaction of row spacing with P fertilizer rate. However, the interaction effect of
row spacing with P was not significant on at Minjar.
The highest biomass, seed, and haulm yield were significantly higher in the 2017
cropping year than in 2018. The increase in biomass, seed, and haulm yields in
2017 over 2018 cropping year was 16.1, 11.5, and 20.9%, respectively (Table 4).
The differences yields under different cropping years were resulted from an early
cessation of rainfall in the 2018 year (Figure 2). At Minjar location, the highest
biomass, seed, and haulm yields were from 20 cm row spacing, while the lowest
was observed in the 40 cm row spacing. The narrower row spacing (20 cm)
increased biomass, seed, and haulm yields by 16.5, 13.4 and 17.2%, respectively
over the wider row spacing (40 cm). The lowest productivity of lentil in wider (40
cm) row spacing compared to the narrow (20 cm) row spacing resulted from
reduced plant population per unit area. On the other hand, the great increase in
biomass, seed, and haulm yield with the narrow row spacing was attributed to the
increasing plant population per unit area. The yield increase observed with the
increase in plant density was a function of more pods being produced as a result of
more plants being established (Turk et al., 2003). In agreement with this finding,
Akter (2016) reported that narrow row spacing (20 cm) produced a higher yield
than wider row spacing (30 cm) with a normal seed rate of lentil. Similarly,
[404]
Gezahegn et al. (2016) and Gezahegn and Tesfaye (2017) reported higher biomass
and seed yield of faba bean in narrower spacing under Vertisol and fluvisol.
Similarly, at Minjar, the highest biomass and haulm yield from the highest rate
(90 kg P2O5/ha) than in the yield from the control plots (Table 4). Mean biomass
and haulm yield were increased by 22.9 and 17.5%, respectively, over the
untreated plots (without P application). These increments of biomass and haulm
yield of lentil at the highest rate of P application might be due to the availability of
P nutrient in the soil which increases their uptake by plants, which result in
increased dry matter accumulation in leaves and stem at earlier growth stages and
better translocation to yield during later stages. Nkaa et al. (2014) and Zike et al.
(2017) reported an increased rate of phosphorus application from 0-30 kg/ha
increased dry matter of lentil.
Table 4. Means of biomass, seed and haulm yield of lentil effects by different row spacing and phosphorus application at
Minjar in 2017 to 2019 cropping season
Treatment Biomass yield Seed yield (kg/ha) Haulm Yield
(kg/ha) (kg/ha)
Year
2017 7466.1a 1206.9a 6397.6a
2018 6265.6b 1068.5b 5058.7b
2019 - - -
Row spacing
20 cm 7343.8a 1262.7a 6081.1a
30 cm 7123.7a 1057.8b 6065.9a
40 cm 6130.2b 1092.7b 5037.5b
Phosphorus (kg P2O5/ha)
0 5859.4b 1063.6b 4795.8c
30 6772.6a 1223.8ab 5648.8b
60 7236.1a 1309.1a 5927.0ab
90 7595.5a 1054.4b 6541.0a
CV (%) 17.9 18.9 22.0
Row x P ns ns ns
Means with the same letter in columns are not significantly different at 5% level of significance; LSD= least significant
differences at 5%; CV (%) = Coefficient of variation
In contrast, the seed yield was significantly lower at the highest rate (90 kg
P2O5/ha) than at 30 and 60 kg P2O5/ha rates (Table 4). The highest seed yield was
obtained at the application of 60 kg P2O5/ha but statistically at par with 30 kg
P2O5/ha. The increase in yield of 60 kg P2O5/ha and 30 kg P2O2 fertilizer rate, was
accounted for by 18.8%, and 13.1%, compared to the untreated plot. This might be
due to the low availability of P (10.34 mg/kg) in the soil for the study site (Table
1), thus the application of optimum P might have positive effects on the yield
component parameters likes the number of pods/plant, seeds/pod and branches
number cumulatively increased seed yield. Lentil grown on low P soil can respond
to phosphate fertilizer (Getachew, 2016). These results conform to the findings of
[405]
Kumar et al. (2009), Datta et al., (2013) and Zike et al. (2017) who reported
enhanced seed yield of lentil by application of P fertilizers.
At Ude, row spacing by phosphorus interaction significantly affected the biomass,

seed, and haulm yield of lentil (Figure 3, 4 and 5), respectively. The highest
biomass (36.3%) and seed yield (34.9%) was obtained from the interaction of 20
cm row spacing and 30 kg P2O5/ha fertilizer application (Figure 3 and 4),
respectively. In contrast, the lowest biomass and seed yield were obtained from
the interaction of 40 cm row spacing and control plots (nil kg P2O5/ha) (Figure 3
and 4), respectively. This yield advantage might be due to the positive effect of P
fertilizer and optimum plant population per unit area that had increased pods
number and number of seeds that cumulatively increased the yields. Further,
narrow row spacing resulted in faster canopy closure and reduced soil moisture
loss through evaporation between the rows, and also encouraging quicker rooting
exploitation of the soil between the rows. Phosphorus promotes the development
of extensive root systems and vigorous seedlings. Encouraging vigorous root
growth is an important factor in promoting good nodule development (Yemane
and Skjelvag, 2003). Phosphorus also plays an important role in the nitrogen-
fixing process and in promoting earlier, more uniform maturity (Sepetoglu, 2002).
This result is in agreement with Datta et al. (2013) and Getachew (2018) who
reported that the application of phosphate fertilizer is a linear relationship with
mean legumes (faba-bean and field bean) seed yield with an advantage of 55, 103,
and 152% over the control. Zike et al. (2017) also reported a significantly higher
seed yield of lentil with the application of 20 kg P2O5/ha at 30 cm row spacing.
Similar to the biomass and seed yield, the effects of row spacing and P fertilizer
rate on the haulm yields of lentil were varied (Figure 5). In 20 cm row spacing
interaction with 90 kg, P2O5/ha fertilizer gave the highest mean haulm yield of
lentil, which increased by 50.7% over the interaction of wider row spacing (40
cm) with control (nil kg P2O5/ha) (Figure 5). In general, haulm yield obtained
from the narrow row spacing (20 cm) with the highest rate (90 kg P2O5/ha) of
fertilized plot exceeded the haulm yield by two-fold over the wider row spacing
(40 cm) with untreated plot (Figure 5). The significant increase in haulm yield in
response to the interactions of row spacing and P fertilizer management as
compared to the other row spacing and P rate interaction may be attributed to the
role of P nutrient and better stand establishments per unit area, which played in
enhancing the biomass production. Similarly, Datta et al. (2013 and Zike et al.
(2017)) reported that dry biomass yield increased as the rate of P application
increased from the control to the 20 kg/ha of P application on lentil. Haulm yield
is directly correlated to growth parameters like plant population per unit area plant
height and biomass yield.
[406]
20 cm
30 cm
5000 40 cm
a
4500 ab ab
Aboveground biomass yield (kg/ha)
4000 a-c a-c

b-d a-d
3500 c-e
c-e
e d-e c-e
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 kg P/ha 30 kg P/ha 60 kg P/ha 90 kg P/ha
Phosphorus fertilizer rate
Figure 3. Phosphorus fertilizer rate and row spacing interaction effect on lentil aboveground biomass yield (kg/ha) at Ude
in 2017-2019 combined
2500
20 cm
a 30 cm
2000 ab ab
Seed yield (kg/ha )
b-c b-c
1500 c-d d b-d
d d c-d d
1000
500
0
0 kg P/ha 30 kg P/ha 60 kg P/ha 90 kg P/ha
Phosphorus fertilizer rate
Figure 4. Phosphorus fertilizer rate and row spacing interaction effect on lentil seed yield (kg/ha) at Ude in 2017-2019
combined
[407]
4000 a
20 cm
3500 30 cm
40 cm
3000 b b
2500 cd bc b-d
Haulm yield (kg/ha)
2000 cd cd cd cd
cd
d
1500
1000
500
0
0 kg P2O5 30 kg P2O5 60 kg P2O5 90 kg P2O5
Phosphorus fertilzer rate
Figure 5. Phosphorus fertilizer rate and row spacing interaction effect on lentil haulm yield (kg/ha) at Ude in 2017-2019
combined
Partial Budget Analysis

Lentil production under inter row spacing and P fertilizer rate involved different
costs, which affected the total production cost that varied within each treatment
(Table 5 and 6). It is quite evident from the data presented in Table 5 that the
highest mean net benefit (92130 ETB/ha) with acceptable MRR (4221.7%) was
obtained in the application of 30 kg P2O5/ha with 20 cm row spacing at Ude. In
contrast, the lowest mean net benefit (63245 ETB/ha) was obtained from the
control (unfertilized) plot (Table 5). However, at Minjar the highest mean net
benefit (57766.1ETB/ha) with acceptable MRR (796.01%) was obtained from
application of 60 kg P2O5/ha, but the mean net benefit difference forms the rate of
30 and 60 P2O5/ha are not more (Table 6). Therefore, on economic grounds, the
application of 30 kg P2O5/ha with 20 cm row spacing would be the economical
best reward for the production of lentil in the study areas.
[408]
Table 5. Partial budget analysis at Ude
P2O5 TVC NB
Row Space (kg/ha) ASY (kg/ha) TGB (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha) MRR (%)
20 0 1264.9 63245 0 63245 DM
30 0 1387.2 69360 0 69360 DM
40 0 1238.9 61945 0 61945 DM
20 30 1856.9 92845 715 92130 4221.7
30 30 1744.1 87205 715 86490 DM
40 30 1263.3 63165 715 62450 DM
20 60 1757.8 87890 1143.4 86746.6 5671.5
30 60 1469.6 73480 1143.4 72336.6 DM
40 60 1450.2 72510 1143.4 71366.6 MD
20 90 1302.4 65120 2151.6 62968.4 DM
30 90 1717.7 85885 2151.6 83733.4 DM
40 90 1307.8 65390 2151.6 63238.4 DM
AGY=Adjusted see yield; TGB= total gross benefit; TVC=Total variable cost, NB=Net benefit, MRR=Marginal rate of
return
Table 6. Partial budget analysis at Minjar
P2O5 (kg/ha) GY (kg/ha) ASY (kg/ha) TGBY (ET Birr) TVC (ET Birr) NB (ET Birr) MRR (%)
0 1063.6 957.24 47862 0 47862 DM
30 1223.8 1101.42 55071 715 54356 908.25
60 1309.1 1178.19 58909.5 1143.4 57766.1 796.01
90 1054.4 948.96 47448 2151.6 45296.4 DM
AGY=Adjusted grain yield; ASY= Adjusted straw yield; TGB= total gross benefit; TVC=Total variable cost, NB=Net
benefit, MRR=Marginal rate of return
Based on the results, inter row spacing and P fertilizer rate had significant effect
on growth, yield components, and yield of lentil. The highest economical yield
was obtained from the interaction of narrow (20 cm) row spacing and 30 kg P 2O5
per ha at Ude. At Minjar, there was an economical yield advantage due to the 60
kg P2O5 per ha. However, the economic analysis showed that 20 cm row spacing
and 30 kg P2O5 per ha were economically best bit for farmers at both locations.
Thus, for this row spacing and rate of fertilizer would be recommended for the
study areas.
[409]
References
Abdulkadir B, Kassa S, Desalegn T, Tadesse K, Haileselassie M, Fana G, Abera T,
Amede T and Tibebe D .2017. Crop response to fertilizer application in Ethiopia: a
review. Towards the development of site-and context-specific fertilizer
recommendation, a working paper. Pp. 21-48.
Akter F. 2016. Effect of planting geometry for yield and yield components of lentil. MSc.
Thesis, Department of Agronomy Sher-E-Bangla Agricultural University Sher-E-
Bangla Nagar, Dhaka-1207.
Clarke N, Bizimana JC, Dile Y, Worqlul A, Osorio J, Herbst B, Richardson JW,
Srinivasan R, Gerik TJ, Williams J, Jones CA, Jeong J .2017. Evaluation of new
farming technologies in Ethiopia using the integrated decision support system
(IDSS). Agric Water Manag.180:267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.
2016.07.023.
CSA (Central Statistics Authority). 2016. Agricultural Sample Survey: Report on Area
and Production of Crops, Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season. Statistical
Bulletins, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Datta SK, Sarkar MAR, and Uddin FMJ.2013. Effect of variety and level of phosphorus
on the yield and yield components of lentil. Int. J. Agril. Res. Innov. & Tech. 3 (1):
78-82. ISSN: 2224-0616, Available online at http://www.ijarit.webs.com.
Erana Kebede .2020. Grain legumes production and productivity in Ethiopian
smallholder agricultural system, contribution to livelihoods and the way forward,
Cogent Food and Agriculture, 6:1, 1722353
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1722353.
Eshete M .1994. Chickpea and lentil agronomy research. In: T., Asfaw et al. (eds.) Cool-
season Food Legumes of Ethiopia. p. 230–251.
Getachew Agegnehu. 2016. Cool-Season Food Legumes Research on the Highland
Vertisols of Ethiopia. In. Advances in Vertisols Management in the Ethiopian
Highlands. Paulos Dubale, Asgelil Dibabe, Asfaw Zeleke ,Gezahegn Ayele ,
Abebe Kirub (eds ). Proceedings of the International Symposium on Vertisols
Management, 28- November to December 2000. Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.
Getachew Agegnehu .2018. Soil Fertility and Crop Management Research on Cool-
season Food Legumes in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Ethiopia. Journal
Agric. Sci. 28(1) 95-109.
Humied B, and Haddad N. 1981. Effect of Date of Plantingand Plant Development of
Lentil Genotype. Agronomy Abstract, p. 106. American Society of Agronomists,
Madison, WI.
Gezahegn, A. M. and Tesfaye K. (2017). Optimum inter and intra row spacing for faba
bean production under Fluvisols. MAYFEB Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, 10-
19.
Gezahegn, A. M., Tesfaye, K., Sharma, J. J., & Belel, M. D. (2016). Determination of
optimum plant density for faba bean (Vicia faba L.) on vertisols at Haramaya,
Eastern Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 1224485.
Kaneez Fatima, Nazir Hussain FA Pir, and Mohd Mehdi. 2013. Effect of nitrogen and
phosphorus on growth and yield of Lentil (Lens culnaris). Elixir Appl. Botany; 57:
14323-14325.
[410]
Kumar MV, Ul-Hasan Z, Dhurwe UK .2009. Effects of PSB (phosphate Solubiling
Bacteria) morphological on character of (Lens culinaris) Medic. Mediterranean
Biology Forum International Journal 1: 5-7.
Martin I, JTenoria L, and Ayerbe L. 1994. Yield growth and water use of conventional
and semileafless peas in semiarid environments. Crop Sci. 34, 1576-1583.
McEwen J, Yeoman D P, and. Moffitt R.1988. Effect of seed rates, sowingdates and
methods of sowingon autumn- sown field beans (Vicia faba L.). J. Agron. Sci.
Camb. 110, 345-352.
Nkaa FA, Nwokeocha OW, Ihuoma O .2014. Effect of phosphorus fertilizer on growth
and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata). IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and
Biological Sciences 9: 74-82.
Noffsinger L S. and E. Santen, 1995. Yield and yield components of spring-sown white
lupin in the southeastern USA. Agron. J. 87, 493-497.
Parveen, K., & Bhuiya, M. S. U. (2010). Effect of method of sowing and seed rate on the
yield and yield components of lentil. population, 1000, 2.
Saeed M, Akram HM, Iqbal MS, Yar A, Ali A .2004. Impact of fertilizer on seed yield of
chickpea genotypes. Int J Agric Biol 6(1):108–109.
Sepetoglu H .2002. Grain legumes. Department of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Ege, Yzmir, Turkey.
Tawaha AM, and Turk MA. 2001. Effect of date and rate of sowingon yield and yield
components of narbon vetch under semi-arid conditions. Acta Agron. Hungarica.
49, 103-105.
Tuncturk R. 2011.The effects of varying row spacing and phosphorus doses on the yield
and quality of fenugreek (Trigonella Foenum-Graecum L.) .Turkish Journal of Field
Crops; 16(2): 142-148.
Turk, MA, Tawaha A M, and El-Shatnawi J. 2003. Response of Lentil (Lens culinaris
Medik) to Plant Density, Sowing Date, Phosphorus Fertilization, and Ethephon
Application in the Absence of Moisture Stress. Agronomy & Crop Science 189, 1-
6.
Unkovich, M. J., & Pate, J. S. (2000). An appraisal of recent field measurements of
symbiotic N2 fixation by annual legumes. Field Crops Research, 65(2-3), 211-228.
Verma VK, Pandya KS .2003. Response of rainfed chickpea to NPK fertilizer and its
economics in light-textured soils. Adv Plant Sci 6: 181–185.
Yemane A, Skjelvag AO .2003. Effects of Fertilizer Phosphorus on Yield Traits of
Dekoko (Pisum sativum var. abyssinicum) Under Field Conditions. Journal of
Agronomy and Crop Science 189: 14-20.
Zike T, Abera T, Hamza I .2017. Response of Improved Lentil (Lens Culinaris Medik)
Varieties to Phosphorus Nutrition on Vertisols of West Showa, Central Highlands
of Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech 5: 315. doi:10.4172/2329-8863.1000315.
[411]
Determination of Appropriate Time of Nitrogen
Fertilizer Application for Maize in the Central
Midekesa Chala1, Chala Chalchissa1, and Gudeta Biratu1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ambo Agricultural Research Center,
P. O. Box 37, Ambo, Ethiopia; E-mail: mideksachala@gmail.com
Abstract
Currently, most nitrogen fertilizer is applied when maize is at knee height (4-5
weeks after an emergency (WAE). However, recent studies have shown that
modern hybrids take up high amounts of nitrogen at flowering stage. This suggests
that a different nitrogen (N) fertilization strategy, with the time of application
starting at the early vegetative growth and later at blooming or flowering, may be
necessary to maximize the agronomic performance of the highland hybrid maize.
The experiment was conducted in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons at Liban Jawi
and Toke kutaye districts in the West Showa Zone of central highland of Ethiopia
to determine the appropriate time of nitrogen fertilizer application for improving
the productivity of maize. The experiment consisted of six different times of
fertilizer application treatments, ranging from only once to three times of
application: 1st,1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 weeks after emergency (WAE) + 1/3 at
70-80 days after planting (DAP); 2nd,1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE; 3rd, 2/3 at
4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP; 4th, 1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-
80 DAP; 5th, 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP; and 6th, full at 4-5 WAE), which
were arranged in randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three
times. The application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP had a
significant effect on plant height, ear height, grain yield, and biomass yield, but it
had no influence on root lodging and stem lodging. When the data was combined
over the two years, the treatment of 2/3 N application at 4-5 WAE (knee height) +
1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in the highest grain yield with a yield
advantage of 1,598 kg/ha over the typically used full application at 4-5 WAE (knee
height). This fertilizer management strategy could be advised for the Liban Jawi,
Toke Kutaye areas, and other similar agro-ecosystem environments.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is the world’s widely grown highland cereal and the primary
staple food crop in many developing countries (Kandil, 2013). It is ranked as the
third major cereal crop after wheat and rice in the world in terms of production
(Kumara et al., 2011). The average productivity of maize is 6.7 t ha-1 in developed
countries (Khalily et al., 2010). According to FAOSTAT (2013), 690.7 million
tons of maize were produced on 135.4 million hectares worldwide, with a yield of
over 5.1 tons ha-1 in 2012. In Ethiopia, maize is grown from moisture stress to
high rainfall regimes and from lowland to the highlands (Tena and Beyene, 2011).
It is an important cereal in human diets and animal feed, providing adequate
[413]
amounts of energy and protein (Tena and Beyene, 2011). In the 2017/18 cropping
season, it was cultivated with a total national production of 8.4 million tons from
2.13 million hectares with an average productivity of 3.94 t ha -1 (CSA, 2018),
which is far below the average 6.7 t ha-1 when compared to developed countries.
Various yield-limiting factors contribute to the lower yield of maize, of which
poor soil fertility is one of the principal factors which hampers maize production
in Ethiopia (Abebayehu et al., 2011). The poor soil fertility might be due to a low
supply of nitrogen (N) and poor nutrient management. Nitrogen, together with
phosphorous, is one of the most limiting macronutrients to maize grain yield
worldwide (Hefny and Aly, 2008). Its availability influences the uptake, not only
of itself but also of other nutrients (Onasanya et al., 2009). Nitrogen is highly
unstable in the soil. It can easily be lost through volatilization, leaching, and
denitrification (Cantarella, 2007). To improve poor nutrient management timing of
nitrogen fertilizer application is an essential management strategy.
In high and medium altitude maize growing areas where rainfall is high, most of
the nitrogen is lost through leaching and de-nitrification, making the nutrient
unavailable during the critical stages of crop growth. Since nitrogen is subject to
leaching and denitrification, multiple times of N application has been advocated
(Tobert et al., 2001). The timing of nitrogen fertilizer application is one of the
low-cost strategies to reduce nutrient leaching, so that nutrient supply is
synchronized with plant nutrient demand (Gehl et al., 2005). Maize has low N
demand at the early growth stages of its cycle. It starts to take up N rapidly at the
middle of the vegetative growth period and the maximum rate of N uptake occurs
near the silking stage (Settimi et al., 1998). Many research findings verified that
nitrogen application at the time of maize planting is not efficiently recovered since
nodal root growth and development from emergence up to one- to two-leaf stage
is very young (Nielsen, 2013). The same author showed that seed emergence
usually occurs 6-8 days after planting, while12–15 and15–20 days after planting
are needed to form one and two developed leaves for hybrid maize, respectively
(Nielsen, 2013, Darby and Lauer, 2004). At these stages, the seedlings depend on
kernel food reserve since nodal root development has not yet started for nutrient
absorption. All applied N is not absorbed by the crop since leaching is one of the
main challenges for N loss in high rainfall areas. Research reports have shown that
about 50% and even more than this at higher doses of applied N remain
unavailable to a crop due to N loss through leaching (Jamal et al., 2006). If N
application is done at maize planting, its loss through leaching and runoff can be
articulated because its absorption by the crop up to 10–15 days after planting is
rare. Application of N at the time of planting is easily lost through leaching in
heavy rainfall areas. It is also attributed to environmental pollution and results in
increased nonprofit costs (Haile et al., 2012 and Sawyer, 2008). This leaching loss
may be determined by the quantity of N applied, the time of nitrogen application,
soil permeability, and the quantity of rainfall in the area (Fageria and Baligar,
[414]
2005). An optimum and efficient time of N application can increase the recovery
of applied N by up to 58–70%, and consequently increase the yield and grain
quality of the crop (Haile et al., 2012).
The time of N application at the appropriate crop growth stage is the main factor
responsible for enhancing N use efficiency and increasing maize productivity.
Research findings verified that time of N application improved N uptake and
protects the soil environment (Karlen et al., 1998). Mitigation of nutrient leaching
by management practices, such as synchronizing plant nutrient uptake with
demand can improve the Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) of the plant (Gehl et al.,
2005). Currently, a blanket nitrogen fertilizer recommendation of full dose once at
knee height is being widely used by the farmers in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Therefore, the study was conducted to determine the appropriate time of
nitrogen fertilizer application for higher yield and profitability of highland maize
in the study areas.

The field experiments were conducted in two locations at Liban Jawi and Toke
kutaye districts in the West Showa Zone, central high land of Ethiopia during
2018 and 2019 cropping seasons. Toke kutaye experimental site was
geographically located 8.969167° N and 37.57056° and altitude of 2272 m.a.s.l
was received a mean annual rainfall of 1128 mm with minimum and maximum
temperature of 11 and 26°c, respectively. Liban Jawi was geographically located
at 8.98444° N and to 37.72528°E with an altitude 2381 m.a.s.l. and received a
mean annual rainfall of 1128 mm with minimum and maximum temperature of 13
and 30°c, respectively. The texture of the topsoil (0-20cm) was clay with slightly
acidic (pH 5.91, 1:2.5 soil water suspensions).
The experiment consisted of six-time of N-fertilizer application (1/3 at planting +

1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, 1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE, 2/3 at 4-5
WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, 1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP,
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP and full at 4-5 WAE), which were arranged in
a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three times. Jibat
maize variety was used at 25 kg ha-1as a test crop. The experimental plot size
measured 4.5 m × 5 m (22.5 m2) consisting of 6 rows of 0.75 m apart and 5m in
length. The spacing between plots and replications were 0.5 m and 1 m
respectively. The experimental field was ploughed by oxen, and land leveling was
done manually before planting. Phosphorus fertilizer in the form of TSP (Triple
superphosphate) was band-applied at planting at the rate of 69kg P2O5 ha-1 to all
plots, and the nitrogen fertilizer in the form of urea was applied at different times
as per the treatments. Two seeds were planted per hole on the 2nd week of May
[415]
and thinned to 1 plant per stand. Hand weeding was carried out three times.
Harvesting was carried out manually in the middle of December when the foliage,
stem and ear were fully dried from the net plot area (four innermost middle rows).
The composite soil sample at 0-20 cm depth from the experimental field was taken
before planting. The sample was air-dried and ground to pass a 2 mm sieve and
necessary parameters such as soil texture, available P, pH, OC and CEC were
determined. For the determination of OC and N 1 mm sieve was used. Soil texture
was analyzed by Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Day, 1965). Available P was
extracted with a sodium bicarbonate solution following the procedure described by
Olsen et al. (1954). The pH of the soil was measured potentiometrically in the
1:2.5 soil: water mixture by using a pH meter and organic carbon was determined
following Walkely and Black wet oxidation method (Walkely and Black, 1934).
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) was determined by Ammonium Acetate method
(Jackson, 1973).
Five plants were selected randomly from each plot by excluding borders to collect
yield and yield contributing characters such as plant height (m), ear height (cm),
root lodging, stalk lodging, above ground and grain yield of the plant. For
economic analysis, a simple partial budget analysis was employed using the
CIMMYT approach (CIMMT, 1988). For partial budget analysis, only the factors
with significant effects were considered. The yield was adjusted by subtracting 10
% from the average gain yield. Then, gross yield benefit was obtained by
multiplying the adjusted yield with a two-years harvesting months (December-
January) average price of Ethiopian Birr 9 for a kg of maize grain, while the total
variable cost was obtained with the prevailing labour cost in the area, Ethiopian
Birr 300 per 5-man day, was taken for the economic analysis. The net benefit was
calculated by subtracting labor cost from gross yield. Finally, the marginal rate of
return (MRR) was calculated. The mean market price of maize was obtained by
assessing the market at harvest in the2019 cropping season. The collected data
were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedures of the SAS
statistical software (SAS Institute, 2000) to evaluate the effect of time of nitrogen
fertilizer application. The least Significant Difference (LSD) test at P≤0.05 was
used to separate means whenever there were significant differences.
[416]
Soil Physico-Chemical Properties of the
Experimental Site before sowing
Selected Physico-chemical properties were analyzed for composite soil (0-20 cm
depth) from the samples collected diagonally from five spots in every replication
before planting. The results indicated that the texture of the soil at the
experimental site was dominated by the clay fraction. Based on particle size
distribution, in Table 1, the soil contained sand (21.5%), silt (19.5%) and clay
(59%). According to the soil textural class determination triangle, the soil of the
experimental site was clay. The texture indicates the degree of weathering,
nutrient, and water holding capacity of the soil. High clay content might indicate
better water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil in the experimental site. The
composite soil sample had 2.88% soil organic matter, which is rated as low
according to EthioSIS (2014), when soils having an organic matter value in the
range of 2-3% are considered low. As the organic matter content of the soil is
taken as a basic measure of fertility status, improving water-holding capacity,
nutrient release and soil structure, the low amount of organic matter in the soil
might be due to the low addition of crop residues to the soil. Therefore, regular
application of organic manure such as crop residue, compost, etc is important. The
soil reaction (pH) of the experimental site was 5.29, which was rated as slightly
acidic by Tekalign (1991), who rated it in the range of 6.73 to 7.3 as neutral soil.
FAO (2000) reported that the preferable pH ranges for most crops and productive
soils is from 4 to 8. Thus, the pH of the experimental soil was within the range for
productive soil. Tekalign (1991) classified soil total N content of 0.25% as high.
According to this classification, the soil samples were found to have a poor level
of total N (0.17%) (Table 1), indicating that the nutrient is a limiting factor for
optimum crop growth. As maize is a highly exhaustive crop for nitrogen, its
production potential is highly affected by N deficiency (Onwueme and Sinha,
1991). Therefore, there is a need to apply nitrogen to the crop. The analysis
revealed that the available P of the soil was 7.49 mg kg-1 (Table 1). Indicative
ranges of available phosphorus have been established by Cottenie (1980), as 25
mg kg-1 of soil (very high). Thus, the soils of the experimental site were
considered low in available P content, which is unsatisfactory for optimum maize
growth and yield.
Table 1. The physical and chemical property of Toke Kutaye and Liban Jawwe experimental sites before planting
Location Particle size (%) PH OC (%) CEC N(%) P

Sand Silt Clay meq/100g ppm
Liban jawwe 61.5 14.5 24 5.08 1.75 24 0.18 5.53
Toke kutaye 56.5 24.5 19 5.49 1.60 35.32 0.16 9.45
OC = organic Carbon, TN = Total Nitrogen, AVa P=Total Available Phosphorus and CEC=Cation exchangeable capacity
[417]
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an important parameter of soil as it indicates
the type of clay mineral present in the soil and its capacity to retain nutrients
against leaching. According to Hazelton and Murphy (2007), topsoils having a
CEC greater than 40 cmol (+) kg-1 are rated as very high and 25-40 cmol (+) kg-1
as high. Thus, according to this classification, the soil of the experimental site had
high CEC (29.66cmol (+) kg-1 soil) (Table 1). Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
describes the potential fertility of soils and indicates the soil texture, organic
matter content and the dominant types of clay minerals present. In general, soils
high in CEC content are considered agriculturally fertile.
Plant height
The combined analysis of variance showed that plant height was significantly (P <
0.001) affected by the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application (Table 2). The
highest plant height (240 cm) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP while the lowest plant height (201 cm) was observed
when nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE which was
statistically at par with the application of nitrogen 1/3 at planting, 1/3 at 4-5 WAE
and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP. The results indicated that application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5
WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) increased plant height
by 9.2% over-application of nitrogen full at 4-5 WAE (knee height), whereas
application of nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE decreased plant height
by 7.8% compared to the application of nitrogen full at 4-5 WAE (knee height)
(Table 2). This showed that split application of nitrogen fertilizer 2/3 at 4-5 WAE
(knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) was found to be more
effective in increasing plant height than the other treatments. This might be due to
an appropriate time of nitrogen application that increases the availability of N to
the plant. This result is in agreement with the finding of Raouf and Ali (2016),
who reported that the plant height of maize was significantly influenced by the
rate and time of nitrogen application.
Table 2. Effect of time of nitrogen fertilizer application on plant height and ear height of maize
in 2018 and 2019 cropping season at Liban Jawi and Toke Kutaye districts
Plant height Ear height
Time of nitrogen fertilizer application (cm) (cm)
1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 206c 107d
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 201c 102e
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 240a 127a
1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP 216b 110cd
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 220b 117b
All at 4-5 WAE 218b 112c
Means followed by different letters in columns are statistically significant at 5% probability level using LSD test.
[418]
Ear height
The combined analysis of variance showed that ear height was significantly (P <
0.001) affected by the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application (Table-2). The
highest ear height (127 cm) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP while the lowest ear height (102 cm) was observed
when nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE. Applying nitrogen
2/3 at 4-5 WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) increased
ear height by 11.8 % over-application of nitrogen all at 4-5 WAE (knee height),
whereas applying 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE decreased ear height by 8.9
% compared to the application of full at 4-5 WAE (knee height) (Table 3). This
might be due to synchronized nutrient demand with plant uptake, supplying more
nitrogen to the plant. More nitrogen may be attributed to better vegetative
development that resulted in increased internodal extension which increased the
ear height. This result is supported by Kandil (2013), who reported that plant
height and ear height of maize increased with an increased level of nitrogen.
Above-ground biomass or stover yield

The combined analysis of variance showed that biological yield was significantly
(P < 0.001) affected by the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application (Table-3). The
highest biological yield (18891kg) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at
4-5 WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, while the lowest biological yield (9645kg) was
observed when nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE which
was statistically at par with an application of nitrogen 1/3 at planting, 1/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP. Application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5 WAE (knee
height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in 26.7 % more biomass
than the treatment with N applied full at 4-5 WAE (knee height), whereas
applying nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE resulted in 43.6 % less
biological yield compared with the treatment, which was applied fully at 4-5 WAE
(knee height). This might be due to the application of nitrogen fertilizer at the
right time increasing vegetative growth, which contributes to higher biomass
yield. The result was in line with the finding of Amanuel et al. (1991), who
reported that N fertilizer application at the optimum amount and right time
significantly enhanced biomass yield of wheat.
[419]
Table 3: Effect of time of nitrogen fertilizer application on biological yield and grain yield of maize
in 2018and 2019 cropping season at Liban Jawi and Toke Kutaye districts
Time of nitrogen fertilizer application Biological yield Grain yield
(kg/ha) (kg/ha)
1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 11089c 4146c
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 9645c 3849c
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 18891a 6557a
1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP 13345b 4766b
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 13827b 5272b
All at 4-5 WAE 13853b 4959b
Grain yield
The combined analysis of variance revealed that grain yield was significantly (P <
highest grain yield (6557kg) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, while the lowest biological yield (3849kg) was
height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in a 24.4 % yield
increment than the treatment with N applied full at 4-5 WAE (knee height),
whereas applying nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE resulted in a 22.4 %
yield reduction compared with the treatment, which was applied fully at 4-5 WAE
right time could synchronize plant nutrient supply with plant nutrient demand and
increase NUE, which results in increased grain yield. The result was a
disagreement with the finding of Tilahun et al. (2013), who reported that
application of nitrogen fertilizer 1/4 at planting and 3/4at knee height was found to
produce the highest yield for late-maturing varieties. This finding also differs from
the findings of Debelle et al. (2002), who recommended that 50% of the total
nitrogen requirement should be applied at sowing and the remaining 50% as a top
dressing at knee height.
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis indicated that the nitrogen application of 2/3 at knee height
and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP was the best method since it gave the highest net benefit
(Table 4). The highest net benefit was realized when 2/3 nitrogen was applied at
4-5WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP. Application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5WAE and 1/3 at
70-80 DAP gave a monitory advantage of Ethiopian Birr 14,080.00 over the
farmers’ practice (nitrogen application of full knee height).
[420]
Table 4: - Economic analysis for timing of nitrogen fertilizer application using Jibat maize variety.
Yield AY GB Man power TVC NB
Treatment
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) EB/ha for Fer appn (EB) (EB/ha)
1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 WAE +
4146 3731 37310 15 900 36410
1/3 at 70-80 DAP
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 3849 3464 34640 10 600 34040
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 6557 5901 59010 10 600 58410
4766 4289 42890 15 900 41990
1/4 at 70-80 DAP
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 5272 4745 47450 10 600 46850
All at 4-5 WAE 4959 4463 44630 5 300 44330
Where, AY= Adjusted yield, GB= Gross benefit, TVC = Total variable cost and NB = Net benefit.
Conclusion
The results showed that the time of nitrogen application was found to be one of
the major maize yield-limiting factors in the study area. From the findings of the
present experiment, it would be concluded that split application of nitrogen 2/3 at
4-5 WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) produced a higher
grain yield of maize in the study area. Therefore, a split application of nitrogen
fertilizer at these the above-specified timing could be recommended at Liban Jawi,
Toke kutaye and other similar areas to maximize maize productivity.
References
Abebayehu A, Eyasu E and Diels J (2011). Comparative Analysis of Soil Nutrient
Balance at Farm Level: A case Study in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Inter. J. Soil Sci.
6(4): pp. 259-266.
Amanuel Gorfu, Asefa Tana, Tanner, D. G. and Mwangi, W. 1991. On farm research
derive fertilizer recommendations for small scale bread wheat production:
Methodological issues and technical results. Research Report No. 14. IAR, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 37p.
Central Statistical Authority (CSA). 2018. Agricultural Sample Survey for 2010/11 Crop
Season. Report on Area and Production of Crops for Private and Peasant Holdings,
in Central Statistical Authority, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement center).1988. An Economic
Training Manual: from agronomic data recordation. CYMMT. Mexico 79pp.
Darby, H. and Lauer, J., 2004. Plant physiology—critical stages in the life of a corn plant.
Field Corn,Tech,rep
Day, P.R., 1965. Hydrometer method of particle size analysis. Methods of soil analysis.
Agronomy, 9, pp.562-566.
Debelle, T., Bogale, T., Negassa, W., Wogayehu, T., Liben, M., Mesfin, T., Mekonen, B.
and Mazengia, W., 2002. A review of fertilizer management research on maize in
Ethiopia. Enhancing the contribution of maize to food security in Ethiopia, pp.46-
55.
[421]
EthioSIS (Ethiopia Soil Information System), 2014. Soil fertility status and fertilizer
recommendation atlas for Tigray regional state, Ethiopia.
Fageria, N.K. and Baligar, V.C., 2005. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop
plants. Advances in agronomy, 88, pp.97-185.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2000. Fertilizers and their use 4th ed.
International fertilizer industry association, FAO, Rome, Italy
FAOSTAT, 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics).2013. Food and
Agriculture Organization Statistics Data Base, Agricultural production indices.
Roma, Italy. DOI:http://www.faostat3.foa.org/download /O/QC/E (Accessed on 20
July 2015.
Gehl, R.J., Schmidt, J.P., Maddux, L.D. and Gordon, W.B., 2005. Corn yield response to
nitrogen rate and timing in sandy irrigated soils. Agronomy Journal, 97(4),
pp.1230-1238.
Haffanaghel, H. P. 1961. Agriculture in Ethiopia. FAO, Rome. ICARDA (International
Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas), 2001.Soil laboratory manual.
Irrigation intervals, weed management and nitrogen forms. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura
Univ., 34(5): 5003-5017.
Haile, D., Nigussie, D. and Ayana, A., 2012. Nitrogen use efficiency of bread wheat:
Effects of nitrogen rate and time of application. Journal of soil science and plant
nutrition, 12(3), pp.389-410.
Hefny, M.M. and Aly AA. 2008. Yielding Ability and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Maize
Inbred Lines and Their Crosses. International Journal.Agricultural. Research. 3(1):
Pp.27-39.
Jackson, M.L., 1973. Soil chemical analysis Prentice Hall of India Ltd. New Delhi,
pp.219-221.
Jamal, Z., Hamayun, M., Ahmad, N. and Chaudhary, M.F., 2006. Effects of Soil and
Foliar Application of Different Concentrations of NPK and Foliar Application of
(NH 4) 2 SO 4 on Different Yield Parameters in Wheat. Journal of Agronomy, 5(2),
pp.251– 256
Kandil, E.E.E., 2013. Response of some maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) to different levels
of nitrogenous fertilization. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(3), pp.1902-
1908.
Karlen, D.L., L.A. Kramer and S.D. Logsdon. 1998. Field-scale nitrogen balances
associated with long-term continuous corn production. Agron. J., 90: 644-650.
Khalily M., Moghaddam M., Kanouni H. and Asheri E., 2010. Dissection of drought
stress as a grain production constraint of maize in Iran. Asian Journal of Crop
Science, 2(2), pp.60-69.
Kumara Charyulu, D., Bantilan, M.C.S., Nedumaran, S. and Deb U.K., 2011.
Development and Diffusion of Improved Sorghum Cultivars in India: Impact on
Growth and Variability in Yield.
Nielsen, R.B., 2013. Root development in young corn. Corny News Network, Purdue
Extension.[On-line] at https://www. agry. purdue. edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/roots.
html.
Olsen,S.R., Cole. C.V., Watanabe.F. S. and Dean,L. A. 1954. Estimation of available
phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939: 1-
19.
[422]
Onasanya, R.O., Aiyelari, O.P., Onasanya, A., Nwilene, F.E. and Oyelakin, O.O., 2009.
Effect of different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on the growth and
yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in Southwest Nigeria. International Journal of
Agricultural Research, 4(6): pp.193-203.
Onwueme, I.C. and Sinha, T.D., 1991. Field crop production in tropical Africa:
principles and practice. CTA.
SAS Institute. 2000. SAS User’s Guide, Statistics version 8.2 ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NC,
USA.
Sawyer, J.E., 2008. Nitrogen application timing, forms, and additives. American Society
of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Settimi, J.R. and Maranville, J.W., 1998. Carbon dioxide assimilation efficiency of maize
leaves under nitrogen stress at different stages of plant
development. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 29(7-8), pp.777-
792.
Tekalign, T., 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis.
Working Document No. 13. International Livestock Research Center for Africa,
Tena, W. and Beyene, S., 2011. Identification of growth limiting nutrient (s) in Alfisols:
soil physico-chemical properties, nutrient concentrations and biomass yield of
maize. American journal of plant nutrition and fertilization technology, 1(1), pp.23-
35.
Torbert, H.A., Potter, K.N. and Morrison, J.E., 2001. Tillage system, fertilizer nitrogen
rate, and timing effect on corn yields in the Texas Black land Prairie. Agronomy
Journal, 93(5), pp.1119-1124.
Walkley, A. and Black, I.A., 1934. An examination of the different method for
determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid
titration method. Soil science, 37(1), pp.29-38.
[423]
Determination of Appropriate Time of Nitrogen
Fertilizer Application for Maize in the Central
Midekesa Chala1, Chala Chalchissa1, and Gudeta Biratu1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ambo Agricultural Research Center,
P. O. Box 37, Ambo, Ethiopia; E-mail: mideksachala@gmail.com
Abstract
Currently, most nitrogen fertilizer is applied when maize is at knee height (4-5
weeks after an emergency (WAE). However, recent studies have shown that
modern hybrids take up high amounts of nitrogen at flowering stage. This suggests
that a different nitrogen (N) fertilization strategy, with the time of application
starting at the early vegetative growth and later at blooming or flowering, may be
necessary to maximize the agronomic performance of the highland hybrid maize.
The experiment was conducted in 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons at Liban Jawi
and Toke kutaye districts in the West Showa Zone of central highland of Ethiopia
to determine the appropriate time of nitrogen fertilizer application for improving
the productivity of maize. The experiment consisted of six different times of
fertilizer application treatments, ranging from only once to three times of
application: 1st,1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 weeks after emergency (WAE) + 1/3 at
70-80 days after planting (DAP); 2nd,1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE; 3rd, 2/3 at
4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP; 4th, 1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-
80 DAP; 5th, 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP; and 6th, full at 4-5 WAE), which
were arranged in randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three
times. The application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP had a
significant effect on plant height, ear height, grain yield, and biomass yield, but it
had no influence on root lodging and stem lodging. When the data was combined
over the two years, the treatment of 2/3 N application at 4-5 WAE (knee height) +
1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in the highest grain yield with a yield
advantage of 1,598 kg/ha over the typically used full application at 4-5 WAE (knee
height). This fertilizer management strategy could be advised for the Liban Jawi,
Toke Kutaye areas, and other similar agro-ecosystem environments.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is the world’s widely grown highland cereal and the primary
staple food crop in many developing countries (Kandil, 2013). It is ranked as the
third major cereal crop after wheat and rice in the world in terms of production
(Kumara et al., 2011). The average productivity of maize is 6.7 t ha-1 in developed
countries (Khalily et al., 2010). According to FAOSTAT (2013), 690.7 million
tons of maize were produced on 135.4 million hectares worldwide, with a yield of
over 5.1 tons ha-1 in 2012. In Ethiopia, maize is grown from moisture stress to
high rainfall regimes and from lowland to the highlands (Tena and Beyene, 2011).
It is an important cereal in human diets and animal feed, providing adequate
[413]
amounts of energy and protein (Tena and Beyene, 2011). In the 2017/18 cropping
season, it was cultivated with a total national production of 8.4 million tons from
2.13 million hectares with an average productivity of 3.94 t ha -1 (CSA, 2018),
which is far below the average 6.7 t ha-1 when compared to developed countries.
Various yield-limiting factors contribute to the lower yield of maize, of which
poor soil fertility is one of the principal factors which hampers maize production
in Ethiopia (Abebayehu et al., 2011). The poor soil fertility might be due to a low
supply of nitrogen (N) and poor nutrient management. Nitrogen, together with
phosphorous, is one of the most limiting macronutrients to maize grain yield
worldwide (Hefny and Aly, 2008). Its availability influences the uptake, not only
of itself but also of other nutrients (Onasanya et al., 2009). Nitrogen is highly
unstable in the soil. It can easily be lost through volatilization, leaching, and
denitrification (Cantarella, 2007). To improve poor nutrient management timing of
nitrogen fertilizer application is an essential management strategy.
In high and medium altitude maize growing areas where rainfall is high, most of
the nitrogen is lost through leaching and de-nitrification, making the nutrient
unavailable during the critical stages of crop growth. Since nitrogen is subject to
leaching and denitrification, multiple times of N application has been advocated
(Tobert et al., 2001). The timing of nitrogen fertilizer application is one of the
low-cost strategies to reduce nutrient leaching, so that nutrient supply is
synchronized with plant nutrient demand (Gehl et al., 2005). Maize has low N
demand at the early growth stages of its cycle. It starts to take up N rapidly at the
middle of the vegetative growth period and the maximum rate of N uptake occurs
near the silking stage (Settimi et al., 1998). Many research findings verified that
nitrogen application at the time of maize planting is not efficiently recovered since
nodal root growth and development from emergence up to one- to two-leaf stage
is very young (Nielsen, 2013). The same author showed that seed emergence
usually occurs 6-8 days after planting, while12–15 and15–20 days after planting
are needed to form one and two developed leaves for hybrid maize, respectively
(Nielsen, 2013, Darby and Lauer, 2004). At these stages, the seedlings depend on
kernel food reserve since nodal root development has not yet started for nutrient
absorption. All applied N is not absorbed by the crop since leaching is one of the
main challenges for N loss in high rainfall areas. Research reports have shown that
about 50% and even more than this at higher doses of applied N remain
unavailable to a crop due to N loss through leaching (Jamal et al., 2006). If N
application is done at maize planting, its loss through leaching and runoff can be
articulated because its absorption by the crop up to 10–15 days after planting is
rare. Application of N at the time of planting is easily lost through leaching in
heavy rainfall areas. It is also attributed to environmental pollution and results in
increased nonprofit costs (Haile et al., 2012 and Sawyer, 2008). This leaching loss
may be determined by the quantity of N applied, the time of nitrogen application,
soil permeability, and the quantity of rainfall in the area (Fageria and Baligar,
[414]
2005). An optimum and efficient time of N application can increase the recovery
of applied N by up to 58–70%, and consequently increase the yield and grain
quality of the crop (Haile et al., 2012).
The time of N application at the appropriate crop growth stage is the main factor
responsible for enhancing N use efficiency and increasing maize productivity.
Research findings verified that time of N application improved N uptake and
protects the soil environment (Karlen et al., 1998). Mitigation of nutrient leaching
by management practices, such as synchronizing plant nutrient uptake with
demand can improve the Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) of the plant (Gehl et al.,
2005). Currently, a blanket nitrogen fertilizer recommendation of full dose once at
knee height is being widely used by the farmers in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Therefore, the study was conducted to determine the appropriate time of
nitrogen fertilizer application for higher yield and profitability of highland maize
in the study areas.

The field experiments were conducted in two locations at Liban Jawi and Toke
kutaye districts in the West Showa Zone, central high land of Ethiopia during
2018 and 2019 cropping seasons. Toke kutaye experimental site was
geographically located 8.969167° N and 37.57056° and altitude of 2272 m.a.s.l
was received a mean annual rainfall of 1128 mm with minimum and maximum
temperature of 11 and 26°c, respectively. Liban Jawi was geographically located
at 8.98444° N and to 37.72528°E with an altitude 2381 m.a.s.l. and received a
mean annual rainfall of 1128 mm with minimum and maximum temperature of 13
and 30°c, respectively. The texture of the topsoil (0-20cm) was clay with slightly
acidic (pH 5.91, 1:2.5 soil water suspensions).
The experiment consisted of six-time of N-fertilizer application (1/3 at planting +

1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, 1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE, 2/3 at 4-5
WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, 1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP,
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP and full at 4-5 WAE), which were arranged in
a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated three times. Jibat
maize variety was used at 25 kg ha-1as a test crop. The experimental plot size
measured 4.5 m × 5 m (22.5 m2) consisting of 6 rows of 0.75 m apart and 5m in
length. The spacing between plots and replications were 0.5 m and 1 m
respectively. The experimental field was ploughed by oxen, and land leveling was
done manually before planting. Phosphorus fertilizer in the form of TSP (Triple
superphosphate) was band-applied at planting at the rate of 69kg P2O5 ha-1 to all
plots, and the nitrogen fertilizer in the form of urea was applied at different times
as per the treatments. Two seeds were planted per hole on the 2nd week of May
[415]
and thinned to 1 plant per stand. Hand weeding was carried out three times.
Harvesting was carried out manually in the middle of December when the foliage,
stem and ear were fully dried from the net plot area (four innermost middle rows).
The composite soil sample at 0-20 cm depth from the experimental field was taken
before planting. The sample was air-dried and ground to pass a 2 mm sieve and
necessary parameters such as soil texture, available P, pH, OC and CEC were
determined. For the determination of OC and N 1 mm sieve was used. Soil texture
was analyzed by Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Day, 1965). Available P was
extracted with a sodium bicarbonate solution following the procedure described by
Olsen et al. (1954). The pH of the soil was measured potentiometrically in the
1:2.5 soil: water mixture by using a pH meter and organic carbon was determined
following Walkely and Black wet oxidation method (Walkely and Black, 1934).
Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) was determined by Ammonium Acetate method
(Jackson, 1973).
Five plants were selected randomly from each plot by excluding borders to collect
yield and yield contributing characters such as plant height (m), ear height (cm),
root lodging, stalk lodging, above ground and grain yield of the plant. For
economic analysis, a simple partial budget analysis was employed using the
CIMMYT approach (CIMMT, 1988). For partial budget analysis, only the factors
with significant effects were considered. The yield was adjusted by subtracting 10
% from the average gain yield. Then, gross yield benefit was obtained by
multiplying the adjusted yield with a two-years harvesting months (December-
January) average price of Ethiopian Birr 9 for a kg of maize grain, while the total
variable cost was obtained with the prevailing labour cost in the area, Ethiopian
Birr 300 per 5-man day, was taken for the economic analysis. The net benefit was
calculated by subtracting labor cost from gross yield. Finally, the marginal rate of
return (MRR) was calculated. The mean market price of maize was obtained by
assessing the market at harvest in the2019 cropping season. The collected data
were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedures of the SAS
statistical software (SAS Institute, 2000) to evaluate the effect of time of nitrogen
fertilizer application. The least Significant Difference (LSD) test at P≤0.05 was
used to separate means whenever there were significant differences.
[416]
Soil Physico-Chemical Properties of the
Experimental Site before sowing
Selected Physico-chemical properties were analyzed for composite soil (0-20 cm
before planting. The results indicated that the texture of the soil at the
experimental site was dominated by the clay fraction. Based on particle size
distribution, in Table 1, the soil contained sand (21.5%), silt (19.5%) and clay
(59%). According to the soil textural class determination triangle, the soil of the
experimental site was clay. The texture indicates the degree of weathering,
nutrient, and water holding capacity of the soil. High clay content might indicate
better water and nutrient holding capacity of the soil in the experimental site. The
composite soil sample had 2.88% soil organic matter, which is rated as low
according to EthioSIS (2014), when soils having an organic matter value in the
range of 2-3% are considered low. As the organic matter content of the soil is
taken as a basic measure of fertility status, improving water-holding capacity,
nutrient release and soil structure, the low amount of organic matter in the soil
might be due to the low addition of crop residues to the soil. Therefore, regular
application of organic manure such as crop residue, compost, etc is important. The
soil reaction (pH) of the experimental site was 5.29, which was rated as slightly
acidic by Tekalign (1991), who rated it in the range of 6.73 to 7.3 as neutral soil.
FAO (2000) reported that the preferable pH ranges for most crops and productive
soils is from 4 to 8. Thus, the pH of the experimental soil was within the range for
productive soil. Tekalign (1991) classified soil total N content of 0.25% as high.
According to this classification, the soil samples were found to have a poor level
of total N (0.17%) (Table 1), indicating that the nutrient is a limiting factor for
optimum crop growth. As maize is a highly exhaustive crop for nitrogen, its
production potential is highly affected by N deficiency (Onwueme and Sinha,
1991). Therefore, there is a need to apply nitrogen to the crop. The analysis
revealed that the available P of the soil was 7.49 mg kg-1 (Table 1). Indicative
ranges of available phosphorus have been established by Cottenie (1980), as 25
mg kg-1 of soil (very high). Thus, the soils of the experimental site were
considered low in available P content, which is unsatisfactory for optimum maize
growth and yield.
Table 1. The physical and chemical property of Toke Kutaye and Liban Jawwe experimental sites before planting
Location Particle size (%) PH OC (%) CEC N(%) P

Sand Silt Clay meq/100g ppm
Liban jawwe 61.5 14.5 24 5.08 1.75 24 0.18 5.53
Toke kutaye 56.5 24.5 19 5.49 1.60 35.32 0.16 9.45
OC = organic Carbon, TN = Total Nitrogen, AVa P=Total Available Phosphorus and CEC=Cation exchangeable capacity
[417]
Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an important parameter of soil as it indicates
the type of clay mineral present in the soil and its capacity to retain nutrients
against leaching. According to Hazelton and Murphy (2007), topsoils having a
CEC greater than 40 cmol (+) kg-1 are rated as very high and 25-40 cmol (+) kg-1
as high. Thus, according to this classification, the soil of the experimental site had
high CEC (29.66cmol (+) kg-1 soil) (Table 1). Cation exchange capacity (CEC)
describes the potential fertility of soils and indicates the soil texture, organic
matter content and the dominant types of clay minerals present. In general, soils
high in CEC content are considered agriculturally fertile.
Plant height
The combined analysis of variance showed that plant height was significantly (P <
0.001) affected by the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application (Table 2). The
highest plant height (240 cm) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP while the lowest plant height (201 cm) was observed
when nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE which was
statistically at par with the application of nitrogen 1/3 at planting, 1/3 at 4-5 WAE
and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP. The results indicated that application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5
WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) increased plant height
by 9.2% over-application of nitrogen full at 4-5 WAE (knee height), whereas
application of nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE decreased plant height
by 7.8% compared to the application of nitrogen full at 4-5 WAE (knee height)
(Table 2). This showed that split application of nitrogen fertilizer 2/3 at 4-5 WAE
(knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) was found to be more
effective in increasing plant height than the other treatments. This might be due to
an appropriate time of nitrogen application that increases the availability of N to
the plant. This result is in agreement with the finding of Raouf and Ali (2016),
who reported that the plant height of maize was significantly influenced by the
rate and time of nitrogen application.
Table 2. Effect of time of nitrogen fertilizer application on plant height and ear height of maize
in 2018 and 2019 cropping season at Liban Jawi and Toke Kutaye districts
Plant height Ear height
Time of nitrogen fertilizer application (cm) (cm)
1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 206c 107d
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 201c 102e
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 240a 127a
1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP 216b 110cd
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 220b 117b
All at 4-5 WAE 218b 112c
[418]
Ear height
The combined analysis of variance showed that ear height was significantly (P <
highest ear height (127 cm) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP while the lowest ear height (102 cm) was observed
when nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE. Applying nitrogen
2/3 at 4-5 WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) increased
ear height by 11.8 % over-application of nitrogen all at 4-5 WAE (knee height),
whereas applying 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE decreased ear height by 8.9
% compared to the application of full at 4-5 WAE (knee height) (Table 3). This
might be due to synchronized nutrient demand with plant uptake, supplying more
nitrogen to the plant. More nitrogen may be attributed to better vegetative
development that resulted in increased internodal extension which increased the
ear height. This result is supported by Kandil (2013), who reported that plant
height and ear height of maize increased with an increased level of nitrogen.
Above-ground biomass or stover yield

The combined analysis of variance showed that biological yield was significantly
(P < 0.001) affected by the timing of nitrogen fertilizer application (Table-3). The
highest biological yield (18891kg) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at
4-5 WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, while the lowest biological yield (9645kg) was
height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in 26.7 % more biomass
than the treatment with N applied full at 4-5 WAE (knee height), whereas
applying nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE resulted in 43.6 % less
biological yield compared with the treatment, which was applied fully at 4-5 WAE
right time increasing vegetative growth, which contributes to higher biomass
yield. The result was in line with the finding of Amanuel et al. (1991), who
reported that N fertilizer application at the optimum amount and right time
significantly enhanced biomass yield of wheat.
[419]
Table 3: Effect of time of nitrogen fertilizer application on biological yield and grain yield of maize
in 2018and 2019 cropping season at Liban Jawi and Toke Kutaye districts
Time of nitrogen fertilizer application Biological yield Grain yield
(kg/ha) (kg/ha)
1/3 at planting + 1/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 11089c 4146c
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 9645c 3849c
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 18891a 6557a
1/4 at planting + 1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/4 at 70-80 DAP 13345b 4766b
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 13827b 5272b
All at 4-5 WAE 13853b 4959b
Grain yield
The combined analysis of variance revealed that grain yield was significantly (P <
highest grain yield (6557kg) was observed when nitrogen was applied 2/3 at 4-5
WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP, while the lowest biological yield (3849kg) was
height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) resulted in a 24.4 % yield
increment than the treatment with N applied full at 4-5 WAE (knee height),
whereas applying nitrogen 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at 4-5 WAE resulted in a 22.4 %
yield reduction compared with the treatment, which was applied fully at 4-5 WAE
right time could synchronize plant nutrient supply with plant nutrient demand and
increase NUE, which results in increased grain yield. The result was a
disagreement with the finding of Tilahun et al. (2013), who reported that
application of nitrogen fertilizer 1/4 at planting and 3/4at knee height was found to
produce the highest yield for late-maturing varieties. This finding also differs from
the findings of Debelle et al. (2002), who recommended that 50% of the total
nitrogen requirement should be applied at sowing and the remaining 50% as a top
dressing at knee height.
Economic Analysis
The economic analysis indicated that the nitrogen application of 2/3 at knee height
and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP was the best method since it gave the highest net benefit
(Table 4). The highest net benefit was realized when 2/3 nitrogen was applied at
4-5WAE and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP. Application of nitrogen 2/3 at 4-5WAE and 1/3 at
70-80 DAP gave a monitory advantage of Ethiopian Birr 14,080.00 over the
farmers’ practice (nitrogen application of full knee height).
[420]
Table 4: - Economic analysis for timing of nitrogen fertilizer application using Jibat maize variety.
Yield AY GB Man power TVC NB
Treatment
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) EB/ha for Fer appn (EB) (EB/ha)
4146 3731 37310 15 900 36410
1/3 at 70-80 DAP
1/3 at planting + 2/3 at 4-5 WAE 3849 3464 34640 10 600 34040
2/3 at 4-5 WAE + 1/3 at 70-80 DAP 6557 5901 59010 10 600 58410
4766 4289 42890 15 900 41990
1/4 at 70-80 DAP
1/2 at 4-5 WAE + 1/2 at 70-80 DAP 5272 4745 47450 10 600 46850
All at 4-5 WAE 4959 4463 44630 5 300 44330
Where, AY= Adjusted yield, GB= Gross benefit, TVC = Total variable cost and NB = Net benefit.
Conclusion
The results showed that the time of nitrogen application was found to be one of
the major maize yield-limiting factors in the study area. From the findings of the
present experiment, it would be concluded that split application of nitrogen 2/3 at
4-5 WAE (knee height) and 1/3 at 70-80 DAP (before tasseling) produced a higher
grain yield of maize in the study area. Therefore, a split application of nitrogen
fertilizer at these the above-specified timing could be recommended at Liban Jawi,
Toke kutaye and other similar areas to maximize maize productivity.
References
Abebayehu A, Eyasu E and Diels J (2011). Comparative Analysis of Soil Nutrient
Balance at Farm Level: A case Study in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. Inter. J. Soil Sci.
6(4): pp. 259-266.
Amanuel Gorfu, Asefa Tana, Tanner, D. G. and Mwangi, W. 1991. On farm research
derive fertilizer recommendations for small scale bread wheat production:
Methodological issues and technical results. Research Report No. 14. IAR, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, 37p.
Central Statistical Authority (CSA). 2018. Agricultural Sample Survey for 2010/11 Crop
Season. Report on Area and Production of Crops for Private and Peasant Holdings,
in Central Statistical Authority, Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement center).1988. An Economic
Training Manual: from agronomic data recordation. CYMMT. Mexico 79pp.
Darby, H. and Lauer, J., 2004. Plant physiology—critical stages in the life of a corn plant.
Field Corn,Tech,rep
Day, P.R., 1965. Hydrometer method of particle size analysis. Methods of soil analysis.
Agronomy, 9, pp.562-566.
Debelle, T., Bogale, T., Negassa, W., Wogayehu, T., Liben, M., Mesfin, T., Mekonen, B.
and Mazengia, W., 2002. A review of fertilizer management research on maize in
Ethiopia. Enhancing the contribution of maize to food security in Ethiopia, pp.46-
55.
[421]
EthioSIS (Ethiopia Soil Information System), 2014. Soil fertility status and fertilizer
recommendation atlas for Tigray regional state, Ethiopia.
Fageria, N.K. and Baligar, V.C., 2005. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop
plants. Advances in agronomy, 88, pp.97-185.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2000. Fertilizers and their use 4th ed.
International fertilizer industry association, FAO, Rome, Italy
FAOSTAT, 2013. Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics).2013. Food and
Agriculture Organization Statistics Data Base, Agricultural production indices.
Roma, Italy. DOI:http://www.faostat3.foa.org/download /O/QC/E (Accessed on 20
July 2015.
Gehl, R.J., Schmidt, J.P., Maddux, L.D. and Gordon, W.B., 2005. Corn yield response to
nitrogen rate and timing in sandy irrigated soils. Agronomy Journal, 97(4),
pp.1230-1238.
Haffanaghel, H. P. 1961. Agriculture in Ethiopia. FAO, Rome. ICARDA (International
Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas), 2001.Soil laboratory manual.
Irrigation intervals, weed management and nitrogen forms. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura
Univ., 34(5): 5003-5017.
Haile, D., Nigussie, D. and Ayana, A., 2012. Nitrogen use efficiency of bread wheat:
Effects of nitrogen rate and time of application. Journal of soil science and plant
nutrition, 12(3), pp.389-410.
Hefny, M.M. and Aly AA. 2008. Yielding Ability and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Maize
Inbred Lines and Their Crosses. International Journal.Agricultural. Research. 3(1):
Pp.27-39.
Jackson, M.L., 1973. Soil chemical analysis Prentice Hall of India Ltd. New Delhi,
pp.219-221.
Jamal, Z., Hamayun, M., Ahmad, N. and Chaudhary, M.F., 2006. Effects of Soil and
Foliar Application of Different Concentrations of NPK and Foliar Application of
(NH 4) 2 SO 4 on Different Yield Parameters in Wheat. Journal of Agronomy, 5(2),
pp.251– 256
Kandil, E.E.E., 2013. Response of some maize hybrids (Zea mays L.) to different levels
of nitrogenous fertilization. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 9(3), pp.1902-
1908.
Karlen, D.L., L.A. Kramer and S.D. Logsdon. 1998. Field-scale nitrogen balances
associated with long-term continuous corn production. Agron. J., 90: 644-650.
Khalily M., Moghaddam M., Kanouni H. and Asheri E., 2010. Dissection of drought
stress as a grain production constraint of maize in Iran. Asian Journal of Crop
Science, 2(2), pp.60-69.
Kumara Charyulu, D., Bantilan, M.C.S., Nedumaran, S. and Deb U.K., 2011.
Development and Diffusion of Improved Sorghum Cultivars in India: Impact on
Growth and Variability in Yield.
Nielsen, R.B., 2013. Root development in young corn. Corny News Network, Purdue
Extension.[On-line] at https://www. agry. purdue. edu/ext/corn/news/timeless/roots.
html.
Olsen,S.R., Cole. C.V., Watanabe.F. S. and Dean,L. A. 1954. Estimation of available
phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular 939: 1-
19.
[422]
Onasanya, R.O., Aiyelari, O.P., Onasanya, A., Nwilene, F.E. and Oyelakin, O.O., 2009.
Effect of different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on the growth and
yield of maize (Zea mays L.) in Southwest Nigeria. International Journal of
Agricultural Research, 4(6): pp.193-203.
Onwueme, I.C. and Sinha, T.D., 1991. Field crop production in tropical Africa:
principles and practice. CTA.
SAS Institute. 2000. SAS User’s Guide, Statistics version 8.2 ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NC,
USA.
Sawyer, J.E., 2008. Nitrogen application timing, forms, and additives. American Society
of Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Settimi, J.R. and Maranville, J.W., 1998. Carbon dioxide assimilation efficiency of maize
leaves under nitrogen stress at different stages of plant
development. Communications in soil science and plant analysis, 29(7-8), pp.777-
792.
Tekalign, T., 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis.
Tena, W. and Beyene, S., 2011. Identification of growth limiting nutrient (s) in Alfisols:
soil physico-chemical properties, nutrient concentrations and biomass yield of
maize. American journal of plant nutrition and fertilization technology, 1(1), pp.23-
35.
Torbert, H.A., Potter, K.N. and Morrison, J.E., 2001. Tillage system, fertilizer nitrogen
rate, and timing effect on corn yields in the Texas Black land Prairie. Agronomy
Journal, 93(5), pp.1119-1124.
Walkley, A. and Black, I.A., 1934. An examination of the different method for
determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid
titration method. Soil science, 37(1), pp.29-38.
[423]
Nitrogen and Phosphorus Fertilizer Effect on
Yield and Quality of Bread Wheat (Triticum
aestivum L.) Varieties in the Highlands of Arsi
Wogayehu Worku1*, Dereje Dobocha1, Almaz Admasu1, Fasil Shimeles1,

Zenebe Mulatu1, and Debela Bekele1
1
Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 489, Kulumsa, Ethiopia
E-mail: wogayehuworku53@gmail.com
Abstract
Soil fertility is the prime significance to increase crop production and productivity.
Thus, a field experiment was conducted under rain fed condition for three
consecutive years from 2017-2019 main cropping seasons at Kulumsa, Asasa and
Bekoji to determine the effects of N and P fertilizer rates on yield, yield components
and quality of bread wheat varieties. The study was laid out in randomized block
design using four nitrogen levels (92, 115, 138 and 161 N kg/ha) and four
phosphorus levels (69, 92, 115 and 138 P kg/ha) with three replications. The result
indicated that at Asasa and Kulumsa, except biomass and hectoliter weight all
parameters measured were not significantly affected by the applied N and P
fertilizers. But none of parameters were significant at Bekoji. Both locations and
years at Asasa Kulumsa and Bekoji are significant to most of the parameters studied.
Thus, fertilizer rate of 92 kg N and 69 kg P per ha were found to be profitable with
net benefit of 49,985 ETB and MRR of 231 % at Asasa and Kulumsa and with net
benefit of 40,220 ETB and MRR of 256 % attained at Bekoji. However, further on
farm verification is required for large scale recommendations under good
agricultural practices.
Introduction
Agriculture is the mainstay of the Ethiopian economy that contributes to food self-
sufficiency, employment opportunity and means of foreign exchange earnings.
Ethiopia is one of the largest wheat producers in sub-Saharan Africa (FAOSTAT,
2014) and about 4.8 million small holder farmers were engaged in wheat
production and close to 5.3 million ton was produced in 1.8 million ha (CSA,
2020). Wheat is placed fourth after tef, maize and sorghum in area coverage and
third in production (CSA, 2020). Its wide agro ecological adaptations contributed
to increased production coverage in the country.
Arsi is one of the wheat belts of the country. Average farmers’ wheat yield in Arsi
was as low as 0.5 t/ha before the inception of agricultural research (Tanner, 1991).
This trend gradually changes with improved technological packages in the
research system. Currently, the average productivity of wheat is 2.97 t/ha in
Ethiopia (CSA, 2020). This is closed to the world average of 3 t/ha. However, the
productivity of wheat is even lower than the potential yields of 5-7 t/ha obtained
[433]
on research stations and on farm verification (Mann and Warner, 2017; Tigist et
al., 2021). This is due to several biotic and abiotic factors and inappropriate crop
management practices are found to be the key elements that contributed to low
crop productivity in Ethiopia. In spite of this fact, numbers of farmers’ as well as
area coverage are increasing from time to time.
Soil fertility is one of the prior concerns of crop productivity. Our soil is low in
inherent soil fertility (Tarekegn et al., 1997). This could be related to soil erosion
and degradation, continuous use of monoculture practices and poor agronomic
practices (Gorfu et al., 1991). Urea as source of N and DAP for P are the
dominant fertilizers types applied for long times in Ethiopia; which created
nutrient imbalances in soils (Nandwa and Bekunda, 1998). Thus, the first blanket
fertilizer recommendation of 50 kg/ha Urea and 100 kg/ha DAP in Ethiopia was
forwarded (Murphy, 1959). SG 2000 upgraded this rate to 100/100kg/ha Urea and
DAP, respectively. These days, region specific recommendations for each
commodity are also forwarded. On the other hand, the research system
recommended 100-150 Urea and 150 kg/ha DAP, respectively at different times.
In fact, this rate vary as per the agro-ecological domain of the country. Currently,
ATA (Agricultural Transformation Agency) is validating the EthioSIS soil map
based fertilizer recommendations in diverse commodities and areas. With similar
rate of phosphorus fertilizer source (100 kg/ha of NPS to be applied as basal at
planting), 350 kg/ha of urea (2/3 at planting and 1/3 as top dress at 45 days after
planting) is evaluated under farmers field. Therefore, there is a room to evalúate
and verify the technical and economic feasibility of this rate for further
recommendations in the experimental sites. Thus, the objective of this experiment
was to determine the N and P fertilizer rates on yield and yield components and
quality of wheat.

The experiment was conducted under rain fed condition from 2017-2019
consecutive main growing seasons in Arsi Zone, southeastern Ethiopia (Kulumsa,
Asasa and Bekoji). The experiment was conducted under on farm condition at
Bekoji and Asasa in 2018 and 2019, while at Kulumsa under main station in all of
the three years. Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center is located 167 km
southeast of Addis Ababa at an altitude of 2200 meters above sea level (masl) with
8° 01' N latitude and 39° 09' E longitude. Bekoji is located at a latitude of 7°36'51″
N, longitude of 39o14'15″ E and at an altitude of masl, 231 km away from Addis
Ababa with dominant clay soil of Nitisol (IUSS Working Group, 2014). Asasa is
situated at a latitude of 07o 07'09'N and longitude of 39o11'56''E at an altitude of
2340 masl, 287 km away from Addis Ababa. The mean annual minimum and
maximum temperature during the three years experimental period ranged from
11.9 to 22.7°C at Kulumsa, 2.83 to 19.5°C at Bekoji and 7.6 to 17.5°C at Asasa.
[434]
The experiment has treatment combinations of four levels of nitrogen (92, 115,
138 and 161 N kg/ha using urea as N source in split application of 1/3 at planting
and 2/3 at tillering as top dress) and four levels of phosphorus (69, 92, 115 and
138 P kg/ha Triple Super Phosphate as P source applied basal) laid out factorially
in randomized complete block design with three replications. Bread wheat
varieties, Wane and Lemu were used. Lemu was planted at Bekoji (highland area);
while Wane (low to mid altitude areas) was planted at Kulumsa and Asasa. A seed
rate of 125 kg/ha was drilled by hand at light depth with 20 cm inter row spacing.
The gross plot size of the experiment was 4m long and 2.6 m wide (10.4 m2 area).
The net harvestable plot size of the experiment was 3.40 m long and 2 m wide
with 10 central rows. The distance between plots and blocks was 50 cm and 1 m,
respectively. Other cultural and management practices (weeding, harvesting and
threshing) were carried out as per the recommendations.
Data collection
Data collected from the experiment included growth parameters (plant height and
number of seeds per spike), yield and yield components (grain yield, above ground
biomass and harvest index) and hector liter weight as a quality trait. Growth
parameters were randomly selected from 10 plants per plot to sample agronomic
parameters at physiological maturity. Number of seeds per spike was recorded by
counting from the spike of each individual plant per each experimental plot at
physiological maturity. Plant height (cm) was measured from the ground level to
the tip of spike excluding the awn at physiological maturity.
Yield and yield components

Adjusted grain yield (kg ha-1) = yield obtained (kg ha-1) x , where,
mc=measured grain moisture content (%) and MC=the standard moisture content
(12.5%). Above ground biomass (kgha-1) was determined after sun drying to a
constant weight for each plot and converted to hectare. Harvest index (HI in %)
was calculated on a plot basis, as the ratio of dried grain weight adjusted to 12.5%
moisture content to the dried total above ground biomass weight and multiplied
by100. Seed moisture content was determined using seed moisture tester
instrument.
Quality trait
Hectoliter (kg/hl) was used as a quality indicator. It was determined as the mass of
grain contained on a standard hectoliter apparatus on dockage free basis as
described in AACC (2000) Method No 55-10.
Economic analysis
Simple partial budget analysis was employed as per CIMMYT procedure
(CIMMYT, 1988). When the treatments are non-significant, factors with
minimum variable cost were considered for recommendation. The average grain
[435]
yield was adjusted downward by 10 % to make it more representative with
average grain yield obtained from farmers’ field. Then, gross yield benefit was
obtained by multiplying the adjusted yield by the mean grain price (14 birr kg-1) at
Assela market during 2019 cropping season. Total variable cost (TVC) equals to
fertilizer cost Birr ha-1 plus fertilizer application and transport cost in Birr. Net
benefit (NB) was obtained by subtracting TVC from total benefit (NB). The price
of TSP was estimated from NPS. This could be extrapolated in terms of the price
of NPS. TSP has 46% P2O5 and NPS has 19% N and 38% P2O5 (a total of 57%) as
per Amare et al. (2005). So, the price of N and P from NPS could be
(19/57)*1520= 507 Birr and (38/57)*1520= 1013 Birr, respectively. Net benefit
was calculated by subtracting variable costs from gross yield sales. Finally,
Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) was determined by dividing marginal net benefit
by marginal cost and expressed as percentage. The minimum acceptable MRR is
100%.
Statistical analysis
Data collected from the experiment was subjected to analysis of variance using
Statistix software (Statistix 10, 2014). Significant difference among treatment
means was carried out using Tukeys test at 5% probability level (Gomez and
Gomez, 1984). Homogeneity of error variance was executed using Bartlett’s test
over locations and years.

The homogeneity of error variance using Bartlett’s test showed that Kulumsa and
Asasa sites were homogeneous across years so that they combined together.
However, this was not true in the case of Bekoji and therefore; combined over
years as per the procedure. Accordingly, effect of nitrogen and phosphorus
fertilizer rates on growth parameters (plant height and number of seeds/spike),
yield and yield components (grain yield, above ground biomass and harvest index)
and quality attribute (hectoliter weight) of bread wheat combined over Kulumsa
and Asasa across years was indicated in Table 1. Main effects of nitrogen and
phosphorus was significantly (P<0.05) different for above ground biomass and
hectoliter weight combined over years at Kulumsa and Asasa. But not significant
for the rest parameters studied. The highest (13,178 kg/ha) biomass was recorded
with the application of 161/92 kg NP/ha; whereas better hectoliter weight (80.4
kg/hl) was obtained from 115/138, 92/138 and 115/92 kg NP/ha. Though
inconsistent, higher fertilizer rate promoted better vegetative growth of the plant.
Thus, Arif et al. (2006) reported that highest biological yield of wheat was
recorded with combined use of NPK fertilizer. Better rainfall distribution with
proper fertilizer rate enhances yield and yield components such as biomass.
[436]
Table 1. Main effects of N and P fertilizers on growth parameters, yield, yield components and quality of bread wheat
combined over locations (Asasa and Kulumsa) and years (2017-2019) main cropping seasons
Treatment* Growth parameters Yield and yield components Quality trait

Plant height Number of Grain yield Above ground Harvest index Hectoliter
(cm) seeds per (kg/ha) biomass (%) weight (kg/hl)
spike (kg/ha)
Location
Kulumsa 97.6a 54.3 5031a 13226a 38.5b 79.6
Asasa 96.4b 53.2 4283b 10481b 40.7a 79.9
LSD (0.05) 1.08* ns 109.2* 338.3* 0.802* ns
Year
2017 99.8a 60.0a 4083c 11034b 37.5c 77.3c
2018 94.3c 49.0c 4668b 11194b 41.8a 80.2b
2019 96.9b 52.3b 5219a 13332a 39.7b 81.8a
LSD (0.05) 1.59 2.30* 159.9* 495.5 1.18* 0.54*
Nitrogen and Phosphorus fertilizer rate (kg/ha)
115/115 96.9 54.2 4593 11865ab 39.3 80.1ab
115/138 97.3 54.5 4844 12336ab 39.3 80.4a
115/69 100.1 53.3 4759 12181ab 39.7 80.2ab
115/92 96.6 53.3 4617 11517ab 40.4 80.4a
138/115 96.5 53.0 4633 11366b 41.0 80.0ab
138/138 96.1 52.3 4701 12054ab 39.4 79.7ab
138/69 96.5 52.7 4547 11201b 40.9 79.7ab
138/92 97.2 52.7 4558 11702ab 39.1 79.8ab
161/115 97.0 54.2 4789 12289ab 39.1 78.8ab
161/138 96.6 54.1 4403 11689ab 38.3 78.5b
161/69 97.3 55.4 4623 11312b 40.8 79.5ab
161/92 97.4 53.1 4941 13178a 38.4 79.6ab
92/115 96.8 54.3 4776 12137ab 39.4 80.2ab
92/138 97.1 55.4 4688 11572ab 41.0 80.4a
92/69 95.4 54.9 4439 11639ab 38.6 79.0ab
92/92 96.5 52.7 4600 11612ab 39.6 79.6ab
LSD (0.05) ns ns ns 1672.2* ns 1.83*
CV (%) 4.83 12.67 10.15 12.36 8.76 2.01
*Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05. ns = non-significant at P<0.05.
Table 2. The interaction effects of location (Asasa and Kulumsa) and years (2017-2019) on growth parameters, yield,
yield components and quality of bread wheat
Years Location
Plant height Number of seeds Grain yield Above ground Harvest Hectoliter
(cm) per spike (kg/ha) biomass (kg/ha) index (%) weight (kg/hl)
Kulumsa
2017 99.5ab 63.2a 4746b 13040b 36.9c 76.6d
2018 96.0c 50.1c 4549b 11260c 40.5b 80.4b
2019 97.2bc 49.7c 5800a 15378a 38.2c 81.7a
Asasa
2017 100.0a 56.8b 3421c 9028d 38.0c 77.9c
2018 92.6d 47.9c 4788b 11128c 43.1a 79.9b
2019 96.5c 54.8b 4638b 11285c 41.1b 81.9a
*Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05. ns = non-significant at P<0.05.*
significant at P<0.05.
[437]
The interaction effect of location and year was significantly (P<0.05) different for
plant height (100 cm) in 2017, harvest index (43.1%) in 2018 and hectoliter
weight (81.9 kg/hl) in 2019 at Asasa; while number of seeds/spike (63.2) in 2017,
grain yield (5800 kg/ha) in 2019, biomass (15,378 kg/ha) in 2019 at Kulumsa in
2019 (Table 2). Better grain yield in 2019 could be the performance of improved
crop varieties in response to the amount of better rainfall received (Fig.2) and
fertilizer rate. Likewise, increased uptake of applied nutrient resulted in
partitioning of dry matter to the grain yield (Gooding and Davies, 1997). Despite
the amount of fertilizers applied, the amount of rainfall received determined the
final harvest along years and locations. The results were supported with weather
data (rainfall) across locations and years. Across locations, Bekoji received good
amount of rainfall followed by Kulumsa and Asasa. The lower (355 mm at Asasa,
Fig.1a), medium (557mm at Kulumsa, Fig.1b) and the higher (787 mm at Bekoji,
Fig.1c) amount of rainfall were received in 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively.
200
a Asasa 2017
Asasa 2018
150
Rainfall (mm)
Asasa 2019
100
50
250
Kulumsa 2017
200 b
Rainfall (mm)
Kulumsa 2018
150 Kulumsa 2019
100
50
[438]
400
Rainfall (mm) Bekoji 2017
300 c Bekoji 2018
Bekoji 2019
200
100
0
Fig.1 (a-c). Rainfall distribution pattern at the study sites (Asasa, Kulumsa and Bekoji) during the cropping seasons
On the other hand, the year effect was significantly (P<0.05) different for grain
yield, biomass, hectoliter weight and number of seeds per spike at Bekoji (Table
3). Higher and lower grain yield obtained was 3473 kg/ha in 2017 to 4676 kg/ha in
2018, respectively. Thus, the yield advantage could be related to inherent genetic
potential of the varieties, amount of rainfall received and the environmental effect.
Table 3. Main effect of year and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer rate on growth parameters, yield and yield components
and quality aspects of bread wheat in Bekoji area combined over 2017-2019 main growing seasons
Treatment* Grain yield Biomass Harvest Hectoliter weight Plant height Number of
(kg/ha) (kg/ha) index (%) (kg/hl) (cm) seeds/spike
Year
2017 3473c 8934b 39.0c 83.0b 100 56a
2018 4676a 10428a 45.0a 83.7a 99 48b
2019 3767b 9273b 40.8b 76.6c 100 55a
LSD (0.05) 176.97* 519.27* 1.42* 1.32* ns 2.22*
Nitrogen and Phosphorus (kg/ha)
115/115 3943 9561 41.1 81.0 100 55
115/138 3815 9104 41.4 80.8 100 55
115/69 4160 9835 42.3 81.4 100 53
115/92 3984 9690 41.0 81.0 99 54
138/115 3932 9671 40.5 81.0 100 51
138/138 4132 10107 40.8 81.1 100 51
138/69 4060 9631 42.3 81.2 99 52
138/92 4052 9574 42.2 81.2 100 53
161/115 4051 9577 42.2 81.6 100 55
161/138 4089 9619 42.4 81.1 101 52
161/69 4061 9732 41.8 81.3 100 53
161/92 4010 9446 42.3 81.1 102 53
92/115 3894 9104 42.8 81.1 99 51
92/138 3868 9476 41.0 80.9 100 50
92/69 3664 9171 40.4 80.7 98 52
92/92 3837 9427 40.6 81.3 99 53
LSD (0.05) ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 9.16 11.19 7.03 1.32 2.09 8.65
*Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05. ns = non-significant at P<0.05.*
significant at P<0.05.
[439]
Economic analysis
The partial budget analysis was performed as per CIMMYT (1988) across the
three years as shown in table 4 and 5. A net benefit of 49,985 ETB with MRR of
231 % attained at 92/69 kg NP/ha with acceptable and affordable cost of inputs to
the farmers at Asasa and Kulumsa (table 4) for variety Wane. Similarly, a net
benefit of 40,220 ETB with MRR of 256 % attained at Bekoji with 92/69 kg
NP/ha (table 5) for variety Lemu.
Table 4. Partial budget analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer combined over Kulumsa and Asasa on bread wheat
Fertilizer rate* Grain yield Adjusted grain yield Gross benefit TCV (birr/ha) Net benefit MRR
(NP/kg/ha) (kg/ha) (downward 10%) (birr/ha) (birr/ha) (%)
92/69 4439 3995 55931 5946 49985
92/92 4600 4140 57960 6559 51401 231
115/69 4759 4283 59963 6846 53117 598
92/115 4776 4298 60178 7173 53005 D
115/92 4617 4155 58174 7459 50715 D
138/69 4547 4092 57292 7746 49546 D
115/138 4844 4360 61034 8685 52349 299
92/138 4688 4219 59069 7785 51284 D
115/115 4593 4134 57872 8073 49799 D
138/92 4558 4102 57431 8359 49072 D
161/69 4623 4161 58250 8646 49604 185
138/115 4633 4170 58376 8973 49403 D
161/92 4941 4447 62257 9259 52998 1257
138/138 4701 4231 59233 9585 49648 D
161/115 4789 4310 60341 9873 50468 285
161/138 4403 3963 55478 10485 44993 D
*TCV=Total costs that vary; MRR=Marginal Rate of Return; ETB=Ethiopian Birr D=Dominated treatments (negative
values)
Table 5. Partial budget analysis of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer on bread wheat at Bekoji
Fertilizer rate Grain yield Adjusted grain yield Gross benefit TCV Net benefit MRR
(NP/kg/ha) (kg/ha) (downward 10%) (birr/ha) (birr/ha) (birr/ha) (%)
92/69 3664 3298 46166 5946 40220
92/92 3837 3453 48346 6559 41787 256
115/69 4160 3744 52416 6846 45570 1318
92/115 3894 3505 49064 7173 41891 D
115/92 3984 3586 50198 7459 42739 297
138/69 4060 3654 51156 7746 43410 234
92/138 3868 3481 48737 7785 40952 D
115/115 3943 3549 49682 8073 41609 228
138/92 4052 3647 51055 8359 42696 380
115/138 3815 3434 48069 8685 39384 D
161/69 4061 3655 51169 8646 42523 D
138/115 3932 3539 49543 8973 40570 D
161/92 4010 3609 50526 9259 41267 244
138/138 4132 3719 52063 9585 42478 372
161/115 4051 3646 51043 9873 41170 D
161/138 4089 3680 51521 10485 41036 D
TCV=Total costs that vary; MRR=Marginal Rate of Return; ETB=Ethiopian Birr D=Dominated treatments (negative
values)
[440]
Better yield is recorded with improved varieties, good crop management practices
and environment. Arsi Bale area is notable for bread wheat production with good
record of extension services in the country. However, monoculture of wheat
resulted in decrease in soil fertility, development of herbicide resistant weeds and
rust diseases. From the agronomy perspective, recommendations of fertilizer were
forwarded in the past and still continued to the present. For instance, earlier
reports of Amanuel and Tanner (1991) recommended 36 - 46 kg N-P2O5/ha for
bread wheat production in rotation with different break crops in clay loam soils of
Kulumsa. Dawit et al. (2015) recommended 92-46 (N-P2O5) kg/ha for bread wheat
production in the highland vertisols of Arsi zone. Dereje et al. (2019) reported that
46-92 kg N ha-1 was feasible for bread wheat production based on better grain
quality, nitrogen use efficiency and nitrogen harvest index at Kulumsa and Asasa
on station for variety Wane and for variety Lemu at Bekoji on farm conditions.

Soil fertility is the key factor for crop production and productivity. The prime
objective of this experiment was to evaluate and prove the higher fertilizer
recommendations of ATA are agronomicaly efficient and economically profitable
in the experimental sites. The interaction of years and locations was significant on
bread wheat yield and yield components, and quality attribute irrespective of the
higher amount of N and P fertilizer applied. The amount of rainfall received
determined the final yield obtained. This experiment proved that higher rate of
fertilizer in the absence of better rainfall distribution and good agricultural
practices is found to be disadvantageous. Therefore, 92N/69 P kg/ha (200 kg/ha
nitrogen in the form of urea with split application and 182 kg/ha NPS applied as
basal) were found to be feasible for variety Wane at Kulumsa and Asasa, and for
variety Lemu at Bekoji under good agricultural practices to attain better and stable
yield at all locations and similar agro ecologies in the country. Nevertheless,
further demonstration is required for large scale recommendation.
References
AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists), 1983. Approved Methods of
American Association of Cereal Chemists, Inc., St.Paul, MN, U.S.A.
Amanuel Gorfu and D.G. Tanner. 1991. The effect of crop rotation in two wheat
production zones of southeastern Ethiopia. pp. 491-496. In: Saunders, D.A.
(ed.), Wheat for the Non-traditional Warm Areas. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Amare Ghizaw, C.C. Du Preez and Taye Bekele. 2005. Effect of phosphorus
fertilizer on grain yield and yield components of field pea (Pisum sativum L.)
cultivars. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources 7 (1):1-21.
[441]
Arif M. and Chohan M. A., Ali S., Gul R. and Khan S. 2006. Response of wheat
to foliar application of nutrients. Journal of Agriculture and Biological
Science 1:30-34.
CIMMYT. 1988. From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: An
Economics training manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.
CSA (Central Statistics Agency). 2020. Report on Area and Production of Major
Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season): Agricultural Sample
Survey. Vol.1, Statistical bulletin 586, CSA, April 2018, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Dawit Habte, Kassu Tadesse, Wubengeda Admasu, Tadesse Desalegn and Asrat
Mekonen.2015.Agronomic and economic evaluation of the N and P response
of bread wheat grown in the moist and humid midhighland vertisols areas of
Arsi zone, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research 10(3): 89-99.
Dereje Dobocha, Girma Abera and Wogayehu Worku. 2019. Grain quality and
nitrogen use efficiency of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties in
response to nitrogen fertilizer in Arsi highlands, southeastern Ethiopia.
African Journal of Agricultural Research 14 (32): 1544-1552. doi:
10.5897/AJAR2019.14032.
FAOSTAT (FAO Statistical Data bases) 2014. http://faostat.fao.org/
site/339/default.aspx.
Gomez K.A. and Gomez A.A. 1984. Statistical analysis for agricultural research.
John Wiley and Sons Inc. pp.120-155.
Gooding, M.J. and Davies, W.P. 1997. Wheat Production and Utilization. CAB
International, Wallingford, UK.
Gorfu A., A. Taa, D.G. Tanner and W. Mwangi. 1991. On-Farm Research To
Derive Fertilizer Recommendations For Small-Scale Bread Wheat
Production: Methodological Issues and Technical Results. Research Report
No. 14. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
IUSS Working Group WRB. 2014. World reference base for soil resources.
International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating
Legends for Soil. Maps World Soil Resources Reports no. 106. FAO, Rome.
Mann M. and Warner J. 2017. Ethiopian wheat yield and yield gap estimation: a spatially
explicit small area integrated data approach. Field Crops Research 201: 60–74.
Murphy H. 1959. A report on the fertility status of some soils of Ethiopia. Expt.
Station Bull 1.
Nandwa S.M. and Bekunda M.A. 1998. Research on nutrient flows and balances
in East and Southern Africa: state-of-the-art. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 71:5-18.
Statistix 10.0. 2014. Analytical Software. Copyrights @1985-2013.
Tanner D.G.1991.Wheat Agronomy Research in Ethiopia. In: Hailu Gebre-
Mariam, Tanner, D.G. and Mengistu Hulluka, eds. 1991. Wheat Research in
Ethiopia: A historical perspective, Addis Ababa: IAR/CIMMYT.
[442]
Tarekegne A., D.G. Tanner, A. Gorfu, T. Geleto, and Z. Yilma. 1997. The Effect
of Several Crop Management Factors on Bread Wheat Yields in the Ethiopian
Highlands. African Crop Science Journal 5:161-174.
Tigist Tesfaye, Fanuel Laekemariam, and Abera Habte. 2021. Response of Bread
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to Potassium (K) and Blended NPS Fertilizer
Rates in the Nitisols of Southern Ethiopia.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8868940.
[443]
Evaluation of Alternative Break Crops in Rotation
with Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)
in South-Eastern Ethiopia
Wogayehu Worku1*, Dereje Dobocha1, Almaz Admasu1, Fasil Shimeles1,
Zenebe Mulatu1, and Debela Bekele1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. Box 489, Kulumsa, Ethiopia; E-mail: wogayehuworku53@gmail.com
Abstract
Crop rotation could be a possible intervention to resolve multifaceted problems of
monoculture. Thus, this study was executed for three consecutive years from 2017-
2019 main cropping seasons at Kulumsa, Bekoji and Asasa to evaluate advantage of
alternative break crops on yield and yield components of the succeeding wheat and
its effect on soil fertility maintenance in the rotation scheme. The experiment was
laid out in randomized block design with five replications. The treatment include:
wheat-sweet lupin-wheat-wheat-wheat in year one (2017), sweet lupin-wheat-wheat-
faba bean-Ethiopian mustard in year two (2018) and wheat-wheat-wheat-wheat-
wheat in the third year (2019). Therefore, a temporary recommendation of sweet
lupin-wheat-wheat (3613-3894-4197 kg/ha) followed by wheat-faba bean-wheat
(2946-2339-4003 kg/ha) with proper agronomic practices could be feasible in the
tested areas.
Introduction
Sustainability of crop production could be based upon efficient use of growth
resources coupled with environmentally friendly agricultural technologies. Cereal
monoculture in the wheat belt of Ethiopia resulted in the development of resistant
pests, especially weeds and diseases. Crop rotation could be a possible
intervention to minimize this problem. Accordingly, several crop rotation
experiments were conducted around the country to select suitable crops and
cropping sequence with different objectives (maximize yield, disease
management, weed control, soil fertility management …). Long year crop rotation
trials were conducted in south eastern Ethiopia using different crops and
sequences. Faba bean (Vicia faba L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), oat (Avena
sativum L.) and vicia (Vicia dasycarpa Ten.) forage mixture were considered as a
break/precursor crops. The result showed that most profitable cropping sequence
was faba bean grown in a 3 year cycle with 2 crops of wheat (Amanuel et al.,
1994). Thus, searching for promising and alternative break crops for wheat based
rotation could increase productivity and maximize profit. For instance, GIC-Giz-
Ethiopia used sour lupin as a cover crop in different tillage systems at Kulumsa
on-station site. They found that lupin is best suited as cover crop to increase yield
and fertility status of the soil. Traditionally, the sour lupin is used for different
[445]
purposes such as alcoholic beverage in northern Ethiopia, around Gojam (named
as Gibto).The release of sweet lupin varieties could be considered as source of
income and diet to resource poor farmers besides to increased soil fertility.
Inaddition to human food and rotational crop for soil fertility maintenance, it
could also be used as additional source of livestock feed (Yenesew et al., 2015).
Adaptaion trial around Bekoji showed that sweet lupin seems an option in
tolerating acidity where faba bean is found susceptible. Thus, the objectives of this
study was to evaluate alternative break crops on yield and yield components of the
succeeding wheat and soil fertility maintenance in the rotation scheme.

The experiment was conducted under rain fed condition in southeastern Ethiopia
(Kulumsa, Bekoji and Asasa) for three consecutive years (2017-2019). However,
due to change of location at Kulumsa, the experiment will be completed in 2020.
The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with five replications in
each site. The treatment include: wheat-sweet lupin-wheat-wheat-wheat in year
one (2017), sweet lupin-wheat-wheat-faba bean-Ethiopian mustard in year two
(2018) and wheat-wheat-wheat-wheat-wheat in the third year (2019). The
sequence of the crops in each year indicates the replication. The experiment was
conducted in permanent plots keeping the cropping sequence. Bread wheat
variety, King bird was used in the experiment. Faba bean (Degaga) and Ethiopian
mustard (Yellow Dodola variety) was used as a control. The plots were plowed as
per the recommended. The seeds were drilled by hand at light depth. The plot size
was 10.4 m2 (4 m long and 2.6 m wide with 20 cm row spacing) and with net
harvestable area of 10.4 m2 (13 central rows). The seed was drilled by hand at light
depth. The distance between plots was 1m respectively. The rest agronomic
practices (weeding, harvesting and threshing) was done as per the
recommendations.

Growth, yield, yield components and quality parameters
It included plant height, 1000-kernel weight, total above-ground biomass, grain
yield and others yield components. Randomly selected 10 plants per plot were
used to sample agronomic parameters. Harvest index was determined as the ratio
of grain yield to the total above ground mass multiplied by 100. Hectoliter or test
weight (kghl-1) was determined as the mass of grain to be contained on a standard
hectoliter apparatus on dockage free basis as described in AACC (2000)
Method No 55-10. Grain yield (kgha-1): at 12.5% moisture content from the
central rows. Grain yield (adjusted at 12.5 % moisture content) = Grain yield *
[446]
( ) Grain moisture contents was determined as per the standard procedure
and yield was adjusted to 12.5% moisture basis for wheat, 7% for rapeseed, and
10% for faba bean and sweet lupin.

Data collected from this experiment was subjected to analysis of variance using
Statistix software (Statistix 10, 2014). Mean separation was carried out using least
significant difference test at 5% level.

Effect of rotational crops in wheat based rotations in 2017 main cropping seasons
at Kulumsa, Bekoji and Asasa areas showed that grain yield, above ground
biomass and harvest index were not affected by neither locations nor rotational
crops (Table 1). However, hectoliter weight (HLW) was significantly (P<0.05)
affected by location effect. Hectoliter weight as quality indicating parameter, the
difference among locations might be associated with genetic potential of the
variety with respect to environmental effect.
Table 1. Effect of rotational crops on yield and yield components of bread wheat based rotations combined over locations
in 2017 main cropping seasons at Kulumsa, Bekoji and Asasa areas
Treatment Grain yield Above ground Harvest Hectoliter
(kg/ha) biomass (kg/ha) index (%) weight (kghl-1)
Location
Kulumsa 3756 8886 42.2 76.6a
Bekoji 3728 9263 37.4 43.9b
Asasa 3475 8810 42.5 47.6b
LSD ns s ns 10.9*
Rotational crops
Wheat 4119 9401 43.9 53.9
Wheat 2946 7678 38.9 59.2
Sweet lupin 3613 9159 40.1 63.0
Wheat 3737 9349 40.1 52.5
Wheat 3850 9344 40.5 51.8
LSD ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 10.86 14.74 10.34 13.32
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05.
Though kingbird is rust resistant and early maturing wheat variety released for low
and mid altitude area like Asasa and Kulumsa, its performance in the highland
areas such as Bekoji showed its wide agro ecological adaptation. Previous field
history of the trial site was cereal. Thus, yield increase could be expected in the
subsequent rotational crops and years. Nevertheless, at Kulumsa, the permanent
trial site was changed after 2018, so that the experiment was reinitiated in another
site of the center to be completed in 2020. Sweet lupin is an edible and moderately
[447]
resistant to acidic pH, which might be used interchangeably with faba bean in
rotation, and also as source of protein for resource poor farmers. Though the pH
range in crop production lies between 4.7 to 7.5, Bekoji is noted for its acidic pH.
The inclusion of sweet lupin contributed to modify the soil pH (from 4.79 before
planting to 5.33 after harvesting) (Table 2). This might be possibly due to proper
distribution of rainfall at optimum condition and thereby decomposition of crop
residues helps availability of nutrients and survival of beneficial microorganisms
to amend the pH and increase in P, N, OC, and OM in the area. Though this trend
was observed in wheat planted field, the same facts could be considered as an
attributing factor. In fact, the result of 2018 and 2019 main cropping season soil
analysis could be considered for further conclusion.
Table 2. Physico-chemical analysis of the soil at Bekoji substation in 2017 cropping season
Before planting
Crops pH P N OC OM
Wheat 4.79 0.58 0.23 2.44 4.21
Sweet lupin 4.79 0.58 0.23 2.44 4.21
After harvesting
Wheat 5.20 1.09 0.22 1.95 3.36
Sweet lupin 5.33 2.13 0.24 2.88 4.97
N.B: P=available p (ppm) N=total nitrogen (%) OC=Organic carbon (%) OM=Organic matter (%)
The rotational crops after 2017 main cropping seasons at Bekoji and Asasa
indicated variable responses with respect to the control and main rotational crops
in 2018. Grain yield, above ground biomass and harvest index were not
significantly different for rotational crops and year effect (Table 2). However,
plant height was significant (P<0.05) to rotational crops. Ethiopian mustard (EM)
is a heavy nutrient feeder oil crop that can suppress weeds and improve soil
structure for its deep rooting nature and have longer decomposition time. Higher
plant height in EM related due to its inherent genetic potential to use growth
resources. Faba bean and sweet lupin are known nitrogen fixer for subsequent
crops. However, faba bean is susceptible to acidity unless otherwise sown in
treated soil.
[448]
Table 3. Effect of rotational crops on yield and yield components of bread wheat based rotations
combined over locations in 2018 main cropping seasons at Bekoji and Asasa areas
Above
Plant
Grain yield ground Harvest
Treatment height
(kg/ha) biomass index (%)
(cm)
(kg/ha)
Location
Bekoji 2881 6688 42.3 102.6
Asasa 2845 6879 40.7 106.4
LSD ns ns ns ns
Rotational crops
Ethi. Mustard 1852 5433 33.2 175.5a
Faba bean 2339 5221 44.8 91.0b
Wheat 3894 8148 48.2 91.5b
Wheat 4052 8951 45.3 91.5b
Sweet lupin 2179 6568 36.1 73.0b
LSD ns ns ns 41.7*
CV (%) 22.38 33.26 16.21 14.37
Although non-significant, combined analysis of variance revealed that wheat grain

yield after wheat and wheat after sweet lupin were equivalent. Similarly, the
rotational crops was non-significant for grain yield, above ground biomass,
harvest index, thousand kernel weight, hectoliter weight and number of seeds per
kernel in 2019 at Bekoji and Asasa (table 4). However, plant height was
significantly (P<0.05) affected by both rotational crops and location effect.
Despite the result was non-significant, wheat-faba bean-wheat (2946-2339-4003
kg/ha), sweet lupin-wheat-wheat (3613-3894-4197 kg/ha) followed by wheat-
wheat-wheat (3737-4052-3568) resulted in comparatively good yield. Actually,
nitosols of Bekoji is known for its acidity and therefore looking for alternative and
multipurpose rotational crop such as sweet lupin is advantageous for its
nutritional, feed and food for resource poor farmers. Nevertheless, inclusion of
soil and economic analysis in the future will be considered for further
recommendation.
[449]
Table 4. Effect of rotational crops on yield and yield components of bread wheat based rotations combined over locations
in 2019 main cropping seasons at Bekoji and Asasa areas
Treatment Grain yield Above Harvest Thousand Hectoliter Plant # Seed/

(kg/ha) ground index (%) kernel weight height spike
biomass weight (g) (kghl-1) (cm)
(kg/ha)
Location
Bekoji 3009b 7723b 39.2 37.5a 75.8 101.6a 47.4
Asasa 4353a 13010a 33.4 33.4b 77.0 97.6b 48.6
LSD 1338.8* 3250.5* ns 2.741* ns 2.32* ns
Rotational crops
Wheat 3525 10355 35.5 34.9 76.0 105.0a 47.0
Wheat 4003 11518 35.8 35.9 77.0 98.5b 49.0
Wheat 4197 11274 36.9 37.4 77.5 99.0b 41.0
Wheat 3568 10276 35.7 34.4 76.5 98.5b 49.0
Wheat 3113 8411 37.6 34.7 75.0 97.0b 54.0
LSD ns ns ns ns ns 3.67* ns
CV (%) 20.71 17.86 12.81 4.41 1.52 1.33 9.68

From this study, sweet lupin-wheat-wheat followed by wheat-faba bean-wheat
with proper agronomic packages could be forwarded as a temporary
recommendation in the tested area and in areas with similar agro ecology.
References
Amanuel Gorfu, Tanner, D.G., Asefa Taa and Duga Debele. 1994. Observations on wheat
and barley based cropping sequence trials conducted for eight years in southeastern
Ethiopia. In: Developing Sustainable Wheat Production Systems. Tanner, D.G.
(Ed.), pp. 261-280. CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Yenesew Abebe, Abel Ahmed, Molla Tafere, Shiferaw Dagnew, Yihenew G.Selassie,
Likawent Yeheyis, Argaw Amane and Dessalegn Molla. 2015. Best fit practice
manual for sweet lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) production. BDU-CASCAPE
working paper 11.
Statistix 10.0. 2014. Analytical Software.
[450]
Determination of Appropriate Rate and Timing of
N Application to Improve the Productivity of Malt
Barley in South Eastern Ethiopia
Wogayehu Worku1*, Dereje Dobocha1, Zenebe Mulatu1,
Fasil Shimeles1, Debela Bekele1 and Almaz Admasu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. Box 489, Kulumsa, Ethiopia; E-mail: wogayehuworku53@gmail.com.
Abstract
Malt barley is currently gaining popularity in Ethiopia’s mid to highland areas of
Ethiopia as a source of malt for breweries. The experiment was conducted at Kofele
research station for three consecutive years from 2017 to 2019 main cropping
seasons to determine the appropriate rate and timing of N fertilizer application on
yield and quality of malt barley in the West Arsi Zone, south eastern Ethiopia. The
treatments were arranged in a split plot design with five N rates (0, 23, 46, 69, 92 kg
N/ha) placed as the main plots and three N application timings (T1= ½ at planting +
½ at tillering, T2 = 1/3 at planting + 2/3 at tillering, and T3= all at planting) as sub-
plots with three replications. Except biomass and hectoliter weight in 2019, all
parameters measured were not significantly affected by the applied N rate and
timings of application. In the tested area, application of 46 N kg/ha with 1/3 at
planting and the remaining 2/3 at tillering had a net benefit of 64,640 Birr with
marginal rate of return of 604%. However, further on farm verification is required
for large scale recommendations under good agricultural practices.
Introduction
Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) has two major species: food and malt barley, which
are produced to satisfy the food security and agro industry demands in Ethiopia.
Malt barley (Hordeum spp.) is currently gaining importance as a source of malt for
breweries in the mid to highland areas of Ethiopia. The Arsi and West Arsi zones
are one of the potential malt barley producing areas in the country, where primary
cooperatives and unions are established and supply the Assela malt factory along
the value chains. According to the CSA (2020) report, barley ranks 5th next to
maize, tef, sorghum and wheat. In the same report, about 20.5 million tons were
produced on 0.95 million ha of land that covers 7.39% of the area and 6.7% of the
production of the total cereal crops in Ethiopia. This accounts for about 3.9
million smallholder farmers who are engaged in malt barley production with an
average productivity of 2.5 t/ha. Thus, proper soil fertility and integrated
agricultural practices are pertinent to increased production and productivity.
Nitrogen is the vital nutrient required for plant growth and development. Its
contribution to grain yield and biomass yield productivity is well known. Studies
indicated that nitrogen is deficient in most Ethiopian highland soils (Taye et al.,
[451]
2002). Among the agronomic factors, quantity and time of fertilizer application
(especially N) has an implication in protein content of the malt that affects the
quality of the end product, beer. However, obtaining a high N-use efficiency
generally requires splitting the N between a starter-band application and a
side/top-dress application. Delaying nitrogen application for 4 to 6 weeks after
planting will avoid early season nitrogen losses by leaching and volatilization and
provide available fertilizer nitrogen to the crop when it needs it most. The timing
of side/top-dress nitrogen applications is critical. Inadequate supplies of nitrogen
more often limit crop yields than deficiencies of other essential nutrients. This is
because losses of applied nitrogen can occur during the growing season through
leaching, denitrification, or volatilization. More split in the time of N application
helps to define its use efficiency under different agro-ecological domains and will
maximize the harvestable yield. Thus, it is important to determine plant nitrogen
requirements and to use effective management practices to minimize losses of
applied nitrogen. Moreover, the quantity of applied nitrogen has an impact on
malting quality for breweries. Thus, the objective of this project was to determine
the appropriate rate and time of N fertilizer for the yield and quality of malt barley
in the west Arsi zone of Southeastern Ethiopia.

The experiment was conducted at Kofele research substation of Kulumsa
Agricultural Research Center for three consecutive years from 2017 to 2019 main
cropping seasons. Kofele is located in the West Arsi Zone of the Oromia Region,
having a latitude of 7°00′N 38°45′E and longitude of 7.000°N 38.750°E with an
elevation of 2695 meters above sea level. It has a heavy clay soil (vertisol) with a
soil pH of 5.2, with warm-temperate humid agro ecology and with minimum and
maximum temperature of 7.1 and 18 °C, respectively. The experiment was
arranged in a split plot design with five rates of N (0, 23, 46, 69, 92 kg N/ha)
placed as the main plots and three N application timings (T1= ½ at planting + ½ at
tillering, T2 = 1/3 at planting + 2/3 at tillering, and T3= all at planting) as sub-plots
with three replications. Urea and TSP (Triple super phosphate, 100 kg/ha rate)
were used as N and P sources, respectively. TSP was applied as basal at planting.
The malt barley variety, Ibon was used at a seed rate of 125 kg/ha at planting. The
seed was drilled by hand at a light depth. The plot size was 10.4 m 2 (4 m long and
2.6 m wide with 20 cm row spacing), and with a net harvestable area of 6 m2 (10
central rows). The distance between plots and replications was 1 m and 1.5 m,
respectively. All the other agronomic practices (weeding, harvesting and
threshing) were done as per the recommendations.

The various variables, such as grain yield and its components, above-ground
biomass and harvest index, as well as hectoliter weight as a quality parameter,
[452]
were included in the report. Data collected was subjected to ANOVA and general
linear model procedure of SAS 9.0 software (SAS Institute, 2002). Orthogonal
polynomial contrasts’ was also tested. Homogeneity in error variance among years
was assessed by using Bartlett’s test.
Economic analysis
Simple partial budget analysis was employed as per the procedure outlined by
CIMMYT (CIMMYT, 1988). When the treatments are non-significant, factors
with minimum variable cost were considered for recommendation. The average
grain yield was adjusted downward by 10 % to make it more representative with
average grain yield obtained from farmers’ field. Total variable cost (TVC) equals
to fertilizer cost Birr ha-1 plus fertilizer application and transport cost in Birr. Net
benefit (NB) was obtained by subtracting TVC from total benefit (NB). The price
of TSP was estimated from NPS. This could be extrapolated in terms of the price
of NPS. TSP has 46% P2O5 and NPS has 19% N and 38% P2O5 (a total of 57%) as
per Amare et al. (2005). So, the price of N and P from NPS could be
(19/57)*1520= 507 Birr and (38/57)*1520= 1013 Birr, respectively. The labor
cost to apply fertilizer was estimated 100 Ethiopian Birr/ha/day. The cost of urea
fertilizer was 1800 Birr/q. Net benefit was calculated by subtracting variable costs
from gross yield sales. Finally, marginal rate of return (MRR) was determined by
dividing marginal net benefit by the marginal cost and expressed as percentage.

The homogeneity of variance test showed that the three year (2017-2019) data was
heterogeneous. Thus, a separate analysis over the three years was conducted
(Table 1). Though not indicated, orthogonal polynomial contrasts’ was used to
partition the sum of squares into respective components (linear, quadratic, cubic
and quartic) across years. Thus, for all of the years and measured parameters, the
orthogonal contrast was non-significant. Instead, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was used to quantify the result supported by economic analysis as a final decision.
Accordingly, ANOVA on grain yield, biomass and harvest index were not
significantly (P>0.05) affected by nitrogen rate and nitrogen application timings
nor their interaction in 2017 and 2018 (Table 1). This implies that neither nitrogen
application nor timings of nitrogen application was found to be relevant. On the
other hand, grain yield, biomass and harvest index were significantly (P>0.05)
different for main effects of nitrogen rate and nitrogen application timings, but not
for their interaction in 2019. Despite similar variety used, the difference in grain
yield over the tested years could be related to the better rainfall distribution pattern
together with the efficient use of fertilizer in the tested area. However, hectoliter
weight was significantly (P<0.05) different for the interaction of nitrogen rate and
nitrogen application timings in the 2017 and 2018 main cropping seasons (Table
2). A better hectoliter weight of 67.3 kg/hl was recorded at 23 kg N/ha with N
[453]
application timings of 1/2 at planting and 1/2 at tillering in both years. However,
the economic analysis suggested 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at tillering in grain yield.
The 1/3 of urea and the remaining N from NPS at planting could favor seedling
growth and development; and the later 2/3 application of N at tillering promote the
remaining cycle of crop growth and assures quality and maintain proper protein
content of the crop for the targeted beer making. Kofele research substation has
vertisol with good rainfall distribution pattern that favors crop growth and
development. The area has a bimodal rainfall pattern whereby leaching of
fertilizer is expected such as nitrogen. Thus, split nitrogen application in such area
avoids the loss and maintains the production and expected quality attributes for
beer industry with good agricultural practices. Legesse et al. (2018) recommended
75 kg ha-1 seed rate and 46 kg nitrogen ha-1 for higher grain yield and best quality
of malt barley on Nitisols of West Shoa under rainfed conditions. Nitrogen rate
and variety studies were conducted on malt barley at Kulumsa and Bekoji area.
Ejigu et al. (2015) reported that malt barley varieties Miscal-21 at 30 and Beka at
50 kg N ha-1 considered as potential recommendation around Kulumsa area.
Similarly, Fasil et al. (2019) mentioned that 57.5 kg N ha-1 with Ibon variety was
found to be better in terms of agronomic performance and economic feasibility for
malt barley production around Bekoji area. The area is known for long term cereal
based monoculture. Thus, earlier study of Assefa et al. (1997) on barley-based
cropping sequences with N and P fertilizer applications recommended that barley
grain yield was significantly affected by crop rotation, fertilizer P, and by rotation
by P interaction. Recently, Kassu et al. (2021) reported that use of break crops
other than barley with increasing N application rate from 18 to 54 kg ha-1 have
been recommended to boost malting barley yield with acceptable protein content
at Kofele and Chole areas of West Arsi. Similar to our study, Zenebe (2019)
affirmed that split application of N fertilizer 1/3 at planting and 2/3 at tillering
with a seed rate of 75 kg ha-1 for variety Ibon 174/03 production was found to be
economically beneficial in the nitosoils of Bekoji area. Thus, the result of the
current study could augment the findings all the aforementioned works at Kofele
area.
[454]
Table 1. Main effects of nitrogen rate and N application timings on yield, yield components and quality aspects of malt
barley at Kofele from 2017 to 2019
Treatment Grain yield (kg/ha) Biomass yield (kg/ha) Harvest index (%) Hectoliter
weight
(kghl-1)
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019 2019
Nitrogen rate (kg/ha)
0 1421 2790 2632b 2027 4984 6648b 42.9 42.1 41.2 55.6b
23 2093 3297 5427a 4991 7930 12717a 43.0 43.0 42.4 64.7a
46 1849 2855 5225a 4489 6990 12125a 42.3 42.2 42.9 65.0a
69 2148 3185 4886a 5098 7574 12105a 42.2 41.6 40.5 65.3a
92 2237 3173 5097a 5029 8125 12060a 44.6 40.6 42.1 64.9a
LSD (0.05) ns ns 1244* ns ns 1918* ns ns ns 2.01*
Nitrogen application timings
1/2 at P and 1/2 2094 3190 5270 4797 7344 12503 43.9 43.8 42.0 64.8
at T
1/3 at P and 2/3 2059 3107 5123 4941 7885 11979 42.1 40.4 42.6 65.1
at T
All at Planting 2092 3085 5084 4967 7736 12273 43.1 41.3 41.4 65.1
LSD (0.05) ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 8.86 9.56 9.87 11.91 14.68 8.08 7.90 9.05 10.07 1.57
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05, ns= non-significant
Table 2. Interaction effect of nitrogen rate and nitrogen application timings on hectoliter weight of malt barley in 2017 and
2018 main cropping season
2017
Nitrogen application time Nitrogen rate (kg/ha)
23 46 69 92
1/2 at P and 1/2 at T 67.30a 64.7ab 63.5b 63.0b
1/3 at P and 2/3 at T 63.7ab 64.2ab 63.9ab 63.6ab
All at Planting 62.4b 64.6ab 64.0ab 63.7ab
LSD (0.05) 3.751
CV (%) 2.07
2018
Nitrogen application time Nitrogen rate (kg/ha)
23 46 69 92
1/2 at P and 1/2 at T 67.30a 64.7ab 63.7ab 62.7b
1/3 at P and 2/3 at T 64.0ab 64.3ab 63.7ab 64.0ab
All at Planting 62.3b 64.7ab 63.7ab 64.0ab
LSD (0.05) 3.907
CV (%) 2.10
1/2 at P and 1/2 at T=50% at planting and 50% at tillering; 1/3 at P and 2/3 at T=33% at planting and the remaining 1/2
at P and 1/2 at T=50% at planting and 50% at tillering; 1/3 at P and 2/3 at T=33% at planting and the remaining 67% at
tillering. Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05.
[455]
The interaction of N rate and application timings indicated that better hectoliter
weight (HLW) was achieved at 23 kg N/ha with 1/2 at planting + 1/2 at tillering in
both 2017 and 2018 main cropping seasons (table 2). However, HLW was better
in 2019 (table 1) as compared to the two previous years. This could be associated
with the amount of rainfall received during that year. Despite the agronomic
recommendations, the economic analysis suggested application of 46 kg N/ha with
application time of 1/3 at planting and the remaining 2/3 at tillering with in the
study area (table 3). HLW could serve as one quality indicating trait in malt barley
production to be used in beer industry. Thus, split application of N with
appropriate time favors crop growth and development besides to quality
improvement.
Economic analysis
The partial budget analysis was performed as per CIMMYT (1988) across the
three years as shown in table 3. Accordingly, CIMMYT (1988) recommended the
minimum acceptable marginal rate of return should be more than 100%. A net
benefit of 64,640 ETB with marginal rate of return of 604 % attained at 46 kg
N/ha with the application of 1/3 of recommended urea at planting and 2/3 at
tillering with acceptable and affordable cost of inputs to the farmers at Kofele area
in malt barley variety ,Ibon174/ 03.
Table 3. Partial budget analysis for mean grain yield of malt barley as affected by N fertilizer rate and timing of application
at Kofele from 2017 to 2019 main cropping seasons
N application Fertilizer rate Grain Adjusted grain Gross TCV Net benefit MRR
timings (NP/kg/ha) yield yield (downward benefit (birr/ha) (birr/ha) (%)
(kg/ha) 10%) (birr/ha)
1/2 at planting + 23 5193 4674 65434 2913 62521
1/2 at tillering
46 4885 4397 61556 3813 57743 D
69 5049 4544 63614 4713 58901 129
92 5597 5037 70520 7413 63107 156
1/3 at planting + 23 5361 4825 67553 2913 64640
2/3 at tillering
46 5864 5278 73890 3813 70077 604
69 4803 4323 60518 4713 55805 D
92 4796 4316 60426 7413 53013 D
All at planting 23 5369 4832 67652 2913 64739
46 5258 4732 66252 3813 62439 D
69 4807 4327 60573 4713 55860 D
92 4900 4410 61737 7413 54324 D
TCV=Total costs that vary MRR=Marginal Rate of Return ETB=Ethiopian Birr D=Dominated treatments (negative
values) Four laborers were required per ha (25 Birr/person/day)
[456]
Maintaining proper soil fertility is one of the key crop management practices in
crop production. Malt barley is a food security and industrial crop. Satisfying the
malt demand of the industrial sector is possible whenever proper crop
management practice is implemented with improved crop variety. Kofele area is
one of the potential malt barley productions. However, low soil fertility and
development of herbicide resistant weeds in relation to monoculture is becoming a
challenge in malt barley production in the area. Nitrogen is a major nutrient for
crop production that can easily lost from the soil. Quantifying the proper rate and
determining the proper time of application could assure quality and sustainable
productivity of the crop. Thus, findings of the research recommended 46 kg N/ha
with the application of 1/3 of recommended urea at planting and 2/3 at tillering in
the Kofele area of the west Arsi Zone of south eastern Ethiopia and other similar
agro-ecologies in the country under good agricultural practices. Nevertheless,
further demonstration is required for large scale recommendation.
References
Amare Ghizaw, C.C. Du Preez and Taye Bekele. 2005. Effect of phosphorus
fertilizer on grain yield and yield components of field pea (Pisum sativum
L.) cultivars. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources 7 (1):1-21.
Asefa Taa, D.G. Tanner, Kefyalew Girma and Amanuel Gorfu.1997.Grain yield of
barley as affected by cropping sequence and fertilizer application in
southeastern Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal 5 (2): 135-146.
CIMMYT. 1988. From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: An
Economics training manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.
Survey. Vol.1, Statistical bulletin 586, CSA, April 2020, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Demisie Ejigu, Tamado Tana and, Firdissa Eticha. 2015. Effect of nitrogen
fertilizer levels on yield components and grain yield of malt barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.) varieties at Kulumsa, Central Ethiopia. Research and
Reviews Journal of Crop Science and Technology 4 (3):11-21.
Fasil Shimelis. 2019. Grain quality and yield responses of malt barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) varieties to different rates of nitrogen fertilizer at Lemu Bilbilo
Wereda, Arsi Zone, Ethiopia.MSc. thesis, Hawassa University, Ethiopia.
Kassu Tadesse, Dawit Habte, Wubengeda Admasu, Almaz Admasu, Birhan
Abdulkadir, Amare Tadesse, Asrat Mekonnen, and Anbessie Debebe. 2021.
Effects of preceding crops and nitrogen fertilizer on the productivity and
quality of malting barley in tropical environment. Heliyon 7 (2021) e07093.
[457]
Legesse Admassu, Sakatu Hunduma and Abdissa Mekonnen. 2018. Effects of
seed rates and nitrogen fertilizer levels on yield, yield components, and
grain quality of malt barley. pp. 19-23. In: Proceedings of Agronomy and
Crop Physiology Research, 3-4 August 2017, Debre Zeit Research Center,
EIAR. www.eiar.gov.et/publications. ISBN: 9789994466498.
SAS Institute Inc. 2002. SAS/STAT- Software: Changes and Enhancements
through Release 9.0. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
Taye Bekele, Yesuf Assen, Sahlemedhin Sertsu, Amanuel Gorfu, Mohammed
Hassena, D.G. Tanner, Tesfaye Tesemma, and Takele Gebre. 2002.
Optimizing fertilizer use in Ethiopia: Correlation of soil analysis with
fertilizer response in HetosaWereda, Arsi Zone. Addis Ababa: Sasakawa-
Global 2000.
Zenebe Mulatu. 2019. Yield and quality response of malt barley (Hordeum
vulgare L.) varieties to seed rate and time of nitrogen fertilizer application
at Bekoji, southeastern Ethiopia. MSc. thesis, Haramaya University,
Ethiopia.
[458]
Influence of in-situ Moisture Conservation
Techniques and N Rates on Agronomic Traits of
Sorghum in Raya Valley, Northern Ethiopia
Kasaye Abera1* and Berhane Sibhatu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Mehoni Agricultural Research Center,
Department of Agronomy, P.O. Box 47, Mehoni, Ethiopia; E-mail: kasayeab123@gmail.com
Abstract
Soil erosion, low nitrogen availability and soil moisture stress during main season
are among the major limitations to high crop production and sustainable land
management in semiarid areas. In such area, in-situ moisture conservation
techniques and right application of fertilizer are very important. The study was
carried out to determine the appropriate in-situ moisture conservation technique
and nitrogen rate for sorghum production in Raya Azebo (chercher) district of
Tigray, Ethiopia in 2017 and 2018 cropping season on farmer field experiment.
Adoption of soil moisture conservation techniques such as tie-ridges and mulching
and appropriate use of fertilizer has shown improved soil moisture retention in a
wide range of environments. The treatments includes four levels of moisture
conservation techniques (planting on flat bed, closed end tied ridge , flat bed +
grass mulch (3 cm thick ), closed end tied ridge + grass mulch); and three rates of
nitrogen viz., 11.5, 23, and 46 kg N ha -1 laid out in factorial arrangement of
RCBD design. According pooled mean result plant height, panicle length and
panicle weight were not significantly (p>0.05) affected by the main effect of
nitrogen, but leaf area, biomass yield and harvesting index were significantly
influenced by the two main effects. Moreover, thousand kernel weight and grain
yield have interaction effect. The maximum grain yield (3633 kg ha-1) and
thousands seed weight (39.12 gram) was obtained from closed end tied ridge
interact with 46 kg N ha-1 could be recommended for study area and related agro-
ecology.
Introduction
The efficient use of water in agricultural systems is needed to improve crop
production and resilience to environmental adversities that may be caused by
climate change and extended droughts, especially in arid and semi-arid areas.
Marginal and erratic rainfall aggravated by the loss of water by runoff and
evaporation are the main causes of low crop production in these areas (Yosef and
Asmamaw, 2015). Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) is one of the drought
tolerant crops grown in arid and semi-arid areas and is the fifth important cereal
crop in the world surpassed by maize, wheat, rice and barley (Akram et al., 2007).
Sorghum is indigenous to Ethiopia and thus has tremendous range of genetic
variability. It is one of the major traditional crops grown mainly in the dry semi-
arid areas of the country. Especially sorghum is the most important crop in the
Kobbo-Alamata plain, Shewa Robit area, Chercher and Humera. It is used for
[459]
making injera and preparing local drinks such as tela and areke. The crop is also
consumed as boiled and roasted forms. The stalk is used as a fodder, construction
material for housing and fencing. Sorghum is grown mainly as a rain fed crop in
the semi-arid areas. In these areas sorghum production is being limited by water
stress due to low and variable rainfall between season and with the seasons.
Sorghum yields vary considerably between years and show a close dependence on
rainfall. The other major sorghum production constraints in the semi-arid areas
include low soil fertility, weeds particularly striga, and stalk borer infestation,
poor seedling emergence, birds (Qulea), these production problems have also
regional importance in both eastern and southern African countries although their
relative importance vary between regions and agro ecologies (Moges, 2004).
Moreover, different stresses often occur together, causing severe damage to the
sorghum crops. In this case, use of effective moisture conservation practices is the
most important issue in areas where availability of soil moisture is the most
limiting factor for crop production in general. The in-situ and ex-situ rain water
harvesting techniques have shown significant impact on improved soil moisture,
runoff control and ground water recharge; and increased agricultural production
which intern reduces risks and deliver positive impacts on the ecosystems
(Binyam and Desale, 2015). In-situ rain water harvesting, also called soil and
water conservation, involves the use of methods that increase the amount of water
stored in the soil profile by trapping or holding the rain where it falls (Hatibu and
Mahoo, 1999; Stott et al., 2001). In this application there is no separation between
the collection area and the storage area, the water is collected and stored where it
is going to be utilized (UNEP, 1997). In-situ rainwater harvesting involves small
movements of rainwater as surface runoff, in order to concentrate the water where
it is wanted most. It is basically a prevention of net runoff from a given cropped
area by holding rain water and prolonging the time for infiltration. This system
works better where the soil water holding capacity is large enough and the rainfall
is equal or more than the crop water requirement, but moisture amount in the soil
is restricted by the amount of infiltration and or deep percolation (Hatibu and
Mahoo, 1999). To mitigate effects of drought researchers and farmers have
introduces a number of in-situ rainwater harvesting technologies. In-situ rainwater
harvesting is broadly defined as the collection and concentration of runoff for
productive purposes such as crop, fodder, pasture or trees production, livestock
and domestic water supply in arid and semi-arid regions (Fentaw et al., 2002;
Stott, 2001).
Among the different soil water harvesting techniques tied ridges and mulch were
found to be very effective in soil water conservation and yield increase in many
field crops in most Sub-Saharan African countries. Tied ridges improve the
availability of water in the soil profile to decrease the effects of dry periods caused
by the seasonal variation of rainfall. Soils contemporarily hold water, so in-situ
[460]
water harvesting prolongs the availability of water in the root zone by reducing
runoff and evaporation losses (Vohland and Barry, 2009). In soil with low organic
matter, fine texture, compacted soil surface with low infiltration rates high runoff
and soil loss tied-ridges (ridging with additional cross in the furrow at short
intervals) has been found to efficient and effective method for conserving soil
moisture. The main reasons for effective soil water conservation through tied
ridges include high rates of water penetration into the stirred soil, the action of
tied-ridges in preventing run-off from the rain and increasing the opportunity time
for infiltration. Thus, it enhances rapid build-up of soil moisture needed for rapid
seed germination, and early plant growth. Mulch can absorb the energy of
raindrops and prevents the soil surface from crusting. Thus surface mulching has
been proven to be effective in soil water conservation, maintaining favorable
temperature conditions and improving soil structure through enhanced biological
activity (Lal 1979). It is also increase soil organic matter by improving soil
physical conditions as well as nutrient and moisture retention capacity. At the
same time, it has a distinct advantage of controlling weeds that compete with crop
plants for water and nutrients. In the dry land farming research work carried out at
Katumani in Kenya, stover mulching was found to be very effective in controlling
run-off, reducing evaporation, an increasing infiltration rates, and maize yield was
increased by about 100% during a low rainfall season (Nijihia, 1979).
Adoption of soil moisture conservation techniques such as tie-ridges and mulching

has shown improved soil moisture retention in a wide range of environments
(Balenchew and Abera, 2010). Furthermore, Ndlangamandla et al., (2016)
reported that combination of tied ridges and mulch was effective in retaining soil
moisture. For low soil infiltration and high rainfall intensity, runoff is responsible
for severe soil and the associated nutrients losses even in flat and gentle slopes
(Breman et al., 2001). Thus, to improve water use efficiency for crop production,
increasing rainwater infiltration into the rooted soil zone is needed in order to be
used through the processes of transpiration for biomass production. Because,
limited water and nutrients interaction can limit crop growth; there is a need to be
tackled in synergy while improving crop yields in the situation of northern
Ethiopia. Integrated soil and crop management practices should be addressed
simultaneously in order to reduce runoff and soil erosion associated nutrient
losses, increase water infiltration, and nutrient availability for crop production
(Breman et al., 2001). In Ethiopia especially in Tigray, tied ridges are traditionally
used by small farmers as in situ water harvesting technique in different crop
production system using hand hoe. Therefore, it is a traditional practice and was
modified and extended through research to produce grain crops such as sorghum
and maize. However, the effectiveness of the moisture conservation techniques
has not been widely investigated in South Tigray. It was thus, necessary to
conduct a research on developing water-harvesting techniques to use the limited
[461]
water efficiently and applying sufficient amount of organic and inorganic
fertilizers in a well moist soil. Therefore, the objectives of the study was: to
determine the appropriate in-situ moisture conservation technique and nitrogen
rate for sorghum yield and to evaluate the performance of In-situ moisture
conservation techniques on yield and yield attributed traits of sorghum.

The experiment was carried out under rain fed conditions at Chercher kebelle,
Raya Azebo district, which was located 60 kms far from Maichew to wards east
direction. The experimental materials for this experiment were Urea fertilizer as a
source of nitrogen and grass mulch and Meko-1 sorghum variety. In the area,
sorghum production is being limited by water stress due to low and variable
rainfall between season and with the seasons. Sorghum yields vary considerably
between years and show a close dependence on rainfall. Short duration sorghum
varieties are the most important one. Meko-1 sorghum verity is one of the short
growing crops and important to that area. The verity was released by Melikassa
Agricultural Research Center in 1997. The Varity is early drought resistant, white
seed with injera making quality and relatively tall with higher biomass production.
This variety fits well for dry semi-arid areas with short growing season.
Treatments and Experimental Procedures

The treatments were four levels of moisture conservation techniques (planting on
flat bed, closed end tied ridge, flat bed + grass mulch (3 cm thick), closed end tied
ridge + grass mulch); and three rates of nitrogen viz., 11.5, 23, and 46 kg N ha-1.
The experiments laid out in factorial arrangement of RCBD design where the
treatments were replicated three times having a gross plot size of 3.75m * 3 m.
Based on treatment arrangement amount of Nitrogen fertilizer in the form of urea
was applied at planting and the remaining dose at knee stage. The other crop
management practices like weeding; chemical spray and hoeing were applied
uniformly for all plots.
Data Collected and Measurement

Growth parameters
Plant height: was measured at physiological maturity from the ground level to the
tip of panicle from five randomly taken plants and was averaged on per plant
basis.
Panicle length: It is the length of the panicle from the node where the first panicle
branches emerge to the tip of the panicle which was determined from an average
of five randomly taken panicles per net plot.
[462]
Leaf area (LA) and leaf area index (LAI)): Five plants per net plot were
randomly taken to measure leaf area per plant (cm2) at 50% heading using the
method described by Sticker et al. (1961) as: leaf area = length of the leaves ×
maximum width of leaf ×0.75 where, 0.75 is the correction factor for sorghum.
Then the leaf area index was calculated as the ratio of unit leaf area per plant to
the ground area covered by the plant.
Yield components and yield

Panicle weight (g): Samples of five panicles were weighed after harvesting and
sun drying to determine weight per panicle.
Thousand Kernels weight (g): was determined by counting 500 grains in

duplicates and weighting them on an electronic balance. The weights obtained
were multiplied by two to get the 1000 kernels weight. The weight was adjusted to
12.5% moisture level.
Grain yield (kg): It was obtained from all plants of net plot area. It was
determined using sensitive balance after the panicles were threshed, cleaned and
sun dried and the yield was adjusted to 12.5% moisture level. Then, it was
converted to kg ha-1 basis.
Above ground dry biomass (kg): It was measured after the plants from the net
plot area were harvested and sun dried till constant weight.
Harvest index (HI): It was computed as ratio of grain yield to the bio mass yield
per plot as:
HI = Grain yield per plot (kg) x100
Aboveground dry biomass per plot (kg)
Data Analysis
Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the Genstat
18 edition, (Gen Stat, 2018) and interpretations were made following the
procedure described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Whenever the effects of the
treatments were found significant, the means were compared using least
significance difference (LSD) test at 5% level of significance.
Soil pysico-chemical properties of the study area

Selected physico-chemical properties were analyzed for composite soil (0-30 cm
[463]
before planting. The result indicated that soils in the study area are dominantly
clay loam in texture and soil pH was characterized as moderately alkaline
(pH=8.28) based on ranges of soil–water pH interpretation 6.6-7.3, 7.4-7.8 and
7.9-8.4 are characterized as neutral, slightly alkaline and moderately alkaline
respectively Jones, J. Benton (2003). The soil organic carbon contents (0.634%),
organic matter (1.09 %), available phosphorus (9.39 mg kg-1) and total nitrogen
(0.055%) of the area was low, indicating the low fertility status of the soil
aggravated by continuous cereal based cultivation, lack of incorporation of
organic materials in to the soils through mulching or crop residues and frequent
tillage and the organic matter content of the soil is taken as a basic measure of
fertility status; improve water-holding capacity, nutrient release and soil structure
(Tekalign, 1991 and Cottenie,1980). Cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an
important parameter of soil as it indicates the type of clay mineral present in the
soil and its capacity to retain nutrients against leaching. According to Hazelton
and Murphy (2007), top soils having CEC greater than 40 cmol (+) kg-1 are rated
as very high and 25-40 cmol (+) kg-1 as high. Thus, according to this
classification, the soil of the experimental site had high CEC (30.6 cmol (+) kg-1
soil). Cation exchange capacity (CEC) describes the potential fertility of soils and
indicates the soil texture and the dominant types of clay minerals present. In
general, soils high in CEC contents are considered as agriculturally fertile. The EC
of the experimental site was (0.77 ms m -1 ) and this is rated as non-saline
according to Hazelton and Murphy (2007) who rated soils having the EC values
less than 4 ms m -1 is considered as non-saline and suitable for cereal production.
Response of Sorghum Growth and Yield Components to In-situ

Moisture Conservation Techniques and Nitrogen Fertilizer
Plant height (PH): The analysis result showed that the main effect of rate of
nitrogen fertilizer and the inaction effect did not have significant effect (P>0.05)
on this parameter in both years. But the moisture conservation practice had
significant response on plant height of sorghum in both cropping season (Table 1).
Numerically, the highest plant height (123.4cm) was obtained from closed end
tied ridge plus mulch and the lowest value of plant height were recorded from flat
planting. This is due to moisture conservation practice that retains soil water better
from being lost from runoff that improved and develop the plant growth and it
implies higher result of plant height. Because of this the growth parameters can
result in optimum level of fertilizer and best potential of availability of water to
the crop (Gebryesus 2012).
Panicle length (PL): The main effect of moisture conservation had high
significant (P≤0.01) effect on panicle length. However, main effect of rate of
on this parameter in both years. Numerically, the panicle length (25.78cm) was
[464]
obtained from closed end tied ridge plus mulch and the least value (22.29cm) were
obtained from flat planting (Table 1). This may be attributed to an increase in soil
water content in these rain water harvesting techniques which lead to better root
development leading to increased sorghum growth. This result was complimentary
with the result of Mahamed and Shirdon (2013) on maize crop production in
Jigjiga area which indicated that there was higher performance with the use of
ridges and nitrogen fertilizer application.
Leaf area (LA cm2): The leaf area of sorghum was highly significant (P≤0.01) for
the main effects of N fertilizer rate and moisture conservation. But there was no
significant interaction effect of nitrogen rate and moisture conservation methods
on this parameter. The highest leaf area (375.6 cm2) was obtained from 46 kg N
ha-1 while the lowest leaf area (348.2 cm2) was recorded from 11.5 kg N ha-1. In
general, as the nitrogen rate increased, the leaf area also increased (Table 1).
Generally, an increasing trend in leaf area was observed with increased nitrogen
application rates which might be due to improved leaf expansion in plants due to
optimum nitrogenous fertilizers. In line with this result, Kidist (2013) reported as
that increasing the rate of N from 0 to 130.5 kg N ha-1 linearly increased leaf area
of maize. Gebrelibanos and Dereje (2015) also reported that application of high
fertilizer dose increased the leaf area of sorghum. Similarly, Haghighi et al. (2010)
and Asim et al., (2012) reported an increasing trend in LA on maize due to an
increase in N fertilizer application rates. Jasemi et al., (2013) also reported higher
LA of maize associated with nitrogen treated plants has been probably due to
increased leaf production and leaf area duration.
Based on the pooled mean data the analysis result showed that the main effect of
moisture conservation had significant effect (P>0.05) on this parameter. The
maximum leaf area (390.3 cm2) was obtained from closed end tied rigging plus
mulch and the minimum leaf area (288.03 cm2) were obtained from flat planting.
This significant variation attributed to the effect of moisture conservation practice
on optimum moisture retention which required for development and production
especially at the critical stages of sorghum growth such as phenological growth
and seed formation. The maximum leaf area indicate that sorghum with higher
leaf area can produce more food through photosynthesis as leaf is responsible part
for preparation of food and may have higher grain yield.
[465]
Leaf area index (LAI): Leaf area index is major factor determining
photosynthesis and dry matter accumulation (Moosavi et al., 2012). The main
effect of rate of nitrogen fertilizer and moisture conservation techniques had
highly significant (P≤0.01) influence on leaf area index. However, the interaction
effect of rate of nitrogen fertilizer and moisture conservation techniques had no
significant effect on leaf area index (Table 1).
The highest leaf area index (0.417) was recorded from 46 kg N ha-1; while the
lowest (0.386) was recorded from 11.5 kg N ha-1 (Table 1). Generally, an
increasing trend in LAI was observed with increased N application rates which
might be due to improved leaf expansion in plants due to optimum nitrogenous
fertilizers. In line with the result Moges (2015) reported that increase in leaf area
index with the increase of nitrogen level from 0-128 kg N ha-1 and attributed to the
more vegetative growth due to nitrogen application, as it is a general truth that N
enhances vegetative growth in maize. Nitrogen deficiency accelerates senescence
as revealed by strong decrease in chlorophyll concentration under low N as
compared to non-stressed conditions. In line with this result, Kidist (2013)
reported as that increasing the rate of N from 0 to 130.5 kg N ha-1 linearly
increased leaf area index of maize.
The maximum leaf area index (0.433) was obtained from closed end tied rigging
and the minimum leaf area (0.335) was obtained from flat planting. This
significant variation attributed to the effect of moisture conservation practice on
optimum moisture retention which required for development and production
and seed formation. The maximum leaf area index indicate sorghum can produce
more food through photosynthesis as leaf is responsible part for preparation of
food and may have higher grain yield.
Panicle weight (PW): The main effect of moisture conservation had high
significant (P≤0.01) effect on panicle weight. However, main effect of rate of
on this parameter in both years. Numerically, the highest panicle weight (77.03
gram) was obtained from closed end tied ridge and the lowest value of panicle
weight (59.44 gram) was recorded from flat planting (Table 1).
[466]
Table 1. Plant height, panicle length, panicle weight and harvesting index of sorghum as influenced by main effect of
conservation mechanism and Nitrogen rate
Treatment PH PL LA LAI PW BY HI
(cm) (cm) (cm2) (gm) (kg ha-1)
Nitrogen Rate kg ha-1
11.5 113.7 24.33 348.2c 0.386c 63.11 6254a 0.366b
23 116.3 24.48 356.8b 0.396b 67.34 5345b 0.511b
46 117.1 24.58 375.6a 0.417a 68.13 5222b 0.552a
LSD NS NS 8.16 0.009 NS 870.5 0.083
Moisture Conservation Mechanism
Flat planting 106.2c 22.29b 302.0c 0.335c 59.44c 5301 0.437b
Close end tied rig 119ab 25.76a 390.3a 0.433a 77.03a 5364 0.578a
Flatbed +Grass 114.1b 24.03ab 366.3b 0.407b 60.48c 5820 0.401b
Close end tied rig 123.4a 25.78a 382.3a 0.424a 67.81b 5844 0.420b
+Grass
LSD 5.94 2.12 9.42 0.01 6.62 NS 0.096
CV% 7.7 13.0 3.9 3.9 15.0 26.9 30.3
Where: NS = non-significant, Means with the same letters in the same column are not significantly at P< 0.05, PH= plant
height, PL= panicle length, LA= leaf area, PW= panicle weight, BY= biomass yield, HI= harvesting index and Fb= Flat
bed, CET= Close end tied ridge and Gr= Grass, LSD= least significant difference CV=coefficient of variance
Thousand Kernels weight (TKW): The analysis of variance showed that

thousand seed weight was highly significantly (P ≤ 0.01) affected by the
interaction effect of the two factors (Table 2). The highest thousand kernel weight
(39.12 gram) was recorded from 46 kg N ha-1 interacting with the best moisture
conservation (closed end tied riding). In contrast, the lowest thousand seed weight
(30.32 gram) was obtained from 11.5 kg N ha-1 in combination with flatbed
planting (Table 2). Like phenological parameters, the reason could be due to the
contribution of fertilizer application and moisture conservation practices to supply
optimum nutrient and moisture needed for increment of thousand kernel weight of
sorghum.
Table 2. Interaction effect of Rate of N fertilizer and Conservation mechanism on thousand seed weight grain yield of sorghum
Treatment TKW (gm) GY kg ha-1
Nitrogen rate Kg ha-1 Moisture conservation mechanism
11.5 Flatbed planting 30.32c 1857g
Closed end tied riding 33.46bc 2489d
Flatbed planting +grass 32.48c 2245e
Closed end tied riding +grass 37.29ab 2712c
23 Flatbed planting 30.63c 2007f
Closed end tied riding 38.05a 2856b
Flatbed planting +grass 31.11c 2403d
Closed end tied riding +grass 33.15bc 2649c
46 Flatbed planting 37.15ab 2145ef
Closed end tied riding 39.12a 3633a
Flatbed planting +grass 33.17bc 2499d
Closed end tied riding +grass 37.31ab 2951b
LSD 4.25 138.9
CV% 10.7 4.7
Where: NS = non-significant, Means with the same letters in the same column are not significantly at P< 0.05, TSW=
thousand seed weight, GY= Grain yield and LSD= least significant difference, CV=coefficient of variance
[467]
Grain yield: Closed end tied riding integrated with 46 kg N ha-1 gave
significantly high grain yield (3663 kg ha-1) and the lowest grain yield was
recorded from flat planting integrated with 11.5 kg N ha-1 in both cropping season
(Table 2). Better in-situ moisture conservation techniques and optimum fertilizer
application created favorable condition to absorb water by sorghum plants. Other
research result indicated that the major reasons for the increase in yields were
better moisture availability, improved soil fertility and better root growth as a
result of conservation tillage application (Belay, 1998, Lal, 2000, Temesgen et al.,
2008). Another report indicates that Conservation tillage resulted in optimum
moisture availability, improved soil fertility and better root growth which in turn
increase yield. Increase in sorghum grain yield with increase Nitrogen application
also enhance attributed to production of greater head length, head girth, head
weight and 1000 seed weight compared to 0 N kg ha over years (S.L. Patil 2016).
This result is in agreement with the finding by (Gebreyesus (2012) reported as that
tied-ridge and fertilizer, and its interaction significantly influenced the yield and
yield components of sorghum and resulted in up to 48% increment. Tied ridges
have been found to be very efficient in storing the rain water, which has resulted
in substantial grain yield increase in some of the major dry land crops such as
sorghum, maize, wheat, and mung beans in Ethiopia (Georgis and Takele 2000).
The average grain yield increase (under tied ridges) ranged from 50 to over 100
percent when compared with the traditional practice or flatbed planting. Other
research works indicated that conservation tillage resulted in optimum moisture
availability, improved soil fertility and better root growth which in turn increase
yield (Temesgen et al., 2008). Moreover, from the findings of study, which was
conducted in the semi-arid areas of northern Ethiopia Gebreyesus (2012), the yield
of sorghum showed increment by 7 to 48% due to the effect of conservation tillage
integrated with fertilizers compared to the traditional tillage. Similar findings of
Karrar et al.’s (2012) suggest that the in situ water harvesting techniques
improved the soil moisture stored within the root zone compared to conventional
harrowing that uses a wide-level disc, resulting in increased sorghum dry matter
and grain yield. Furthermore, it was also pointed out that tied-ridge during
planting time produced significantly higher grain yield (2806 kg ha-1) than other in
situ moisture conservation techniques (Aklilu et al., 2015).
[468]
4000
GY and TKW of
Sorghum 3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Figure 1. Interaction of nitrogen fertilizer and moisture conservation technique
Biomass yield (BY): Rate of nitrogen fertilizer application had significantly

influenced biomass yield of sorghum, but moisture conservation techniques and
interaction effect did not significantly affect the parameter (Table 2). The
maximum biomass yield (6254 kg ha-1) was obtained from 11.5 kg N ha-1 and the
minimum biomass yield (5222 kg ha-1) was recorded from 46 kg N ha-1. Moisture
conservation techniques have no significant difference, however the maximum
biomass yield (5844 kg ha-1) was obtained from closed end tied ridging plus
mulch. This result was complimentary with finding of another study; in-situ
rainwater harvesting tillage techniques with tied ridge during planting time has
better performance to minimize the loss of fertilizer applied on the farm land
(Aklilu et al., 2015). In general, the substantial biomass yield response of the crop
to tied ridging on fertilized experiments revealed that in areas having poor rainfall
distributions such as the Raya valley lowlands, moisture conservation technique is
a necessary agricultural operation. As compared to close end tied ridging practice
planting in furrow, conventional practice (flat planting) reduced sorghum biomass
yield by 14.07 to 27.22% under fertilized condition, his could be ascribed to less
efficiency of flat planting to conserve and hold moisture in relative to the other
moisture conservation techniques (Berhane et al., 2017). These results are similar
with the finding of another study, which showed that biomass yield of sorghum
was significantly influenced by moisture conservation practices at which the
highest (15.50 t ha-1) and the lowest total biomass weight (9.53 t ha-1) were
recorded from tied ridge and farmers’ practice, respectively in southern Ethiopia
(Tekle and Wodajo, 2015).
Harvesting index (HI): The harvesting index of sorghum was highly significantly
responding (P≤0.01 and P>0.05) for the main effects of N fertilizer rate and
moisture conservation techniques respectively. But there was no significant
interaction effect of nitrogen rate and moisture conservation methods on this
parameter. The highest harvesting index (0.552) was obtained from 46 kg N ha-1
while the lowest harvesting index (0.366) was recorded from 11.5 kg N ha-1.
Based on the result nitrogen rate increased, the harvesting index also increased
(Table 1). Concerning the moisture conservation techniques, maximum harvesting
[469]
index (0.578) was obtained from closed end tied ridging and the minimum
harvesting index (0.401) were obtained from flat planting plus mulch. This
significant variation attributed to the effect of moisture conservation practice on
optimum moisture retention which required for development and production
and seed formation. The maximum harvesting index indicates that sorghum with
higher grain yield. Integrated soil and crop management practices should be
addressed simultaneously in order to reduce runoff and soil erosion associated
nutrient losses, increase water infiltration, and nutrient availability for crop
production (Breman et al., 2001).

In areas with low and erratic rainfall, use in-situ moisture conservation techniques
and right application of fertilizer are very important for increasing crop yield.
From the findings of this study, closed end tied riding integrated with 46 kg N ha-1
gave significantly high grain yield and other yield and yield components
compared with farmers' practice in particular in flat bed planting integrated with
small amount of nitrogen fertilizer application in both cropping season.
Tied ridging practices are crucial for sorghum yield improvement under moisture
stress areas. It was observed that closed end tied ridging proved to be more
effective in preserving water and increase availability of fertilizer to the plants and
it help to enhancing sorghum yield with relatively consistent effects in both
seasons than flat bed planting methods with small amount of fertilizer level.
Generally, integrated soil and crop management practices should be addressed
simultaneously to increase water infiltration and nutrient availability and thereby
increase crop productivity in moisture stress areas like Raya valley. Accordingly,
efforts have to be made to disseminate tied ridging practice integrated with the
recommended fertilizer to the beneficiaries and additional research works on agro-
ecologically based in situ moisture conservation techniques and different fertilizer
levels is imperative to improve sorghum production in areas where moisture and
nutrient deficiency are the major constraints for sustainable crop production.
Based on this experiment the maximum grain yield (3633 kg ha-1) and thousands
seeds weight (39.12 gram) were obtained from closed end tied ridge interact with
46 kg N ha-1. Finally as recommendation closed end tied ridge intact with 46 kg N
ha-1 could be recommended for study area and related agro ecology.
References
Aklilu, B.N. and Mekiso Y.S. Performance of in-situ rainwater conservation tillage
techniques and inorganic fertilizer practices on sorghum production at Ethiopia
[470]
Somali Region (Kurdha Metan district). International Journal of Agricultural
Science Research, 4(5): 098-108 (2015).
Akram, A., Fatima, M., Ali, S., Jilani, G. and Asghar, R. (2007). Growth, yield and
nutrient uptake of sorghum in response to integrated phosphorus and potassium
management. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 39(4): 1083-1087.
Belay, Y., 1998. Effect of tied ridges on grain yield response of Maize (Zea mays L.) to
application of crop residue and residual N and P oil two soil types at Alemaya,
Ethiopia. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 15(4), pp.123-129.
Berhane S., Hayelom B., Gebrmeskel G. and Kasaye A. Effect of Tied Ridging and
Fertilizer on the Productivity of Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] at Raya
Valley, Northern Ethiopia. Current Agriculture Research Journal, ISSN: 2347-4688,
Vol. 5, No.(3) 2017, Pg. 396- 403
Breman, H., Groot, J.J.R& Van Keulen, H.2001. Resource limitations in Sahelian
agriculture. Global Environmental Changes,11:59-68
Cooper, P.J.M., Gregory, P.J., Tully, D., Harris, H.C. 1987. Improving water use
efficiency of annual crops in the rainfed farming systems of West Asia and North
Africa. Experimental Agriculture 23: 113-158. Doi: doi:
10.1017/S001447970001694X.
Cottenie, A., 1980. Soil and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendations. FAO
soil bulletin 38/2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Gebryesus Brhane, 2012. Effect of tillage and fertilizer practices on sorghum production
in abergele area, Northern Ethiopia.
Georgis K, Takele A. 2000. Conservation farming technologies for sustaining crop
production in semi-arid areas of Ethiopia. In Conservation Tillage for Dry land
Farming. Technological options and experiences in Eastern and Southern Africa,
eds. E.K. Biamah; J. Rockstrom; G.E. Okwach. RELMA, Workshop Report No. 3,
142-147.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd
Edition, A Wiley–Interscience Publication, New York, P. 657.
Haghighi BJ, Yarmahmodi Z, Alizadeh O (2010). Evaluation the effects of biological
fertilizer on physiological characteristic and yield and its components of corn (Zea
mays L.) under drought stress. American J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 5(2):189-193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajabssp.2010.189.193
HATIBU, N. & MAHOO, H., 1999. Rainwater harvesting technologies for agricultural
production: a case for Dodoma, Tanzania. Sokoine University of agriculture,
Department of Agricultural Engineering and Land Planning.
Hazelton, P. and B. Murphy, 2007. Interpreting soil test results: What do all the numbers
mean? 2nd Edition. CSIRO Publishing. 152p.
Jones, J.B., 2003. Agronomic Handbook: Management of Crops, Soils, and Their
Fertility. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA. 482p.
Kidist Abrha. 2013. Growth, productivity, and nitrogen use efficiency of maize (Zea mays
L.) as influenced by rate and time of nitrogen fertilizer application in Haramaya
District, Eastern Ethiopia. MSc Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya,Ethiopia.
Lal, R. 1976. Soil erosion problems on an Alfisol in western Nigeria and their control. In
IITA Monograph No. 1. Ibadan, Nigeria.
[471]
Lal, R., 2000. Mulching effects on soil physical quality of an alfisol in western Nigeria.
Land Degradation & Development, 11(4), pp.383-392.
Mahamed MB, Shirdon AD (2013). Effect of Different Planting Methods and Nitrogen
Fertilizer Rates on Growth and Yield of Maize under Rain-fed Condition. Journal of
1(1): 01-07.
MOGES, Y., 2004. Water harvesting techniques: Training and construction manual.
Consultancy sub-report number 2. Tropical Forestry.
Ndlangamandla MT, Ndlela Z P, Manyatsi A M , 2016. Mulching and Tied Ridges as A
Moisture Conservation Strategy to Improve the Yield of Sorghum (Sorghum
Bicolor) in Semi-Arid Parts of Swaziland. International Journal of Environmental &
Agriculture Research (IJOEAR), 2(3): 23-26.
Njihia, C.M. 1979. The effect of tied ridges, stover mulch and farmyard manure on water
conservation in a medium potential area, Katumani, Kenya. Pp. 295- 302 in: R. Lal
(Ed.) Soil tillage and crop production. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA.
Robert L. M., Timothy K.H., and M.J.M. 2015. Challenges of increasing water and
nutrient efficiency in irrigated agriculture. International Fertilizer Industry
Association (IFA), International Water Management Institute (IWMI), International
Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI), and International Potash Institute (IPI) Paris and
France.
S.L. Patil (2016).Rainwater conservation techniques and nitrogen fertilization on yield
and water use efficiency of sorghum, 44(1): 50-57.
Sticker, FC, S. Wearden and A.W. Pauli, 1961. Leaf Area Determination in Grain
Sorghum. Agronomy Journal, 53: 187-188.
STOTT, D.E., MOHTAR, R.H., STEINHARDT, G.C., 2001. Water conservation,
harvesting and management (WCHM) – Kenyan experience.
Takate, A.S., Sheetal R., Tatpurkar, S.R., Shelke, D.B., Bhanvase, A.B., Pawar and
Kadam, J.R. 2014. Rainwater Conservation Techniques with Integrated Phosphorus
Management on Productivity of Pigeonpea under Dryland Conditions. Indian J.
Dryland Agric. Res. Develop., 29(1): 79-84.
Tekalign Tadese. 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis.
Addis Ababa.
Tekle, Y. and Wedajo, G. 2015. Evaluation of different moisture conservation practices
on growth,yield and yield components of sorghum at Alduba, southern Ethiopia.
Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Management, 4(3):169-173
(2015).
Temesgen M., Rockstrom J., Savenije H.H.G., Hoogmoed W.B. and Alemu D. 2008.
Determinants of tillage frequency among smallholder farmers in two semi-arid areas
in Ethiopia. Physi. Chem. Earth, 33: 183–191 (2008).
https://doi:10.1016/j.pce.2007.04.012
UNEP. 1997. Source book of alternative technologies for fresh water Augmentation in
Latin America and the Caribbean. International Environmental Technology Center,
United Nations Environment Programme. Washington.
Yosef BA and Asmamaw DK. 2015. Rainwater harvesting: An option for dry land
agriculture in arid and semi-arid Ethiopia. Int. J. Water Res. Environ. Eng. 7: 17-28.
https://doi.org/10.5897/IJWREE2014.0539.
[472]
Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates and Plant
Population Density on Late Maturing Maize
Variety at Jimma and Buno Bedele Zone,
South Western Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu*1, Muhidin Biya1 and Eshetu Yadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author: sis.sis1835@gmail.com
Abstract
Maize is among the leading cereal globally and an important potential food security
crop in Ethiopia. However, its productivity is very low mainly due to low soil fertility
and plant stands per area. Thus, an on-farm experiment was conducted to validate
the optimum rate of NP fertilizer and plant population density on late maturing
maize variety at Jimma and Buno-Bedele Zone during the 2019 main cropping
season. Factorial combinations of two levels of N/P2O5 (92/69 and 115/86 kg ha-1),
and three plant population density [44,444(75*30cm), 53,333(75*25cm), and
66,666(75*20cm) ha-1) were carried out in randomized complete block design using
farmers field as replications. As a result, the highest grain yield 7410 kg ha-1, and
above-ground biomass 17060 kg ha-1 were recorded from 66,666 plants ha-1 with the
highest net benefit of 44,138 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) ha-1. Therefore, a plant density of
66,666 plants ha-1 (75 x 20cm a plant hill-1 or 75 x 40 cm (two plants hill-1) in
complement with fertilizer rate of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 is advisable for farmers in
the study area and areas with similar agro-ecologies.
Introduction
A significant proportion of maize in Ethiopia is produced in the highland areas. Its
use, as well as area coverage, is increasing from time to time by replacing some
cereals. Besides its use as a green cob, nowadays farmers use it as staple food by
mixing with Tef for ‘injera’ and with wheat for bread (Temesgen et al., 2009).
Both the area and volume of production of maize have been growing steadily for
the last decade throughout the highlands of Ethiopia. However, it suffers much
from low soil fertility, poor management, and lack of improved varieties. As
result, farmers produce a lower grain yield.
Among the principal problems, plant population densities and low soil fertility
arethe most bottlenecks that hinder maize productivity in the highland regions.
Maize is commonly planted in rows of varying spaces; less effort has been made
to study the optimum densities to maximize its productivity in different agro-
ecologies of Ethiopia. Summaries of earlier results from different studies on maize
plant population densities indicate that better yields were obtained at planting
density in the range of 4-7 plants m-2 (40,000-70,000 plants ha-1)(Tenaw et al.,
[473]
1993). Later studies confirmed that at 5-7 plants m-2 for medium to late maize
maturity groups gave maximum yields in humid regions; while early maturity
groups produced maximum yields at higher densities in both humid and moisture
stress areas (Tenaw et al., 2002). It is being observed that late maturing maize
varieties were found to be varied in structure and leaf arrangements from early and
medium maturing maize varieties. These variations in morphology may lead to
different planting densities to attain maximum yield potentials.
Plant population is the prime factor for getting maximum yield which is decided
by inter and intra row spacing of crops. Decreasing the distance between neighbor
rows at any particular plant population reduces competition among plants within
rows for light, water and nutrients due to a more equidistant plant arrangement
(Porter et al., 1997).The more favorable planting pattern provided by closer rows
enhances maize growth rate early in the season (Bullock et al., 1988), leading to a
better interception of sun light, a higher radiation use efficiency and a greater
grain yield (Westgate et al., 1997). Increasing plant populations could lead to
increase yields under optimal climatic and management conditions due to greater
number of smaller cobs per unit area (Bavec and Bavec, 2002).
Nutrient depletion and soil degradation have become a serious threat to

agricultural productivity in Ethiopia. These soils suffered multi-nutrient
deficiencies so that, application of mineral fertilizers has become indispensable to
increase crop yields in such soils (Adeniyan and Ojeniyi, 2005).According to
Srikanth et al. (2009), among the plant nutrients, primary nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus play a crucial role in determining growth and crop yield.
The nutrient use efficiency can be proved with the use of hybrids, optimum plant
population and application of chemical fertilizer coinciding with peak need by the
crop. Hence, the experiment was done to validate the effect of NP fertilizer rates
and plant population density on maize at Jimma and BunoBedele Zone; and to
identify the economic optimum rate of NP fertilizer and plant population density
for the production of maize.

The experiment was conducted in two sites of Jimma Zone (Kersa and Omonada
woreda) and Buno-Bedele Zone (Banshure kebele), Southwestern Ethiopia during
the main cropping season of 2019. Kersa site was located at a latitude of 7º42' N
and longitude of 36º 59'E and laid at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l. The average
minimum and maximum temperature are 6ºC and 25.5ºC, respectively and reliably
receive good rains of 1712 mm per annum during the cropping season. Whereas,
Omonada site was located at a latitude of 7º37' N and longitude of 37º 14'E and
[474]
laid at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l. The average minimum and maximum
temperature are 6ºC and 25ºC, respectively and reliably receives good rains of
1446 mm per annum during cropping season. The Bedele site was located at
latitude 8º32' N and longitude 36º 22'E and laid at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l. The
average minimum and maximum temperature is 6ºC and 24.5ºC, respectively and
reliably receive good rains of 1712 mm per annum during the cropping season.
The farming system of the study site is coffee and cereal crops dominated with
coffee, maize, teff and sorghum also have warm and cold climate, also convenient
topography is very suitable for all agricultural practices. It was situated in the
tepid to cool humid-mid highlands of southwestern Ethiopia. The soil type of the
experimental area was Eutric-nitisols (reddish-brown).
Soil Physico-chemical Properties

The soil of the experimental field was characterized by selected physico-chemical
properties before the application of the treatments (Table 1). The average soil pH
of the trial sites ranges from 5.06 to 5.11 across locations, which was strongly
acidic (Batjes, 1995). This pH affects production of most field crops. The pH of
the soil affects maize growth by suppressing the root development and reducing
the availability of macronutrients to plants especially phosphorus (Brady and
Weil, 2008). The soil total N ranges from 0.14 to 0.21% and SOM from 3.34 to
3.94% were found to medium rate for crop growth and development for both
nutrients (Berhanu, 1980). For all locations the Bray II extractable available P
ranges from 2.76 to 7.30 mg kg-1 which was below the critical level (8 mg kg-1)
for most crops as described by Tekalign and Haque (1991).
Table 1. Selected physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites before planting
Soil characters Location

Kersa Omonada Bedele
pH(1:2.5) 5.11 5.06 5.10
Av P(mg kg-1) 2.76 7.30 6.38
TN (%) 0.14 0.18 0.21
OC (%) 2.29 1.94 2.15
SOM (%) 3.94 3.34 3.70
C:N ratio 16.09 10.74 10.21
Where pH= hydrogen power, OC=Organic carbon, TN=Total Nitrogen,
Av P=Available Phosphorous, SOM=Soil Organic Matter. Values are the means of duplicated samples.
Source: Jimma Agricultural Research Center soil and plant laboratory
Description of the experimental materials

Hybrid maize variety BH661 was used in the present study. It is the most
promising variety released by Bako Agricultural Research Centre and adapted
well to the agro-ecologies of Jimma and Buno Bedele areas.
[475]
Experimental treatments and procedures
The experimental field was plowed and prepared following the conventional
tillage practice before planting at all locations. The land was leveled manually
before the field layout was made. The maize was planted from 18 up to 22 May at
different locations. Two maize seeds were planted per hill and then thinned to one
plant per hill after the good establishment of seedlings to maintain a single healthy
plant per hill. This experiment had six treatments laid out in randomized complete
block design with factorial (two NP2O5; 92/69 and 115/86 kg ha-1 and three plant
population densities; 44,444, 53,333 and 66,666 plants per hectare) arrangement
considering sites as a replication. The plot size 45m2 (4.5 m x 10 m) was used for
each treatment. Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers were applied, respectively per
stand or hill base. Nitrogen was applied in split form (at planting and knee height
stage); while phosphorus as basal form. All other agronomic practices were
applied uniformly to all experimental plots in the study area.
Data collected
Plant height (cm): it was measured at ground level to the terminal stem using a
measuring stick at the point where the tassel starts branching from six randomly
selected plants.
Number of ears per plant: it was obtained by counting the total number of ears in
each plot and divided to a total number of plants stand harvested.
Stem diameter (girth): it was measured at 50cm from the ground level on six
randomly selected plants using a caliper.
Grain yield (kg ha-1): grain yield per plot was recorded using an electronic
balance and then adjusted to 12.5% moisture and converted to a hectare basis.
Above ground biomass (kg ha-1): all above-ground biomass was harvested from
the net plot and weighted, ears were removed and weighted separately, six plants
were selected, chopped and oven- dried till getting uniform weight.
Lodging percent: it was obtained by counting the total number of stalk and root
lodging in each plot and divided to the total number of plants stand at harvesting.
Harvest index: was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to above-ground biomass
yield on a dry weight basis (Donald, 1962).
Data analysis
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for all collected data was computed using SAS
version 9.3 statistical software. Whenever the ANOVA results showed significant
differences between sources of variation, the means were compared using the least
significant difference. The homogeneity test was done as suggested by Gomez and
Gomez, (1984).
[476]
Partial budget analysis
The Partial budget analysis was performed to investigate the economic feasibility
of the treatments and assess the costs and benefits associated with different
treatments of chemical fertilizers and the seed rates. The partial budget technique
as described by CIMMYT (1988) was applied. The partial budget analysis was
done using the prevailing market prices for inputs at planting and outputs at the
time the crop was harvested. All costs and benefits were calculated on a hectare
basis in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The inputs and/or concepts used in the partial
budget analysis were the mean grain yield of each treatment, the gross field
benefit (GFB) ha-1 (the product of field price and the mean yield for each
treatment), the field price of chemical fertilizers and urea kg-1 (the nutrient cost
plus the cost of transportation from the point of sale to the farm), cost of labor
spent on seed purchase and planting, the total costs that varied (TVC) which
included the sum of field costs of fertilizers and their application, and seed
purchase and planting.
The open market price (7 birr kg-1) for maize crop and the official prices of NP
fertilizer (13.5 birr kg-1), urea (10 birr kg-1) and the cost of labor spent on chemical
fertilizer application, seed planting and purchase were used for analysis. The cost
of application and transport for fertilizer was taken to be 15 birr 100 kg-1. Grain
yield was adjusted by 10% for management difference to reflect the difference
between the experimental yield and the yield that farmers could expect from the
same treatment (Getachew and Taye, 2005; CIMMYT, 1988).

After three years experiment of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on
late maturing maize variety, further evaluation and validation was done at nine
farmers’ sites during 2019 main cropping season at Jimma zone Omonada and
Kersa woreda; and Bedele zone of Bedele woreda.
The homogeneity test of the error variances for locations indicated that the error
variance was homogenous and hence combined analysis of variance was
conducted. Statistical analysis revealed that the interaction and main effect of NP
fertilizer rates didn’t show significant (P >0.05) difference on plant height,
number of ears per plant, stem diameter (girth), lodging percent, grain yield,
aboveground biomass and HI. However, the main effect of plant population
density was highly significant (P <0.01) on plant height, number of ears per plant,
grain yield and aboveground biomass. Whereas, stem diameter (girth) and plant
lodging were significantly (P <0.05) influenced by plant population density.
However, harvest index was not significantly (P >0.05) affected by plant
population density (Table 2).
[477]
Table 2. Mean square values of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on growth,
yield components and yield of maize
Mean square for source of variation
Parameter
Population NP x Population Error
NP (1) density (2) density (2) (40)
Plant height(cm) 75.85ns 425.41** 20.96ns 82.54
Ears per plant 0.0096ns 0.0707** 0.0011ns 0.0116
Girth(cm) 0.014 ns 0.123* 0.012ns 0.029
Lodging (%) 4.111ns 452.111* 27.076ns 132.01
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 43862ns 7795673** 378030.4ns 926732.3
AGB (t ha-1) 1.942ns 43.089** 3.324ns 4.097
Harvest index 0.0031ns 0.00042ns 0.0022ns 0.0033
*Numbers in parenthesis = Degrees of freedom; *= Significant (P < 0.05); ** = highly significant (p<0.01)
difference; NS= non-significant; AGB= Above ground biomass; ha = Hectare
Plant height
Over location mean indicated the highest plant height 301cm was recorded from
the plant population density of 66,666 plants ha-1 (75cm*20cm). While the lowest
plant height was obtained at the plant population density of 53,333 plants ha-
1
(75cm*25cm), but its effect was statistically at par with a plant population
density of 44,444 plants ha-1 (75cm*30cm) (Table 3).
The highest plant height in closer intra row spacing might be due to the presence
of higher competition for sun light, crowding effect of the plant and other
resources that decrease in the stem diameter and the number of green leaves.
Earlier results explained that the number of plants increased in a given area, the
competition among the plants for nutrients uptake and sunlight interception also
increased (Sangakkara et al., 2004). This finding is in agreement with Hassan
(2000) who revealed that plant height increased with increasing plant density from
47600 to 71,400 plants ha-1.
Number of Ears per plant

The maximum number of ears per plant (1.1) combined over locations was
obtained from 44,444 plants ha-1 (75cm*30cm), while the minimum number of
ears per plant (0.90) was recorded from the highest plants ha-1 66,666
(75cm*20cm) (Figure 1). The plant population density at 44,444 plants ha-1
increased 22.2% number of ears per plant over 66,666 plants ha-1. The results
indicated that as plant population density increased the number of ears per plant
decreased. At low plant population density, number of plants limited the yield;
while at high plant population density number of barren plants limited yield as
well. This might be due to the efficient use of the crop to the nutrient applied per
plant stand, and this in turn had increased the nutrient availability for vigorous
plant growth and this might have increased the number of ears plant-1. These
findings are in agreement with Hashemi-Dezfouli and Herbert (1992) who
[478]
reported a significantly higher number of ears per plant at lower plant density as
compared to higher plant density.
1 .2
L S D = 0 .0 7 3 ; C V ( % ) = 1 0 .7 & F - t e s t = * *
a L S D = 0 .0 6 ; C V (% )= 1 0 .7 & F -te s t= n s
1 .1
1 .1 a 1 .0
1 .0
N u m b e r o f e a r s p e r p la n t
0 .9 9
b
0 .9
1 .0
*LSD = Least Significant Difference; CV = Coefficient of Variation; Values

0 .9
followed by the same letter(s) within 0 .8
0 .7
9 2 /6 9 1 1 5 /8 6
4 4 4 4 4 (7 5 *3 0 c m ) 5 3 3 3 3 (7 5 *2 5 c m ) 6 6 6 6 6 (7 5 *2 0 c m )
P la n t p o p u la t io n d e n s it y N P 2O 5
fe r tiliz e r r a te s
Figure 1. Effect of plant population density and NP fertilizer on number of ears per plant
*LSD = Least Significant Difference; CV = Coefficient of Variation; Mean values followed by the same letter(s) within main
treatment rates are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level.
Stem diameter (Girth)

Numerically the treatments having the plant population of 44,444 plants ha-1
(75x30cm) produced a maximum stem diameter of 2.66cm, while the minimum
(2.51cm) was obtained by plant population density of 53,333 plants ha-1 (75x25cm)
which was statistically at par with a plant population density of 66,666 plants ha-1
(75x20cm) (Figure 2).
2 .8
2 .6 6 a L S D = 0 .1 1 5 ; C V (% )= 6 .7 & F -te s t= * L S D = 0 .0 9 ; C V ( % ) = 6 .7 & F - t e s t = n s
2 .7
2 .5 5 2 .5 8
2 .5 1 b 2 .5 2 b
2 .6
G ir t h ( c m )
2 .5
2 .4
2 .3
2 .2
4 4 4 4 4 (7 5 * 3 0 c m ) 5 3 3 3 3 (7 5 * 2 5 c m ) 6 6 6 6 6 (7 5 * 2 0 c m ) 9 2 /6 9 1 1 5 /8 6
-1 -1
P la n t p o p u la tio n d e n s ity h a N P 2 O 5 f e r t iliz e r r a t e s k g h a
Figure 2. Effect of Plant population density and NP fertilizer on stem diameter (girth)
*LSD = Least Significant Difference; CV = Coefficient of Variation; Values followed by the same letter(s) within main
treatment rates are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level.
[479]
This means with decrease in plant population, the plants obtained more soil
moisture and nutrients than narrower-spaced plants and have more stem diameter
as compared to high plant population. This is similar to the findings of Dalley et al.
(2006) and Azam et al. (2007) who reported that wider-spaced maize plants
obtained more soil moisture and nutrients than narrower plants and result in more
stem girth development.
Lodging percent
Maize variety BH-661 was sensitive to lodging, as its plant height goes higher up
to 300.7 cm as indicated in table 3. Stalk lodging represents one of the most
serious constraints to the use of high plant densities in late-maturing maize variety
(BH661). Numerically, the highest lodging percent (36.5%) was recorded from the
higher plant population density of 66,666 plants ha-1 (75*20cm) while, the
minimum lodging percent (27.0%) was recorded from 44,444 plants ha-1
(75*30cm) (Table 3). The lodging percent was decreased by 26% at the plant
population density of 44,444 plants ha-1 over 66,666 plants ha-1. The obtained
results indicate that as the plant population density increased the lodging also
increased and vice versa. As the plant density increases the internodes become
thinner, making the plant more prone to stalk lodging (Song et al., 2016). The
stored carbohydrates in the maize stalks transported to grains and weakened the
basal internodes, thus reducing the bending quality and providing an ease of
lodging (Xue et al., 2016); this is because the basal internodes act as a lever for
holding the plants upright (Yuan et al., 2002). These results were in line with the
result of Gou et al., (2010), who reported more observed lodging at high plant
population density as compared with the lower densities.
Grain yield
The response of grain yield to plant population density showed that the highest
grain yield of 7410 kg ha-1 was recorded from 75*20 cm (66,666 plants ha-1).
While, the lowest grain yield of 6100 kg ha-1 was recorded from the lowest plant
population density of 44,444 plants ha-1 which was not statistically significantly
different from 53,333 plants ha-1 (Table 3). The data also showed that by planting
66,666 plants ha-1 was a 21.5% grain yield advantage over the lowest plant
population density of 44,444 plant ha-1. Such effect may be related to the increase
of plant per meter square area and subsequently, increase the number of cobs
harvested. Thus, balanced growth and development of plants need optimum plant
population density because optimum density enables plants efficient utilization of
available nutrients, soil water and better light interception coupled with other
growth influencing factors.
[480]
Table 3. Main effect of fertilizer rate and plant population density on yield and yield components of maize combined over
season at Jimma and Buno-Bedele zone during 2019 main cropping season
Yield and yield components

Treatments Plant height Lodging (%) Grain yield AGB HI
(cm) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1)
Plant Population density ha-1
66666(75*20cm) 300.7 36.5 7410 17060 0.42
53333(75*25cm) 291.1 34.7 6660 15660 0.41
44444 75*30cm) 294.3 27.0 6100 13970 0.42
LSD (0.05) 6.12 7.74 650 1360 0.04
F-test ** * ** ** NS
N/P2O5 fertilizer rate (Kg ha-1)
92/69 294.2 33.0 6750 15370 0.43
115/86 296.6 32.5 6700 15750 0.41
LSD (0.05) 4.99 6.32 530 1110 0.03
CV (%) 3.08 25.1 14.3 13.0 13.7
F-test NS NS NS NS NS
LSD= Least significant difference; CV=Coefficient of variation; NS=Non significant; HI= Harvest index; AGB=Above
ground biomass; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
This finding was in agreement with those obtained by Farnham (2001) who reported that maize grain yield increased as
plant density increased from 59,000 to 89,000 plant ha-1.
Above-ground biomass yield

The highest above-ground biomass of 17,060 kg ha-1 was recorded from 75*20 cm
(66,666 plant ha-1); while, the lowest above-ground biomass of 13,970 kg ha-1was
recorded from the lowest plant population density of 44,444 plants ha-1 (Table 3).
By planting 66,666plants ha-1 there was a 22% above ground biomass increase
over plant population density of 44,444 plant ha-1. This shows that an increase in
plant population density increase above ground biomass yield because the plant
per meter square area is increased and consequently the number of cobs harvested
too.
Biomass yield was decreased in wider spacing due to minimum plant height
occurred and decreasing the ability of plants for capturing resources which were
reflected as evident in their decreased biomass production. Thus, an increase in
biomass yield might have been on account of overall improvement in the
vegetative growth of the plant due to optimum plants per unit area. These results
were in agreement with Bullock et al. (1998) who reported that narrow row
spacing made more efficient use of available light and shaded the surface soil
more completely during the early part of the growing season while the soil is still
moist and therefore, narrow row spacing is more effective in producing biomass.
[481]
Harvest index
Though the result among the tested parameters was non-significant, harvest index
obtained was in the acceptable range of 0.4 - 0.6 for maize (Hue, 1995).
Economic Analysis
The data presented in table 4 indicates that the highest net benefit (44,138 ETB ha-
1
) was obtained from 66,666 plant ha-1. Whereas, the lowest net benefit (36,955
ETB ha-1) was obtained from 44,444 plants ha-1. The same table also shows that
planting 66,666 plants ha-1 increased the net benefit by 19.4% (7183 ETB ha-1) as
compared with 44,444 plants ha-1.Concerning NP fertilizer application, the highest
net benefit was recorded from 92/69 kg ha-1 N/P2O5 fertilizer application and it
increased the net benefit by 3% (1,214 ETB ha-1).
Table 4. Partial budget analyses of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on grain yield of
late-maturing maize variety at Jimma and Buno-bedele zone during 2019 cropping season
Treatments GY Adj.GY GFB TVC NB
(kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1)
Plant population Density ha-1
66,666(75*20cm) 7410 6669 46683 2545 44138
53,333(75*25cm) 6660 5994 41958 1983 39975
44,444 (75*30cm) 6100 5490 38430 1475 36955
N/P2O5 fertilizer rate (Kg ha-1)
92/69 6750 6075 42525 3631 38894
115/86 6700 6030 42210 4530 37680
*GY= Grain yield; GFB = Gross field benefit; TCV = Total cost that varied;
NB = Net benefit; ETB = Ethiopian Birr; Price of chemical fertilizer = 13.5birr kg-1; Price of Urea = 10 birr kg-1;
Wage rate = 40 Birr man-day-1; Retail price of grain = 7 birr kg-1.
The farmers’ perceptions were collected at the green ear stage and harvest period.
Six maize stand evaluation criteria were set by farmers to decide optimal fertilizer
recommendation and plant population per hectare for late-maturing maize variety
(BH661). Accordingly, maize growth rate, probability of lodging, number of
ears/plants and yield potential were found the most important evaluation criteria
for the maize stand. Further, based on maize stand evaluation criteria that were set
by farmers (Table 5) 23% of them chosen 53,333 plants ha-1 (75*25cm) with
92/69 Kg ha-1 N/P2O5 fertilizer rate.
[482]
Table 5. Farmers perception on optimal NP fertilizer application and plant population density on late maturing maize
variety at Jimma and Buno-bedele zone during 2019 main cropping season
92/69 (Kg N/P2O5 ha-1) 115/86 (Kg N/P2O5 ha-1)

Farmers Evaluation
Criteria 44,444 53,333 66,666 44,444 53,333 66,666
(75*30cm) (75*25cm) (75*20cm) (75*30cm) (75*25cm) (75*20cm)
Weeding Frequency High Medium Low High Medium Low

Growth rate Slow Medium Fast Slow Medium Fast
Probability of lodging Low Medium High Low Medium High
Number of ears/plant 1 1 1 1 1 1
Cob size Bigger Medium Smaller Bigger Medium Smaller
Number of ear rotting low low low low low low
Yield potential Lower Medium Higher Lower Medium Higher
choice in Percentage 14% 23% 19% 11% 18% 15%

Declining soil fertility aggravated the challenge of agriculture to meet the world’s
increasing demand for food in a sustainable way. The variations in the
morphology of the maize crop led to different planting densities to reach
maximum yield. Because of this, the study was conducted to validate the response
of maize hybrid BH-661 to different rates of NP fertilizer and plant population
density at Jimma and BunoBedele zones, southwestern Ethiopia.
Accordingly, rigorous research efforts were made on farmer's fields of Jimma

zone (Kersa and Omonada woredas) and Buno-Bedele zone in the vicinity of the
Jimma Agricultural research center for three cropping seasons (2016-2018) and
validation of the experiment was performed in 2019 main cropping season. The
results revealed that the plant population density significantly improved grain
yield and above ground biomass yield of the maize. The improvement was mainly
due to the high plant population harvested ha-1 in higher plants ha-1 and vice versa.
The brief results from across sites indicate that grain and above-ground biomass
yield of maize significantly affected by plant population density and not by
different fertilizer doses. It can be concluded that the maximum grain yield (7410
kg ha-1) and biomass yield (17060 kg ha-1) was recorded with a plant population
density of 66,666 plants ha-1 (75*20cm) which gave the highest net benefit of
44,138.0 ETB. This result contradicted the previous recommendation of plant
population density of 44,444 plant ha-1 (75*30cm). Therefore, the plant population
density of 66,666 plant ha-1 (75 x 20cm a plant hill-1 or 75 x 40 cm two plants hill-1)
[483]
in complement with N/P2O5 fertilizer rate of 92/69 kg ha-1 can be recommended in
the study area and similar agro-ecologies.
References
Adeniyan ON, Ojeniyi SO. 2005. Effect of poultry manure, NPK 15-15-15 and
combination of their reduced levels on maize growth and soil chemical
properties. Nigerian Journal of Soil Science 15: 34-41.
Azam S, Ali M, Amin M, Bibi S, Arif M (2007). Effect of plant population on maize
hybrids. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2(1): 104 – 111.
Batjes NH. 1995. Aglobal data set of soil pH properties. Technical Paper 27, International
Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen.
Bavec F, Bavec M. 2002. Effect of plant population on leaf area index,cob characteristics
and grain yield of early maturing maize cultivars (FAO 100-400). European Journal
of Agronomy 16:151-159.
Brady N, Weil RR. 2008. Nature and Properties of Soils (14th edn.). Prentice-Hall, Upper
Saddle River. 992p.
Berhanu D. 1980. A survey of studies conducted about soil resources appraisal and
evaluation for rural development in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.70p
Bullock DG, Nielsen RL, Nyquist WE. 1988. A growth analysis comparison of corn
grown in conventional and equidistant plant spacing. Crop Science 28:254-258.
Bullock D, Khan S, Rayburn A. 1998. Soybean responses to narrow rows are largely due
to enhanced early growth. Crop Science 38: 1011-1016.
CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.79p
Dalley CD, Bernards MI, Kells JJ (2006). Effect of Weed removal timing and row
spacing on soil moisture in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technology 20: 399 – 409.
Donald CM. 1962. In search of yield. Journal of Australian Institute of Agricultural
Science 28(1): 171-178.
Farnham DE. 2001. Row spacing, plant density and hybrid effects on corn grain yield and
moisture. Agronomy Journal 93: 1049-1053.
Gou L, Huang JJ, Sun R, Ding ZS, Dong ZQ, Zhao M. 2010. Variation characteristic of
stalk penetration strength of maize with different density-tolerance varieties. Trans.
Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering 26, 156–162.
Hashemi-Dezfouli A, Herbert SJ. 1992. Intensifying plant density response of corn with
artificial shade. Agronomy Journal 84:547-551.
Hassan AA. 2000. Effect of plant population density on yield and yield components of 8
Egyptian maize hybrids. Bulletin Faculty of Agriculture University Cairo 51: 1-16.
Hue NV. 1995. Sewage sludge. pp.199-247. In: Jack E. Rechcigl (eds). Soil amendments
and environmental quality. Lewis Publisher, London.
Getachew A, Taye B. 2005. On-farm integrated soil fertility management in wheat on
nitisols of central Ethiopian highlands. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources 7:
141-155.
Gomez KA, Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed.
John Wiley and Sons. New York.
[484]
Porter PM, Hicks DR, Lueschen WE, Ford JH, Warnes DD, Hoverstad TR. 1997. Corn
response to row width and plant population in the northern Corn Belt. Journal of
Production Agriculture 10: 293-300.
Sangakkara UR, Bandaranayake PSRD, Gajanayake JN, Stamp P. 2004. Plant populations
and yield of rainfed maize grown in wet and dry seasons of the tropics. Maydica 49:
83-88.
Song YH, Yukui R, Guta B, Jincai L. 2016. Morphological characteristics of maize
canopy development as affected by increased plant density. PLoS One 11:e0154084.
Srikanth M, Amanullah MM, Muthukrishnan P. 2009. Influence of plant density and
fertilizer on yield attributes yield and grain quality of hybrid maize. Madras
Agricultural Journal 96(16), 139-143.
Tekalign M, Haque I. 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils, II. Forms and
distribution of inorganic phosphates and their relation to available phosphorus.
Tropical Agriculture 68: 2-8.
Tenaw W, Tesfa B, Tolessa D, Gebeyehu S, Tana T, Geleta N. 2002. Development of
appropriate cropping system for various maize growing regions of Ethiopia. In:
Mandefro N, Tanner D, Twumasi-Afriya S (eds.). Enhancing the contribution of
maize to food security in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the second national maize
workshop of Ethiopia. 12-16 November 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp 61 -70.
Tenaw W, Tsegaye H, Tesfa B, Girma W. 1993. In: Benti Tolessa and J.K. Ransom
(eds.). Proceedings of the First National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, 5-7 May,
1992. IAR/CIMMYT, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Westgate ME, Forcella F, Reicosky DD, Somsen J. 1997. Rapid canopy closure for maize
production in the northern US Corn Belt: radiation-use efficiency and grain yield.
Field Crops Research Amsterdam 49:249-258
Xue J, Gou L, Zhao Y, Yao M, Yao H, Tian J, Zhang W. 2016. Effects of light intensity
within the canopy on maize lodging. Field Crop Research 188: 133–114.
Yuan ZH, Li YD, Chen HS. 2002. Dynamic model and lodging resistance analysis of
maize stem. Journal of Maize Science 3: 74-75.
[485]
Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates on Medium Maturing
Maize Varieties at Jimma, South Western Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu*1, Muhidin Biya1 and EshetuYadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia
E-mail: sis.sis1835@gmail.com
Abstract
Maize is one of the primary staple crops in Ethiopia that plays an important role in
the livelihood of the people. However, its productivity is very low mainly due to low
soil fertility and the adaptation of niche specific varieties. On farm field experiments
was conducted to validation and evaluate the optimum NP fertilizer rates and best
medium maturing maize variety at Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia during the
2019 main cropping season. The experiment had two rates of N/P2O5; 92/69 and
115/86 kg ha-1 and two medium maturing maize varieties(BH-546 and BH-547) laid
out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in a factorial arrangement using
farmers’ fields as replications. The result showed that the highest grain yield 7350 kg
ha-1 and aboveground biomass 14530 kg ha-1 were recorded from BH-547 with the
application of 115/86 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate. It was statistically at par with
planting of BH-546 maize variety at application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer and
gave the highest net benefit 41,855 Ethiopian Birr ha-1. Therefore, a medium maturing
maize variety BH546 with the application of 92/69 kg N/P 2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rates can
be taken as optimal and recommended for farmers under rain fed condition in
Omonada woreda of Jimma zone and other similar agro-ecologies of southwestern
Ethiopia.
Introduction
Maize is one of the primary staple crops in Ethiopia and plays an important role in
the livelihood of the society. In Ethiopia, future increases in maize production to
meet domestic demand will have to rely on improvements in yield per hectare
rather than on the expansion of maize production area. Enhanced maize
productivity can be achieved by increased use of modern production techniques
such as the adoption of hybrid maize varieties in line with the use of fertilizer
application and appropriate crop management practices.
Poor soil fertility is one of the principal factors that limit maize productivity in
maize-growing areas of Ethiopia (Abebayehu et al., 2011). Degradation of soil
Physico-chemical properties, soil acidity with high P sorption and soil nutrient
depletion due to low chemical fertilizer use by most small-holder farmers who
cannot afford the expensive fertilizers leads to declining in maize production in
SSA (Vanlauwe et al., 2010).
Nitrogen is a vital nutrient that determines yield and its availability in sufficient
quantity throughout the growing season is essential for optimum maize growth
(Kogbe and Adediran, 2003). It is a component of protein, nucleic acids and other
[487]
compounds essential for plant growth process (Onasanya et al., 2009). Whereas
phosphorus is the second most important nutrient element (after nitrogen) limiting
agricultural production (Kogbe and Adediran, 2003). It is used for growth,
utilization of sugar and starch, photosynthesis, metabolic process which leads to
higher yield of the crop (Ayub et al., 2002).
Some soil types in Ethiopia contain enough amounts of essential nutrients for the
plant's development, but the majority of soils in the country contains low to
medium total N and found inherently low in available P. This could be due to long
term cultivation practice that depletes plant nutrients and soil resource degradation
as a result of soil erosion and run-off and this becomes a threat to agricultural
productivity in Ethiopia. Current observations in the maize production field show
multi-nutrient deficiencies even in plots where farmers attempted to apply
fertilizers at rates, they claim optimal for expected yield levels. Thus, NP
fertilizers must be applied at rates that can provide better yield advantage and
economically coincides with peak need by the crop.
Therefore, it is an appropriate to know how fertilizer studies on recently released

medium maturing maize varieties that have been developed for use in different
agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. Hence, the experiment was done with the objective to
validate the effect of NP fertilizer rates on medium maturing maize varieties at
Jimma Zone; and to identify the economic optimum rate of NP fertilizer rate.

On-farm field experiment was conducted in three sites of Jimma Zone Omonada
woreda, Southwestern Ethiopia during the main cropping season of 2019. The
sites were located at 7º46' N and 36º 00'E and laid at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l.
with soil type of the area is Upland: Chromic Nitosol and Cambisol. The average
maximum and minimum temperature are 9ºC and 28ºC respectively and reliably
receive good rains of 1561 mm per annum cropping season.

The soil of the experimental field was characterized by selected Physico-chemical
properties before the application of the treatments (Table 1). The average soil pH
was 4.97 which was strongly acidic (Batjes, 1995) which affects maize growth by
suppressing the root development and reducing the availability of macronutrients
to plants especially phosphorus (Brady and Weil, 2008). The soil total N (0.174%)
and SOM (3.53%) were medium for crop growth and development (Berhanu,
1980). For all locations the Bray II extractable available P was 17.9 mg kg-1 which
was above the critical level (8 mg kg-1) for most crops as described by Tekalign
and Haque (1991).
[488]
Table 1. Selected Physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites
before planting at Omonada woreda
Soil characters Value Rating Reference

pH(1:2.5) 4.97 Strongly acidic Batjes(1995)
Av P(mg kg-1) 17.9 High Olsen et al., 1954
TN (%) 0.174 Medium Berhanu (1980)
OC (%) 2.05 High Tekalign(1991)
SOM (%) 3.53 Medium Berhanu (1980)
C:N ratio 11.78 Low Brady and Weil, 2002
Where pH= hydrogen power, TN=Total Nitrogen, Av P=Available Phosphorous,
OC=Organic Carbon, SOM=Soil Organic Carbon. Values are the means of duplicated samples.
Experimental treatment and procedures

The experimental field was plowed and prepared following the conventional
tillage practice before planting at all locations. The land was leveled using manual
power before the field layout was made. The maize was planted from 18 up to 22
May at different locations. Two maize seeds were planted per hill and then thinned
to one plant per hill after the good establishment of seedlings. This experiment had
four treatments with farmers field as replications which were two NP2O5 rates of ;-
92/69 and 115/86 kg ha-1 and two medium maturing maize varieties; BH546 and
BH547 which were storage pest resistant and are well adapted to low-mid altitude
(1000-1800 m.a.s.l) areas. They were white-colored and used for the experiment
to maximize the yield potential of smallholder farmers. A total of four treatments
were laid out in a factorial arrangement in randomized complete block design. The
plot size of 45m2 (4.5 m x 10 m) was used for each treatment.
Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers were applied, respectively per stand or hill
base. Nitrogen fertilizer rates were applied during the planting and knee height
stage to increase the nitrogen use efficiency. All other agronomic practices were
applied uniformly to all experimental plots in the study area.
The experimental field was prepared following the conventional tillage practice
and furrow opened by using oxen. Two maize seeds were planted per hill and
thinned after establishment to maintain a single healthy plant per hill. All other
agronomic practices like three times hand weeding were applied uniformly to both
experimental plots as per their respective recommendations for maize in the study
area.
Data collected
Plant height (cm): was measured at ground level to the terminal stem using a
selected plants.
[489]
Number of ears per plant: was obtained by counting the total number of ears in
each plot and divided into a total number of plants stand harvested.
Stem diameter (girth): was measured at 50cm from the ground level on six
randomly selected plants using a caliper.
were selected, chopped and oven-dried till getting uniform weight.
Lodging percent: was obtained by counting the total number of stalk and root
lodging in each plot and divided to the total number of plants stand at harvesting.
Harvest index: was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to above-ground biomass
yield on a dry weight basis (Donald, 1962).
Data analysis
version 9.3 statistical software. Whenever the ANOVA results showed the
significant differences between sources of variation, the means were compared
using the least significant difference. The homogeneity test was done as suggested
by Gomez and Gomez, (1984).

The partial budget analysis was performed to investigate the economic feasibility
treatments of chemical fertilizers and the seed rates as described by CIMMYT
(1988). The partial budget analysis was done using the prevailing market prices
for inputs at planting and outputs, at the time the crop was harvested. All costs and
benefits were calculated on a hectare basis in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The inputs
and/or concepts used in the partial budget analysis were the mean grain yield of
each treatment, the gross field benefit (GFB) ha-1 (the product of field price and
the mean yield for each treatment), the field price of chemical fertilizers and urea
kg-1 (the nutrient cost plus the cost of transportation from the point of sale to the
farm), cost of labor spent on seed purchase and planting, the total costs that varied
(TVC) which included the sum of field costs of fertilizers and their application,
and seed purchase and planting.

The statistical analysis revealed that the interaction and main effect of NP
fertilizer rates and maize varieties didn’t show significant (P >0.05) difference on
plant height, number of ear per plant, stem diameter (girth), lodging percent and
[490]
harvest index. However grain yield and above-ground biomass were significantly
(P <0.01) affected by the interaction effect of NP fertilizer rates and maize
varieties. But, both grain yield and above-ground biomass were not significantly
(P >0.05) influenced by the main effect of NP fertilizer rates and maize varieties
(Table 2).
Table 2. Mean square values of NP fertilizer rates on growth, yield components and yield of
medium maturing maize varieties

Parameter
NP (1) Maize NP x Maize Error
Varieties (1) varieties (1) (6)
Plant height(cm) 0.08ns 90.75ns 2.08ns 79.14
Ears per plant 0.003ns 0.003ns 0.000001ns 0.016
Girth(cm) 0.001 ns 0.029ns 0.001ns 0.024
Lodging (%) 0.18ns 36.999ns 26.19ns 10.88
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 278678.6ns 91577.7ns 1451091.2* 169579.4
AGB (t ha-1) 0.273ns 0.01 ns 1.928* 0.302
Harvest index 0.0001ns 0.003ns 0.00003ns 0.00039
*Numbers in parenthesis = Degrees of freedom; *= Significant (P < 0.05); NS= non significant;
AGB= Above ground biomass; ha = Hectare
Grain yield
The highest grain yield of 7350 kg ha-1 was recorded from the BH-547 maize
variety with the application of 115/86 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate which was
statistically at par with the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer and BH-
546 maize variety. While, the lowest grain yield 6350 kg ha-1 was recorded from
the BH-547 maize variety with the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer
rate (Table 3). The data also showed that application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1
fertilizer with BH-546 maize variety was a 13.7% grain yield advantage over
planting BH-547 maize variety with the application of 92/69 kg N/P 2O5 ha-1
fertilizer rate. Such reduction of grain yield might be due to nutritional imbalance
and deficiency of certain important plant growth elements at various important
growth stages and also due to reduced leaf area development, stem diameter,
number of ear plant, high lodging percent and also plant height of maize varieties
resulting in lesser radiation interception and, consequently, low efficiency in the
conversion of solar radiation. The higher doses of chemical fertilizers increased
grain yield as nutrients are the main driving force to produce a high yield of maize
(Nivong et al., 2007). These results were in line with the findings of Ghimire et al.
(2016) who reported that grain yield was significantly affected by crop varieties
sown. Also Udoh (2005) reported that some hybrid maize varieties have a yield
advantage over other maize varieties because they possess high grain yield
uniformity in flowering and ear placement.
[491]
Table 3. Interaction and main effects of NP fertilizer and medium maturing maize varieties on growth, yield and yield
components at Omonada woreda during 2019 cropping season
N/P2O5 Maize Plant height Lodging (%) at Ears per Stem Grain yield
AGB (kg ha-1)
(Kg ha-1) varieties (cm) harvesting plant diameter(cm) (kg ha-1)
BH-546 256.0 72.30 1.0 2.48 7220a 14290a

92/69
BH-547 249.7 78.8 0.93 2.40 6350b 13430b
BH-546 255.0 75.5 0.93 2.48 6830ab 13790ab
115/86
BH-547 250.3 76.06 0.90 2.36 7350a 14530a
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS NS 580* 776*
CV (%) 3.52 4.36 13.7 6.33 8.9 6.03
LSD= Least significant difference; CV=Coefficient of variation; NS=Non significant; AGB=Above ground biomass; Values
followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
Above Ground Biomass

The highest above-ground biomass of 14,290 kg ha-1 was recorded from BH-547
maize variety and application of 115/86 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate which was
statically at par with the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate on BH-
546 maize variety. On the contrary, the lowest 13430 kg ha-1 was obtained from
the BH-547 maize variety and application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate
(Table 3). Above ground biomass yield advantage of 6.4% was obtained due to
planting BH-546 maize variety and application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer
rate when compared with the same fertilizer rate and use of BH-547 maize variety.
The result showed that the above-ground biomass was increased due to the higher
number of ear per plant, plant height and grain yield. An adequate supply of
nutrients to the crop helps in the synthesis of carbohydrates, which are required for
the formation of protoplasm, thus resulting in higher cell division and cell
elongation. Thus an increase in biomass yield might have been on account of
overall improvement in the vegetative growth of the plant due to the application of
NP fertilizer with the variety we use. These results were in agreement with Tariku
et al., (2018) that reported that the application of higher chemical fertilizer
increased the dry matter of plants.
Harvest index
A significantly higher harvest index of 0.50 was obtained from the BH-546 maize
variety, while the lowest harvest index 0.47 was recorded from the BH-547 maize
variety (Figure 1). The harvest index obtained in the acceptable range of 0.4 - 0.6
for maize (Hay, 1995).
An adequate supply of chemical fertilizer is essential for optimizing the

partitioning of dry matter between grain and other parts of the maize plant.
Optimum utilization of solar radiation, higher assimilates production and its
conversion to starch results in higher biomass, grain yield leading to a higher
harvest index.
[492]
0.52
LSD=NS; CV(%)=4.1 0.50a LSD=0.028*; CV(%)=4.1
0.51
0.48 0.49
0.50
Harvest Index
0.49 0.47b
0.48
0.47
0.46
0.45
115/86 92/69 BH546 BH547
NP2O5 fertilizer rates kg ha-1 Maize varities
Figure 1. Effect of NP fertilizer rate and medium maturing maize varieties on harvest index in 2019 main cropping season
at Omonada woreda.
*LSD = Least Significant Difference; CV = Coefficient of Variation; Values followed by the same letter(s) within main treatment
rates are not significantly different at 0.05 probability level.

The total variable cost of the open market price (7 birr kg-1), official prices of NP
fertilizer (13.5 birr kg-1) and urea (10 birr kg-1) were used for analysis. The cost of
application and transport for fertilizer was taken to be 15 birr 100 kg-1. Grain yield
was adjusted by 10% for management difference to reflect the difference between
the experimental yield and the yield that farmers could expect from the same
treatment (Getachew and Taye, 2005, CIMMYT, 1988).
Table 4. Partial budget analysis of NP fertilizer rates on grain yield of medium maturing maize varieties at Omonada
woreda during 2019 cropping season
N/P2O5 Maize GY Adj.GY GFB TVC NB

(Kg ha-1) varieties (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1)
BH-546 7220 6498.0 45486 3631 41855
92/69
BH-547 6350 5715.0 40005 3631 36374
BH-546 6830 6147.0 43029 4530 38499
115/86
BH-547 7350 6615.0 46305 4530 41775
*GY= Grain yield; GFB = Gross field benefit; TVC = Total Variable cost; NB = Net benefit;
ETB = Ethiopian Birr; Price of chemical fertilizer = 13.5birr kg-1; Price of Urea = 10 birr kg-1; Wage rate = 40 Birr man-day-
1; Retail price of grain = 7 birr kg-1.
The data presented in Table 4 indicates that the highest net benefit (41,855 ETB
ha-1) was obtained from fertilizer application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 and BH-546
medium maturing maize variety. Whereas, the lowest net benefit (36374 ETB ha-
1
) was obtained from BH-547 maize variety and application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5
ha-1 fertilizer. Due to the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer and
planting BH-546 maize variety, there was a net benefit increase by 15.1% (5484
[493]
ETB ha-1) when compared with planting BH-547 maize variety with the
application of the same fertilizer rate.
The perceptions of the farmers about the improved maize varieties were collected
at the green ear stage and the harvest period. Six maize stand evaluation criteria
were set by farmers to select the best medium maturing maize variety and optimal
fertilizer application. Accordingly, maize growth rate, probability of lodging,
number of ears/plants, and yield potential were found the most important for the
maize stand evaluation criteria. Based on maize stand evaluation criteria that were
set by farmers (Table 5), 29% of them chosen BH-546 maize variety with the
application of 92/69 Kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate.
Table 5. Farmers perception on optimal NP fertilizer application and medium maturing maize varieties at Jimma zone
during 2019 cropping
NP fertilizer rates
92/69 (Kg N/P2O5 ha-1) 115/86 (Kg N/P2O5 ha-1)

Farmers Evaluation Criteria
Medium maturing maize varieties
BH-546 BH-547 BH-546 BH-547
Weeding Frequency Medium Medium Medium Medium

Growth rate Medium Medium High High
Probability of lodging Low Medium Low Medium
Number of ears/plants 1 1 1 1
Cob size Bigger Medium Bigger Medium
Number of ear rotting Low Low Low Low
Yield potential Higher Medium Higher Medium
choice in Percentage 29% 23% 22% 26%
Summary and Conclusions

Enhanced maize productivity can be achieved by increased use of modern
production techniques such as the adoption of hybrid maize varieties in line with
the use of optimum fertilizer application and appropriate crop management
practices. In view of this, the study was conducted to validate the response of
medium maturing maize varieties to different rates of NP fertilizer at Jimma zone
Omonada Woreda, southwestern Ethiopia.
Accordingly, the research efforts were made on farmer's fields of Jimma zone
Omonada woredas in the vicinity of the Jimma Agricultural research center for
three cropping seasons (2016-2018) and validation of the experiment was
[494]
performed in 2019 main cropping season. From all, the grain yield and above-
ground biomass were significant (P <0.05) for the interaction effect of NP
fertilizer rate and maize varieties. The highest grain yield 7350 kg ha-1 and above-
ground biomass 14530 kg ha-1 was recorded from BH-547 maize variety and
115/86 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rate which was statistically at par with the
application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer application on BH-546 maize variety
for both grain yield and above ground biomass. The partial budget analysis based
on the field prices of inputs and maize grain yield showed that, the use of BH546
maize variety with the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer gave the
highest net benefit (41,855 ETB ha-1). Therefore, from current on-farm input
availability and economic feasibility, a medium maturing maize variety BH-546
with the application of 92/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 fertilizer rates can be taken as
optimal and recommended for farmers under rain fed condition in Omonada
woreda of Jimma zone and other similar humid agro-ecologies of southwestern
Ethiopia.
References
Abebayehu, A., Elias, E. and Diels, J. 2011. Comparative analysis of soil nutrient balance
at farm level: a case study in Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. International Journal of Soil
Science, 6(4): 259-266.
Ayub, M., Nadeem, M.A., Sharar, M.S. and Mahmood, N., 2002. The response of maize
fodder to different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Asian Journal of Plant
Science, 1(4): 352-354.
Batjes, N.H., 1995. Aglobal data set of soil pH properties. Technical Paper 27,
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen.
Brady, N. and Weil, R.R., 2002. The nature and properties of soils. 13 eds. Prentice-Hall.
New Jersey, USA. 598p.
Brady, N. and Weil, R.R., 2008. Nature and Properties of Soils (14th edn.). Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River. 992p.
Berhanu, D., 1980. A survey of studies conducted about soil resources appraisal and
Donald, C. M., 1962. In search of yield. Journal of Australian Institute of Agricultural
Science, 28(1): 171-178.
CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.79p.
Getachew, A., and Taye, B., 2005. On-farm integrated soil fertility management in wheat
on nitisols of central Ethiopian highlands. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources,
7: 141-155.
Ghimire, S., Sherchan, D.P., Andersen, P., Pokhrel, C., Ghimire, S. and Khanal, D., 2016.
Effect of Variety and Practice of Cultivation on Yield of Spring Maize in Terai of
Nepal.
Gomez, K A. and A. A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Hay, R.K.M., 1995. Harvest index: a review of its use in plant breeding and crop
physiology. Annals of applied biology, 126(1), pp.197-216.
[495]
Kogbe, J.O.S. and Adediran, J.A., 2003. Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
application on the yield of maize in the savanna zone of Nigeria. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 2(10): 345-349.
Nivong, S., Tasnee, A. and Russell, Y., 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer response of maize on
some important soils from DSSAT software prediction. Natural Science, 41(1): 21-
27.
Olsen, S.R., Cole, C., Watanable, F.S. and Dean, L.A., 1954. Estimation with sodium
phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate, USDA Circular, 939: 1-
19.
Onasanya, R.O., Aiyelari, O.P., Onasanya, A., Oikeh, S., Nwilene, F.E. and Oyelakin,
O.O., 2009. Growth and yield response of maize to different rates of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers in southern Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 5(4): 400-407.
Shah, S.T.H., Zamir, M.S.I., Waseem, M., Ali, A., Tahir, M. and Khalid, W.B., 2009.
Growth and yield response of maize to organic and inorganic sources of nitrogen.
Pakistan Journal of life and social science, 7(2):108-111.
Tariku Beyene, ToleraAbera and ErmiyiasHabte, 2018. Effect of Integrated Nutrient
Management on Growth and Yield of Food Barley (Hordeumulgare) Variety in
Toke Kutaye District, West Showa Zone, Ethiopia
Tekalign, M. and Haque, I., 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils, II. Forms
and distribution of inorganic phosphates and their relation to available phosphorus.
Tropical Agriculture, 68(1): 2-8.
TekalignTadese. 1991. Soil, Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and Compost
Analysis. Working Document No. 13.International Livestock Research Center for
Africa (ILCA), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Udoh, J., 2005. Crop Production Techniques for the Tropics Concept Publications
Limited, Munshin, Lagos Nigeria, 101-106.
Vanlauwe, B., Bationo, A., Chiang, J., Giller, K.E., Merckx, R., Mokwunye, U.,
Ohiokpehai, O., Pypers, P., Tabo, R., Shepherd, K.D. and Smaling, E.M.A., 2010.
Integrated soil fertility management: operational definition and consequences for
implementation and dissemination. Outlook on agriculture, 39(1): 17-24.
[496]
Validation of Soybean (Glycine max. L.) to NP
Fertilizer Rates and Plant Population Densities at
Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu*1, Muhidin Biya1 and Eshetu Yadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia; E-mail: sis.sis1835@gmail.com
Abstract
Soybean is an important crop in the tropical, hot sub-moist agro-ecological zone
of south western Ethiopia. However, the yield of the crop is limited due to lack of
appropriate plant population density and optimum NP fertilizer rate. Therefore, on
farm field experiment was conducted to validate and evaluate optimum NP
fertilizer rates and plant population on yield and yield components of soybean at
Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia during the 2019 main cropping season. The
experiment was laid out in RCBD with a factorial arrangement of two different
plant population densities (333,333 plants ha-1and 400,000 plants ha-1) and two
levels of NP fertilizer rate (46/46kg ha-1 and 69/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1) taking farmers
field as a replication. The interaction and main effect of NP fertilizer rates was
non-significant (p>0.05) on plant height, number of pods per plant, grain yield,
above-ground biomass and harvest index. Also plant population had no significant
(p>0.05) effect on plant height, number of pods per plant and harvest index; but it
had a significant (p<0.05) effect on grain yield and above-ground biomass. It was
observed that an increase in plant population increased grain yield and above
ground biomass and vice versa. Significantly the highest mean grain yield (3570
kg ha-1) was obtained from the highest plant population of 400,000plants ha -1 that
gave the highest net benefit of 46,855 Ethiopian Birr ha -1. Therefore, it is
advisable for farmers in the study area and adjacent woredas’ with similar agro-
ecologies, a plant population density of 400,000 plants ha-1 (50 x 5cm) in
complement with fertilizer rate of 46/46 kg N/P2O5 ha-1.
Introduction
Soybean (Glycine max. L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops in the world.
It contains 18-22 % oil and 40-42 % protein (Mounts et al., 1987). It is highly
industrialized in developed countries, providing more than a quarter of the world’s
food and animal feed requirement in addition to protein .Soybean was first
introduced to Ethiopia in the 1950’s because of its nutritional value, multi-purpose
use and wider adaptability in different cropping systems. It is a crop that can play
a major role as a protein source for resource-poor farmers of Ethiopia who cannot
afford animal products. Besides, it can also be used as an oil, crop, animal feed,
and poultry meal, for soil fertility improvement and more importantly as income
for the country. Soybean can be grown in different parts of Ethiopia; the major
areas currently growing the crop are situated in the western and south western
parts of the country, notably Benishangul Gumuz, Gambela and parts of the
Oromia Region.
[497]
The entry of large-scale commercial farmers, including government sugarcane-
soybean intercropping programs, and research in soil fertility rehabilitation has
made soybean a favorite crop. According to CSA(2018), the average productivity
of soybean in Ethiopia was 2271 kg ha-1 which is low as compared to world
average of 2500 kg ha-1. However, this level is very low compared to its potential,
which could go up to 4 tons per hectare if improved crop management is used.
This low yield may be attributed to the combination of several production
constraints among which poor soil fertility, periodic moisture stress, diseases, and
insect-pests, weeds, non-optimum plant population, unbalanced-NP fertilizer rate
and untimely field operations play a major role. Perhaps the three years
experiment of NP fertilizer rate and plant population density was performed from
2016 up to 2018 and further evaluation and validation were needed. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to validate the response of soya bean to plant
population density and NP fertilizer rates on growth parameters, yield, and yield
components.

Description of the Experimental site
The study was conducted at Jimma Zone, Karsa and Omonada woreda, in the
Oromia region at the southwestern part of Ethiopia, during the main cropping
season of 2019. The Kersa site was located at a latitude of 7º42' N and longitude
of 36º 59'E and laid at an altitude of 1750 m.a.s.l. The average minimum and
maximum temperature are 6ºC and 25.5ºC respectively and reliably receive good
rains of 1712 mm per annum during the main cropping season. The Omonada site
was located on 7º46' N and 36º 00'E and laid at an altitude of up to 1753 m.a.s.l.
with soil type of the area is Upland: Chromic Nitosol and Cambisol [Eutric-
nitisols (reddish-brown)]. The average maximum and minimum temperatures are
9ºC and 28ºC respectively and reliably receive good rains of 1561 mm per annum
during cropping season. The farming system of the study site is coffee and cereal
crops dominated with coffee, maize, tef and sorghum also have a warm and cold
climate, also convenient topography is very suitable for all agricultural practices.
It was situated in the tepid to cool humid-mid highlands of southwestern Ethiopia.

The soil of the experimental field before planting was indicated in Table 1. The
average soil pH of the trial sites ranges from 5.06 to 5.14 across locations, which
was strongly acidic (Batjes, 1995) so that it affects maize growth by suppressing
the root development and reducing the availability of macronutrients to plants
especially phosphorus (Brady and Weil, 2008). The soil total N ranges from 0.16
to 0.19% and SOM from 3.08 to 3.55% which were medium rate for crop growth
and development for both nutrients (Berhanu, 1980). For all locations the average
[498]
Bray II extractable available P ranges from 4.48 to 11.82 mg kg-1 which was
below the critical level (8 mg kg-1) for most crops as described by Tekalign and
Haque (1991) at Kersa woreda and above the critical level at Omonada woreda.
Table 1. Selected Physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites before
planting at Kersa and Omonada woreda of Jimma zone in 2019 main cropping season

Kersa Omonada
pH(1:2.5) 5.06 5.14
Av P(mg kg-1) 4.48 11.82
TN (%) 0.16 0.19
OC (%) 1.79 2.06
SOM (%) 3.08 3.55
C:N ratio 10.97 10.86
Where pH= hydrogen power, OC=Organic carbon, TN=Total Nitrogen, Av P=Available Phosphorous, SOM=Soil Organic
Matter. Values are the means of duplicated samples.
Experimental Procedure and Field Management

The land was plowed, disked, and harrowed by oxen and one seed was planted per
hole at the specified Intra and Inter-row spacing from 11th June up to 13th June,
2019. Harvesting was done manually when the crop reached harvest maturity and
the pods were picked from the net plots and allowed to air and sundried then
thrashed. Grain yield was calculated over all harvestable plants in the net plot.
Experimental design and treatments

A field experiment was conducted on the farmer’s field of Jimma Zone Omonada
and Kersa woreda. The trial was carried out on five farmers’ fields at both woreda
during the 2019 main cropping season. The plot size of each treatment was
48m2(10m x 4.8 m). Released Soybean variety (Clark 63k) was used. The
experiment was laid out in RCBD with a factorial arrangement of two different
-1
plant population densities (333,333 plants ha and 400,000 plants ha-1) and two
-1 -1
levels of N/P2O5 fertilizer rate (46/46 kg ha and 69/69 kg ha ). To increase the
nitrogen use efficiency, it was split into two equal rates and applied at planting
time and four leaf initiation stages.All other cultural practices were given based on
available recommendations for Soya bean growing woreda of the South Western
part of the country.
Data Collected
Plant height (cm): was measured by centimeters from the ground level to
the top of the plant at 50% flowering from 5 randomly selected plants from each
plot.
[499]
Number of pods per plant: was counted from five randomly selected plants of
harvestable rows at the time of harvesting from each plot and their averages were
recorded.
Grain yield (kg/ha): was measured from each plot using an electronic balance
and then adjusted to 7.0% moisture and converted to a hectare basis.
Above ground biomass (ton ha-1): was harvested from the net plot and weighted,
sample plants were selected dried till getting uniform weight.
Harvest index: was expressed as the ratio of economic yield per plant
to the total above ground biomass (Donald, 1962).
Data Analysis
The collected data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate to
factorial experiment in RCBD using SAS software 9.3 versions. The
interpretations were made following the procedure described by Gomez and
Gomez (1984). The means were compared using the least significant differences
(LSD) test at a 5 % level of significance.

The partial budget analysis was performed to investigate the economic feasibility
treatments of chemical fertilizers and the seed rates. The partial budget technique
as described by CIMMYT (1988) was applied. The partial budget analysis was
done using the prevailing market prices for inputs at planting and outputs, at the
time the crop was harvested. All costs and benefits were calculated on a hectare
basis in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The inputs and/or concepts used in the partial
budget analysis were the mean grain yield of each treatment, the gross field
benefit (GFB) ha-1 (the product of field price and the mean yield for each
treatment), the field price of chemical fertilizers and urea kg-1 (the nutrient cost
plus the cost of transportation from the point of sale to the farm), cost of labor
spent on seed purchase and planting, the total costs that varied (TVC) which
included the sum of field costs of fertilizers and their application, and seed
purchase and planting.
The total costs of NP fertilizer (13.5 ETB kg-1) and urea = 10 ETB kg-1 were
calculated based on store sale prices of both woreda’s farmers’ Cooperative in
May- 2019. The average price of soya bean grain sale at both woreda’s open
market in December- 2019 was 15 ETB kg-1.
[500]
After three years experiment of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on
soybean, further evaluation and validation was done at five farmers’ sites during
the 2019 main cropping season at Jimma zone Omonada and Kersa woreda.
The homogeneity test of the error variances for locations indicated that the error
variance was homogenous and hence the combined analysis of variance was
conducted. Over locations combined analysis indicates the interaction effect, the
main effect of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density didn’t show
significant (P >0.05) difference on plant height, number of pod per plant, and
harvest index. Concerning the main effect of plant population density, it was
highly significant (P <0.01) on grain yield and significantly (P <0.05) affected
aboveground biomass. Whereas, both grain yield and above-ground biomass were
not significantly (P >0.05) affected by NP fertilizer rates and plant population
density (Table 2).
Table 2. Mean square values of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on growth, yield components and yield of
soybean combined over locations in 2019 main cropping season
Parameter NP (1) Plant population NP x Plant population Error

density (1) density (1) (12)
Plant height(cm) 7.938ns 2.738ns 6.05ns 21.655
Number of pod per plant 2.888ns 145.80ns 7.20ns 50.98
Grain yield (kg ha )
-1 297.2ns 1446520.7 ** 33105.4 ns 188013.1
AGB (t ha-1) 0.133ns 16.65* 0.036ns 3.1459
Harvest index 0.000005 ns 0.00013 ns 0.0004 ns 0.000599
*Numbers in parenthesis = Degrees of freedom; *= Significant (P < 0.05); ** = highly significant (p<0.01) difference; NS=
non-significant; AGB= Above ground biomass; ha = Hectare
Grain yield
As presented in Table 3, grain yield varied from 3030 to 3570 kg ha-1 with respect
to plant population density. The lowest grain yield was associated with the lowest
plant population density (333,333 plants ha-1) and the highest grain yield with the
highest plant population density (400,000 plants ha-1). The significant difference
between the lowest and the highest grain yield was 540 kg ha-1. As a result,
400,000 plants ha-1 plant population density produced 17.8% higher grain yield
than 333,333 plants ha-1. An increase in grain yield per hectare in response to plant
density is due to an increased number of plants per unit area. Christmas (2002),
Berglund and Helms (2003) and Yilmaz (2003) have also reported parallel results.
In soybean one of the benefits of higher plant density is a contribution to earlier
canopy closure which makes weed control easier by increasing competition
between the crop and weeds. Yield increase emanating from plant density in unit
area was mainly due to increased number of grains per area rather than increased
[501]
yield per plant. These results are supported by Edwards and Purcell, (2005) who
showed that as the soybean population increases, yield increases rapidly until it
becomes asymptotic per plant.
Above Ground Biomass

The highest above-ground dry biomass (13840 kg ha-1) was recorded at the highest
plant population density of 400,000 plants ha-1; while the lowest above-ground dry
biomass yield (12020 kg ha-1) was recorded from the lowest plant population
density 333,333 plants ha-1 (Table 3). The result indicates that as plant population
increased from 333,333 plants ha-1 to 400,000 plants ha-1 the above-ground dry
biomass increased by 15%; which might be due to the higher number of crop stand
count at narrower spacing than wider spacing. The biological yield was increased
by increasing plant density due to the high grain yield. These results were in
agreement with Bullock et al., (1998) who reported that narrow row spacing (high
plant population) made more efficient use of available light and shaded the surface
soil more completely during the early part of the growing season while the soil is
still moist and therefore, high plant population density is more effective in
producing biomass. Getachew et al., (2006) also reported increased dry biomass of
faba bean with increased plant population density.
Table 3. Over location effect of plant population densities and NP fertilizer rate on growth, yield and yield
components of soybean at Kersa and Omonada Jimma Zone during 2019 main cropping season
- Over location
Plant population density ha
1 Plant height No. of pod Grain yield AGB HI
(cm) -1 -1 -1
plant (kg ha ) (kg ha )
400000 (50*5cm) 74.9 44.5 3570a 13840a 0.26

333333 (60*5cm) 75.6 49.9 3030b 12020b 0.26
F-test NS NS ** * NS
-1
NP fertilizer rates kg ha
46/46 74.6 46.9 3300 12850 0.26
69/69 75.9 47.6 3310 13010 0.26
LSD (0.05) 4.53 6.96 420 1730 0.024
CV (%) 6.2 15.1 13.1 13.7 9.4
F-test NS NS NS NS NS
LSD= Least significant difference; CV=Coefficient of variation; NS=Non significant; HI= Harvest index; AGB=Above
ground biomass; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P>0.05.
Partial Budget analysis

Upon sale of grain soya bean at Kersa and Omonada woreda open market, the
highest plant population density (400,000 plants ha-1) gave highest net benefit of
46,855 ETB ha-1 with an increase of 17.8% (7070 ETB ha-1) net benefit over the
[502]
lowest plant population density 333,333 plants ha-1. Regarding NP fertilizer rates,
46/46 kg N/P2O5 ha-1) gave the highest net benefit 42244.1 ETB ha-1(Table 4).
Table 4. Partial budget analysis of NP fertilizer rates and plant population density on grain yield of soybean at Kersa and
Omonada woreda during 2019 cropping season
-1 GY Adj.GY GFB TVC NB

Plant population density ha -1 -1
(ton ha ) (ton ha ) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1)
400000 (50*5cm) 3.57 3.213 48195 1340.0 46855.0
333333 (60*5cm) 3.03 2.727 40905 1120.0 39785.0
-1
NP fertilizer rates kg ha
46/46 3.30 2.970 44550 2305.9 42244.1
69/69 3.31 2.979 44685 3466.0 41219.0
*GY= Grain yield; GFB = Gross field benefit; TVC = Total variable cost; NB = Net benefit;
The farmers’ perceptions were collected during the harvest period. Evaluation
criteria were set by farmers to select the best plant population density and optimal
fertilizer application. Accordingly, soybean growth rate, number of pods/plant,
seed size and yield potential were found the most important evaluation criteria.
Thus, based on their evaluation criteria’s (Table 5) 33% of them chosen NP
fertilizer application of 46/46 Kg NP2O5 ha-1 and plant population of 400,000
plants ha-1.
Table 5. Farmers perception on optimal NP fertilizer application and medium maturing maize varieties at Jimma zone
during 2019 cropping
NP fertilizer rates
46/46 Kg N/P2O5 ha-1 69/69 Kg N/P2O5 ha-1

Farmers Evaluation Criteria
Plant population density plants ha-1
333,333 400,000 333,333 400,000
Weeding Frequency Medium Medium Medium Medium

Growth rate Medium High Medium High
Number of pods/plant Higher Medium Higher Medium
Seed size Bigger Medium Bigger Medium
Yield potential Medium Higher Medium Higher
choice in Percentage 23% 33% 19% 25%
[503]
Summary and Conclusions
The study was conducted to validate and determine the response of soya bean to
plant population density and NP fertilizer rates on growth parameters, yield and
yield components in the Jimma area south west Ethiopia. The experiment was laid
out in RCBD with a factorial arrangement of two different plant populations
-1 -1
(333333 plants ha and 400000 plants ha ) and two levels of NP fertilizer rate
(46/46 and 69/69 kg N/P2O5 ha-1). The combined Analysis was done across
locations for growth, yield and yield components of the crop. It was observed that
an increase in plant population density significantly increased grain yield and
above-ground biomass. The NP fertilizer rate was no effect on the plant height, the
number of pods per plant, grain yield, above ground biomass and harvest index.
There was no interaction effect observed among plant population densities and NP
fertilizer rate across the location.
Over location data analysis showed that the significant highest plant population
density (400,000 plants ha-1) gave a higher mean grain yield 3570 kg ha-1 and
above ground biomass 13840 kg ha-1. To conclude that narrower inter-row space
(50 cm with intra row 5 cm) resulting in a density of 400,000 plants per hectare
and 46/46 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 were determined for optimum productivity of soya bean
in Jimma area and similar agro-ecologies.
References
Batjes, N.H., 1995. Aglobal data set of soil pH properties. Technical Paper 27,
International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen.
Berhanu, D., 1980. A survey of studies conducted about soil resources appraisal
and evaluation for rural development in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa.70p
Brady, N., Weil R.R., 2008. Nature and Properties of Soils (14th eds.). Prentice-
Hall, Upper Saddle River. 992p.
Bullock, D., Khan, S., Rayburn A., 1998. Soybean yield response to narrow rows
is largely due to enhanced early growth. Crop Science, 38 (4): 1011-1016.
Berglund, D.R, Helms, T.C., 2003. Soybean Production. NDSU, A-250 Board JE,
Harville BG (1996). Growth dynamics during the vegetative period affects
the yield of narrow-row, late-planted soybean. Agronomy Journal, 88: 567-
572.
Christmas, E.P., 2002. Plant populations and seeding rates for soybeans. AY-217.
Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, West Lafayette, Indiana.
CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An
Economics Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.79p
[504]
Survey. Vol 1, Statistical bulletin 586, CSA, April 2018, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Donald, C. M., 1962. In search of yield. Journal of Australian Institute of
Agricultural Science, 28(1): 171-178.
Edwards, J.T, Purcell, L.C., 2005. Soybean yield and biomass responses to
increasing plant population among diverse maturity groups: I. Agronomic
characteristics. Crop Science, 45 (5): 1770-1777.
Getachew, A., Ghizaw, A. and Sinebo, W., 2006. Yield performance and land-use
efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands.
European Journal of agronomy, 25(3), pp.202-207.
Getachew, A., and Taye, B., 2005. On-farm integrated soil fertility management in
wheat on nitisols of central Ethiopian highlands. Ethiopian Journal of
Natural Resources, 7: 141-155.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A., 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural
Research. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
Tekalign, M. and Haque, I., 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils, II.
Forms and distribution of inorganic phosphates and their relation to
available phosphorus. Trop Agric., 68(1): 2-8.
Mounts, T.L, Wolf, W.J, Martinez, W.H., 1987. Processing and utilization. In
soybeans: Improvement, production and uses, Second Edition, J.R. Wilcox,
Madison, Wisconsin. Norhayati M, Mold SN, Noor S, Chong K, Faizah
AW; Herridge DF, Peoples MB, Bergersen FJ (1988). Adaptation of
methods for evaluation of N2 fixation in food legumes and legume cover
crops. Plant Soil, 108: 143-150.
Yilmaz, H.A., 1999. Kahramanmaras ekolojisinde farklı ekim sıklıklarının, iki
soya çesidinde verim ve verim unsurlarına etkisi. Turkey Journal of
Agriculture, 3: 223-232.
[505]
Response of Maize Variety to Nitrogen and Plant
Population Density at Jimma Zone,
Southwestern Ethiopia
Muhidin Biya1*, Sisay Gurmu1, and Eshetu Yadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia; E-mail: muhibiya@gmail.com
Abstract
Feld experiment was carried out in two sites of Jimma Zone, for three consecutive
years 2017-2019 main cropping seasons. The treatments consisted of factorial
combinations of five Nitrogen fertilizer rates (69, 92, 115, 138, and 161 N kg ha -1)
and four plant densities (75*20 (66666), 75*25 (53333), 75*30 (44444) and 80*40
(62500plants h-1) laid down in a randomized complete block design with three
replications using BH546 medium maturing maize variety. The analysis of data
showed that all parameters of maize were significantly affected by the main effect of
N fertilizer rates and plant densities, but did not by interaction. The highest grain
and above ground biomass yield (7580, 13990kg ha-1) and (7520 and 14140kgha-1)
respectively were obtained from the highest 161 kg ha-1 N fertilizer rate and 75*20
cm (66666 plants h-1) or the highest plant population densities. The grain yield was
significantly increased from 6601 to 7580kg ha-1 which means increased by 13.07
and 11.94% over the lowest 69 N kg ha -1 rate and 92 N kg ha-1research control. In
conclusion, sensitivity analysis on coexisting changes in field prices of inputs and
rice grain (±15%) showed that 92 N kg ha-1with 75*25 (53333) ha-1 plant
population gave the highest (205.75%) and (738.57%) marginal rate of return
(MRR) respectively might be more profitable even under risky market situations or
based on partial budget analysis application 115 N kg ha -1 with 75*25 (53333) ha-1
plant population density with a highest net benefit of (48279ETB ha -1) and
(52394.40 ETB ha-1) respectively were promising new practices in and around the
study area. Therefore, application of (92 or 115 kg N ha-1) fertilizer rates
depending on their resources with 75*25 (53333) ha-1 plant population density
recommended at Jimma zone and other similar humid agro-ecologies of the west
and southwest Ethiopia.
Introduction
Maize is the primary staple crop in Ethiopia and plays an important role in the
livelihood of the people of Ethiopia. Its availability and abundance determine the
level of welfare and food security in the country. In Ethiopia, future increases in
maize production to meet domestic demand will have to rely on improvements in
yield per hectare rather than on the expansion of the maize production area.
Enhanced maize productivity can be achieved by increased use of modern

production techniques such as the adoption of hybrid maize varieties in line with
appropriate crop management practices including the use of fertilizer application
and plant density. According to the GTP II, the productivity of maize will
increase to 5.0 tones/ha with the total productivity of 10.9 million tones by the
[507]
year 2020. This requires an intensive supply of inputs mainly fertilizer and
improved seeds of modern and superior hybrid varieties with their appropriate
plant density.
The medium maturing (BH546) maize hybrid is among the highest high-yielding
recently released varieties which is highly sensitive to plant density and N
fertilizer level as its performance and yield potential are highly affected by these
factors. Under high plant density and high nitrogen rate, the height of the plant
increases vertically with decreasing stalk strength resulting in high lodging (Qian
et al., 2010). Due to the lodging effect 44,444 plants per hectare with 92 kg N ha -1
is still the recommended amount for late-maturing maize hybrids in Ethiopia
(www. eiar.gov.et). However, under this low plant density and low nitrogen rate
the utilization and conversion of available resources like solar radiation, nutrient,
and water into dry matter production decrease (Shrestha, 2013; Farnia et al.,
2015). In such a situation little modification of such important factors (density and
N rate) into the optimum brings about a great change in grain yield as such
modern hybrid has high yield potential. Previous results shows that the previous
recommended plant density, 44444 plants/ ha with application of 92 kg N /ha is
insufficient for hybrid BH661 cultivation and again the current used (BH546)
maize variety was update version. Thus, to exploit the full potential and achieve
maximum grain yield of BH546 maize variety, modification of plant density and
rate of nitrogen fertilizer is needed.
Therefore, an effort was made to study the effect of nitrogen fertilizer rates and
plant population density on the growth and yield of newly released medium
maturity maize varieties.

The current field experiments were conducted at two sites for three consecutive
main cropping seasons of Jimma (Melko on the station), Jimma Zone
Southwestern Ethiopia in farmers’ fields. The Jimma (Melko) sites were located at
12 km distance from Jimma town (1,754 m.a.s.l, 7040’N36047’E). The place has a
mean maximum and minimum temperature of 26.3 and 11.6 0C respectively with a
mean annual rainfall of 1,572mm.
Experimental treatment and procedures

The late maturing maize variety BH546 which is adapted to low-mid altitude
(1000-1800 masl) areas and released recently was used for the field experiment.
They were white-colored and have yield potential. The combination of five
Nitrogen fertilizer rates (69, 92, 115, 138, and 161 kg N ha-1 with recommended
69 kg P ha-1 uniformly applied) and four plant population densities (75*20
[508]
(66666), 75*25 (53333), 75*30 (44444) and 80*40 (62500plants h-1) twenty
treatments were laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with
three replications. Blocks were separated from each other by 1.5 m wide-open
space, while experimental plots within replications were separated by 1 m apart
from each other. The gross size of each plot was 4.0 m in length by 5.25m width
(21 m2) accommodating 8 rows. The inner 6 rows are used for data collection.
Nitrogen applied per stand or hill base. To increase the nitrogen use efficiency, it
was split into two equal rates and applied at planting time and knee height stages.
thinned after establishment to maintain a single healthy plant per hill except 80*40
(62500 plants h-1) two plants per hill. All other agronomic practices like three
times hand weeding were applied uniformly to both experimental plots as per their
respective recommendations for maize in the study area.
Soil Sampling and Analysis

A composite surface soil (0-30 cm depth) sample was collected from both sites
with a gauge auger before planting. The samples were dried, cleaned and analyzed
for certain physio-chemical properties such as soil pH, total nitrogen, available
phosphorus, organic matter content, and Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) at
Jimma Agricultural Research Center soil laboratory.
Soil pH was determined in a 1:2.5 soil-water suspension using a combination of

the glass electrode. Organic carbon was estimated by the wet digestion method
(Okaleboet al., 2002) and organic matter was calculated by multiplying the
percent organic carbon (OC) by a factor of 1.724. Total soil N was measured using
the micro-Kjeldahl digestion, distillation, and titration procedure as described by
AOAC (1994). After extraction of the soil sample by sodium bicarbonate solution
as per the procedure outlined by Olsen et al. (1954), available P was determined
by measuring its absorbance using a spectrophotometer. The investigated soil
properties are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Selected Physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites before planting
Soil characters Value

pH(1:2.5) 5.03
av P(mg kg-1) 4.42
TN (%) 0.13
OC (%) 6.88
CEC 15.71
Where pH= hydrogen power, CEC=cation exchange capacity, TN=Total Nitrogen, Av. P=Available phosphorous. Values
are the means of duplicated samples.
[509]
Data collected
selected plants.
lodging in each plot and divided to the total number of plant stand at harvesting.

To assess the costs and benefits associated with different treatments (inter and
intra row spacing), the partial budget technique as described by CIMMYT (1988)
was applied. Economic analysis was done using the prevailing market prices for
inputs at planting and outputs, at the time the crop was harvested. All costs and
benefits were calculated on the hectare basis of the Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The
inputs and/or concepts used in the partial budget analysis were the mean grain
yield of each treatment in both years, the field price of BH546 maize grain (sale
price grain yield minus the costs of fertilizer, seed, labor) the gross field benefit
(GFB) ha-1 (the product of field price of the mean yield for each treatment), the
field price of seed rate kg ha-1, fertilizer and wage rate, the total costs that varied
(TCV) which included the sum of field cost of seed, fertilizer and its wage for
planting and application. The net benefit (NB) was calculated as the difference
between the GFB and the TCV. The actual yield was adjusted downward by 10%
to reflect the difference between the experimental yield and the yield farmers
could expect from the same treatment. There were expected plant population
density, timely labor availability and better management (e.g. Weed control,
rainfall) under the experimental conditions CIMMYT, (1988). The dominance
analysis procedure as detailed in CIMMYT (1998) was used to select potentially
profitable treatments from the range that was tested. The discarded and selected
treatments using this technique were referred to as dominated and undominated
treatments, respectively. The undominated treatments were ranked from the lowest
to the highest cost. For each pair of rank treatments, the percent marginal rate of
return (MRR) was calculated. The MRR (%) between any pair of undominated
treatments was the return per unit of investment in fertilizer. To obtain an estimate
of these returns the MRR (%) was calculated as changes in NB divided by changes
in cost. Thus, the MRR of 100% was used indicate for every one EtB expended
there is a return of one ETB for a given variable input. Sensitivity analysis for
[510]
different interventions was also carried out to test the recommendation made for
its ability to withstand price changes. Sensitivity analysis simply implied redoing
marginal analysis with the alternative prices. Through sensitivity analysis, the
maximum acceptable field price of input was calculated with the minimum rate of
return as described by Shah et al. (2009).
Data analysis
software version 9.3. The significance of differences between samples was
separated using the least significance difference (LSD) at a 5% level of
significance.

Plant Height
The plant height was not significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the main effects of N
fertilizer rates, whereas there were a significant (P < 0.001) among the plant
population densities (Table 2). As a result, the highest plant height (270.22 cm)
was obtained from the higher (53333 plants ha-1) plant population density
followed by (44444 plants ha-1). In contrast the shortest 260.53cm was recorded
from (62500 plants ha-1). Generally, plant height showed that a linear increase
with increasing plant population density up to (53333 plants ha-1) but decline with
further increase in the plant population density. This result was in agreement with
Begizew et al. (2019) reported maximum plant height (328.47cm) was recorded
under the highest plant density (66666 plants/hectare) with the application of 138
kg N ha-1.
Lodging percentage
Lodging percentage was not significantly (P < 0.05) affected by the main effect of
N fertilizer rates, but it was significantly (P < 0.001) affected by plant population
density (Table 2). The highest lodging percentage (18.49) was recorded from the
highest (66666 plants h-1) plant population followed by (53333 plants ha-1). In
contrast the lowest lodging percentage (13.52) was from the lowest plant
population (44444 plants h-1). The lodging percentage was decreased with a
decreasing in plant population density significantly; it was directly related to ear
height and plant height. Similarly, Begizew et al., (2019) reported that increasing
in N rate under the dense population increase vertical growth towards the light or
towards free space that resulted from susceptible stalks for lodging.
Aboveground biomass yield

Above-ground biomass yield was significantly (P<0.001) affected by the main
effect of N fertilizer rates and (P<0.01) plant population density, but not by the.
[511]
The highest aboveground biomass yield 13990 kg ha-1 and (14140 kg ha-1 were
recorded from the application highest 161 kg ha-1 N rate and highest (66666 plants
ha-1) respectively. On the contrary, the lowest 12.61 and 12.96 t/ha were from the
lowest 69 kg ha-1 N rate and the higher (62500 plants ha-1). The biomass yield was
significantly increased with density from 12.96 to 14.14 t ha-1 which means
increased by 9.10%. This result in agreement with Tariku et al. (2018) reported
that application of higher nitrogen increased the dry matter of plants.
Grain yield
Grain yield was significantly (P<0.01) affected by both the main effect of N
fertilizer rates and plant population density, whereas the interaction effect did not
shown a significant difference (Table 2). As a result the highest mean grain yield
7580 and 7520 kg ha-1 were recorded from the application highest 161 kg ha-1 N
rate and highest (66666 plants ha-1) plant population density respectively and
followed by 7550 and 7460 kg ha-1 were obtained in the higher 138 kg ha-1 N
fertilizer rates and higher (53333 plants ha-1) respectively. While the lowest grain
yield 6610 and 6860 kg ha-1 were obtained in the lowest 69 kg ha-1 N fertilizer
rates and lower (62500 plants ha-1) extension recommendations respectively. It
shows that the grain yield was significantly increased with increased N and plant
population density. Grain yield was increased by 14.67 and 6.61 % over extension
and research recommendations respectively by the application of 69, 92, and the
highest 161 kg ha-1 N rate respectively. Also supported by Obi (1999), Kim
(1997), and Udoh (2005) who reported that some hybrid maize varieties have a
yield advantage over other maize varieties because they possess such special
qualities as high yield, disease resistance, and early maturity uniformity in
flowering and ear placement, harvester.
Economic Viability of medium maturing BH546

maize and N fertilizer rates
Analysis of variance (Table 2) showed that N fertilizer rate and plant population
density had a significant (P = 0.001) effect on the grain yield whereas, interaction
was not significant. An economic analysis of the combined results using the
partial budget technique was thus appropriate (CIMMYT, 1988). The result of the
partial budget analysis and the data used in the development of the partial budget
is given in (Table 4). It was performed by considering fertilizer, seed, application
costs, and labor as the main input, mean grain yield obtained across season and
location. The total costs of fertilizers (NPS = 15.90 ETB/kg and urea = 12.65
ETB/kg and sale of grain maize at around Jimma (Melko) open market average
price (8.00 ETB/kg). Dominance analysis (Table 3) led to the selection of
treatments 69, 95,115, and 138 N kg ha-1 from N rates and plant population
density (44444), (53333), and (66666) were ranked in increasing order of total
costs that vary. The treatments having MRR below 100% were considered and
[512]
unacceptable to farmers; thus, 161 kg N ha-1 and (62500) ha-1 plant population
density was eliminated (CIMMYT, 1988) (Table 3). Therefore, this investigation
remained with changes from 69, 95, and 115 kg N ha-1rates and plant population
density (44444) and (53333) as promising new practices for farmers under the
prevailing price structure since they gave more than 100% MRR. This might
suggest the use of inputs that result in maximum net benefits (Bekele, 2000).
Table 2. Across season and over location of newly released BH546 maize variety to Nitrogen and Plant Population
density
N rate Grain yield AGB Plant height Logging

(Kg ha-1) (ton ha-1) (ton ha-1) (cm) percentage
69 6.61 12.61 262.53 16.15
92 7.11 13.38 262.83 13.78
115 7.38 13.70 266.22 17.33
138 7.55 13.94 267.83 17.11
161 7.58 13.99 266.08 14.93
LSD (0.05) 0.49 0.78 Ns 3.95
Plant population
75*20 (66666) 7.52 14.14 264.27 18.49
75*25 (53333) 7.46 13.85 270.22 16.15
75*30 (44444) 7.14 13.16 265.38 13.52
80*40 (62500) 6.86 12.96 260.53 15.28
Mean 7.25 13.53 265.10 15.86
LSD (0.05) 0.44 0.69 5.95 3.52
CV (%) 14.57 12.35 5.39 23.37
This was because such a return would not offset the cost of capital (interest) and
other related deal costs while still giving an attractive profit margin to serve as an
incentive. partial budget analysis based on the field prices of inputs and maize
grain yield showed that The application of 115 kg N ha-1 gave the highest net
benefit (41800.72ETB ha-1) with acceptable MMR (122.38 %) and plant
population density of (66666) ha-1 net benefit (47802.00ETB ha-1) and acceptable
MMR (688.32%).
Market prices are ever-changing and as such a recalculation of the partial budget
using a set of likely future prices i.e., sensitivity analysis, was essential to identify
treatments that may likely remain stable and sustain satisfactory returns for
farmers despite price fluctuations. The sensitivity analysis study indicates an
increase in the field price of the total variable costs, and a fall in the price of maize
grain, which represented a price variation of 15% (Table 5).
The price changes are sensitive under market conditions prevailing around Jimma
(Melko). The new prices were thus used to obtain the sensitivity analysis (Table 5)
Changing from treatments 69 to 92 kg N ha-1 from N rates and from plant
population density (44444) to (53333) gave 205.75 and 738.57% MRR,
[513]
respectively (Table 5) which were above the minimum acceptable MRR of 100%
except 115 kg N ha-1 which was below the minimum acceptable MRR. These
results agree with Sahaet al. (1994) whose findings from coastal Kenya on maize
showed that the application of 30 kg N ha-1 consistently gave acceptable economic
returns.
Therefore, the application of 115 kg N ha-1 with 75*25 (53333) ha-1 plant
population density with a highest net benefit of (48279ETB ha-1) and (52394.40
ETB ha-1) respectively were promising new practices to give an economic yield
response and also sustained acceptable even under projected worsening trade
conditions in Jimma (Melko). Farmers could thus choose any of the two new
fertilizer rates depending on their resources.
Table 3. Partial budget analysis for N fertilizer rates and plant population density at current prices.
N fertilizer Grain yield Adjusted Grain Yield Gross Field TCV Net Benefit Dominance
rates (kg ha-1) t ha-1 t ha-1 Benefit (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1 analysis
69 6.61 5.949 47592 2950.98 44641.025

92 7.11 6.399 51192 3895.30 47296.70 U
115 7.38 6.642 53136 4866.63 48269.38 U
138 7.55 6.795 54360 5837.95 48522.05 U
161 7.58 6.822 54576 6809.28 47766.73 D
Plan Population Density (ha-1)
(44444) 6.426 51408 1108.00 50300.00
7.14
(53333) 7.46 6.714 53712 1317.60 52394.40 U
(62500) 6.174 49392 1544.07 47847.93 D
6.86
(66666) 7.52 6.768 54144 1662.00 52482.00 U
TCV= total costs that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; EtB = Ethiopian Birr; Fertilizers urea = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit; D=Dominated; Un-
Dominated
[514]
Table 4. Partial budget with estimated marginal rate of return (%) for N fertilizer rates and plant population density at
current prices.
N fertilizer TCV Net Benefit Raised Raised MRR
Cost Benefit
Rates (kg ha-1) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha (%)
69 2950.98 44678 --- --- ---
92 3895.30 47307 944.33 2628.68 278.37
115 4866.63 48279 971.33 972.67 100.14
138 5837.95 48532 971.33 252.68 26.01
Plan Population Density (ha-1)
(44444) 1108.00 50300.00 --- --- ---
(53333) 1317.60 52394.40 209.60 2094.40 999.24
(66666) 1662.00 52482.00 344.40 87.60 25.44
TCV= total costs that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; ETB = Ethiopian Birr; Fertilizers urea = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit
Table 5. Sensitivity analysis of maize production based on a 15% rise in total cost and maize
price of gross field benefit fall
N Fertilizer TVC(ETB NB (ETB Increment Increment MRR
Rates (kg ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) Cost Benefit (%)
69 3394 37976.32 --- --- ---
92 4480 40210.70 1086 2234.37 205.75
115 5597 41037.47 1117 826.77 74.02
Plant Population Density (ha-1)
(44444) --- --- ---
1274 42755.00
(53333) 1515 44535.24 241 1780.24 738.57
* TCV= total costs that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; ETB = Ethiopian Birr; Fertilizers urea = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit
Summary and Conclusion

The growth, yield components, and yield of the medium maturing maize variety
BH546 responded strongly to N fertilizer application and plant population density.
Accordingly, higher magnitudes of grain yield increased with applied N fertilizer
rates and plant population density. From the range of treatments tested, 115 kg N
ha-1 and (53333) gave a significantly higher grain yield responses. The grain yield
was significantly increased by 14.67% from the application of lowest 69 to 161 kg
N ha-1rate respectively and increased by 6.61% from 92 to 161 kg N ha-1rate
which means over research (control). The partial budget analysis based on the
field prices of inputs and maize grain yield showed that The application 115 kg N
ha-1 gave the highest net benefit (48279 ETB ha-) 1) with acceptable MMR (100.14
%) followed by and (53333) ha-1 plant population density with the highest net
benefit (52394.40 ETB ha-1) acceptable MMR (999.24%). Therefore, from current
[515]
on-farm input availability and economic feasibility for (BH546) maize medium
maturing variety application of 115 kg N ha-1 and spacing of (53333) ha-1 plant
population density recommended under rain fed condition of Jimma (Melko),
Jimma zone and other similar humid agro-ecologies of the west and southwest
Ethiopia.
References
Begizew Golla, Muhidin Biya, Lemi Yadessa, 2019. Effect of Plant Density and
Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate on Grain Yield of Late Maturing Maize Hybrid
BH661.Vol.7(7), pp.577-588.
Bekele, H. 2000. Integrated nutrient management in irrigated wheat
(Triticumaestivum L.). MSc Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharward, India.
CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An
Economic Traning Manual. International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Centre, Mexico, D.F. p.79.
Farnia, A., Mansouri, M., Farnia, A. and Branch, B. 2015. Study on
Morphological Characteristics of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under
Different Plant Densities.
Kim, S. K., 1997. Achievement, challenges and future direction of hybrid maize
research and product in B. Badu Apraku, Akoroda M.O., Oedraw M. and
Quin F.M (eds). Proceedings of Required Maize Workshop May 99-June 2,
1995. IITA Cotonou, Benin Republic.
Muhidin Biya, Sisay Gurmu, Eshetu Yadete, "Determination of NP Fertilizer
Requirement for Newly Released Medium Maturing Maize Varieties at
Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia", International Journal of Research
Studies in Science, Engineering and Technology, vol. 6, no.12, pp. 13-19,
2019.
Obi, I. U., 1999. Effect of nitrogen Rates and Intra –Row Spacing on Local maize
(Zea mays) in southern Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture and Environment, 5: 147-152.
Qian, C., Yu, Y., Gong, X., Jiang, Y., Zhao, Y., Yang, Z., Hao, Y., Li, L., Song,
Z. and Zhang, W. 2016. The response of grain yield to plant density and
nitrogen rate in spring maize hybrids released from 1970 to 2010 in Northeast
China. The Crop Journal, 4(6), pp.459-467.
Saha, H.M., Gacheru, E.N., Kamau, GM., O’Neill, M. K. and. Ransom, J. K.
1994. Effect of nitrogen and plant density on the performance of Pwani
hybrid maize. African Crop Science Journal 2: 63-67.
Shah, H., Sharif, M., Majid, A., Hayat, U. and Munawar, A. 2009. From
experimental data to farmer recommendation: an economic analysis of the on-
farm trial of UMMB feed for milking animals in rain-fed Pothwar, Pakistan.
Livestock Research and Rural Development 21(8): 1-8.
[516]
Shrestha, J. 2013. Effect of nitrogen and plant population on flowering and grain
yield of winter maize. Sky J Agric Res, 2(5), pp.64-68.
SAS Institute Inc. Cray, 20008. Users Guide. Version 9.3. NC.TheUSA.
Tariku Beyene, ToleraAbera and Ermiyias Habte, 2018. Effect of Integrated
Nutrient an agreement on Growth and Yield of Food Barley (Hordeumulgare)
Variety in Toke Kutaye District, West Showa Zone, Ethiopia.
Udoh, J., 2005. Crop Production Techniques for the Tropics Concept Publications
Limited, Munshin, Lagos Nigeria, 101-106.
Woldesenbet, M. and Haileyesus, A., 2016. Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer on
Growth, Yield and Yield Components of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Decha
District, Southwestern Ethiopia. Intl. J. Res. Granthaalayah, 4(2), pp.95-100.
[517]
Response of Newly Released Late Maturing Maize
Variety to Nitrogen and Plant Population Density
at Jimma, Southwestern Ethiopia
Muhidin Biya1*, Sisay Gurmu1, and EshetuYadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia; E-mail: muhibiya@gmail.com
Abstract
The field experiments were carried out at two sites of Melko (Jimma) and Kersa
districts, Jimma Zone, for three consecutive years (2017-2019) main cropping
seasons. The treatments consisted of a factorial combinations of five Nitrogen
fertilizer rates (69, 92, 115, 138 and 161 kg N ha -1), and four plant densities (75*20
(66666), 75*25 (53333), 75*30 (44444) and 80*40 (62500plants h-1) laid down in a
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications using (BH661)
late maturing maize variety. All densities accommodate were single plant per hill
except the 80*40 (62500 plants ha-1) was two plants per hill. The analysis of
variance showed that all parameters of maize were significantly affected by the main
effects of N fertilizer rates and plant densities except plant height but the interaction
effects of the two factors had not significant any of the measured parameters. The
highest grain (6.75 and 6.87 t/ha) and biomass yield (15.36 and16.39 t/ha), were
obtained from the highest 161 kg Nha-1fertilizer rate and 75*20 cm (66666 plants h-
1
), respectively. It’s due to the late maturing of the BH661 maize variety and highly
responsive to the highest N rate of the version. In conclusion, sensitivity analysis on
coexisting changes in field prices of inputs and maize grain (±15%) showed that, N
fertilizer rates are sensitive under prevailing market conditions and based the partial
budget analysis application 161 N kg ha-1 gave the highest net benefit (41800.72
ETB ha-1) with acceptable MRR (122.38%) followed by and 75*20 (66666) ha -1 plant
population density with the highest net benefit (47802.00 EtB ha -1) acceptable MMR
(688.32%). Therefore, from current on-farm input availability and economic
feasibility, a late-maturing variety with the application of 161 kg N ha -1 and spacing
of 75*20 (66666) ha-1 plant population density taken as economical feasibleand
recommended for farmer’s profitability under rain fed condition maize (BH661)
variety in Melko (Jimma) and Kersa, Jimma zone and other similar agro-ecology of
the West and Southwest of Ethiopia.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important cereal crops on which millions
of people depend for their livelihood. It is one of the most versatile emerging
crops having wider adaptability under varied agro-climatic conditions and
successful cultivation in diverse seasons and ecologies for various purposes.
Globally, maize is known as “Queen” of cereals because it has the highest genetic
yield potential among the cereals. In Ethiopia, maize stands first of all other cereal
crops in annual production and productivity, although it is second in area coverage
next to tef (CSA, 2018). Currently, in Ethiopia maize is cultivated by 10.6 million
[519]
households on 2.1 million hectares and produced 8.4 million tones as compared to
5.2 million tons of tef (CSA, 2018).
Some soil types in Ethiopia contain enough amounts of essential nutrients for the
plant's development. But the majorities of soils in the country contains low to
medium total N and found inherently low in available P. This could be due to long
term cultivation practice that depletes plant nutrients and soil resource degradation
as a result of soil erosion and run-off. Enhanced maize productivity can be
achieved by increasing use of modern production techniques such as the adoption
of hybrid maize varieties of in line with appropriate crop management practices
including the use of fertilizer application and plant density. According to the GTP
II, the productivity of maize will increase to 5.0 tones/ha with the total
productivity of 10.9 million tones by the year 2020. This requires an intensive
supply of inputs mainly fertilizer and improved seeds of modern and superior
hybrid varieties with their appropriate plant density.
The BH661 maize hybrid variety is among the highest yielding late-maturing
modern varieties which is highly sensitive to plant density and N fertilizer level as
its performance and yield potential is highly affected by these factors. Under high
plant density and high nitrogen rate, the height of the plant increase vertically with
decreasing stalk strength resulting in high lodging (Qian et al., 2010). Due to the
lodging effect 44,444 plants per hectare with 92 kg N/ha is still the recommended
amount for late maturing maize hybrids in Ethiopia (www. eiar.gov.et). However
under this low plant density and low nitrogen rate the utilization and conversion of
available resources like solar radiation, nutrient and water in to dry matter
production decrease (Shrestha, 2013; Farnia et al., 2015). In such situation, little
modification of such important factors (density and N rate) into the optimum
brings about a great change in grain yield as such modern hybrid has high yield
potential. Thus, to exploit the full potential and achieve maximum grain yield of
BH661 maize variety, modification of spacing or plant density and rate of
Nitrogen fertilizer is needed. Keeping this fact in view this study was initiated
with the objective to evaluate the effect of plant population and Nitrogen fertilizer
level on the grain yield potential of late-maturing maize hybrid BH661 under main
season conditions.

Description of the Study Areas
The field experiments were conducted on farmers’ fields at two sites for three
consecutive main cropping seasons of Melko (Jimma) and Kersa districts, Jimma
Zone South Western of Ethiopia. The Melko (Jimma) sites are located at 12 km
distance from Jimma town and is found at7040’N36047’Ewith 1,754 m.a.s.l. The
mean maximum and minimum temperature of 26.3 and 11.6 oC respectively with a
[520]
mean annual rainfall of 1,572mm. Kersa site is located at about 28 km East of
Jimma town and 7° 40′ 0″ N latitude and 36° 50′ 0″ E longitude at an average
elevation of 1740 to 2660 m.a.s.l and average maximum and minimum
temperature is 28.8oC and 11.8 oC, respectively and receives reliably rains,
ranging from 1,200 – 2,800 mm per annum in cropping seasons.
Experimental Treatments and Procedures

The late maturing maize variety BH661 which was adapted to low-mid altitude
(1000-1800 m.a.s.l) areas and released recently was used for this experiment. The
variety was white-colored and has good yield potential and accepted by the
farmers. The treatments consisted of five Nitrogen fertilizer rates (69, 92, 115,
138, and 161 N kg ha-1and and four plant population densities (75*20 (66666),
75*25 (53333), 75*30 (44444), and 80*40 (62500 plants h-1), the treatments were
arranged in factorial combinations. Treatments were laid out in a randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The distance between the
blocks and plots were kept1.5m and 1 m, respectively. The gross size of each plot
was 4.0 m length by 5.25m width (21 m2) accommodating 8 rows. The six central
rows used for data collection. Nitrogen applied per stand or hill base. To increase
the nitrogen use efficiency, it was split into two equal rates and applied at planting
time and knee height stages.
thinned after establishment to maintain a single healthy plant per hill except 80*40
(62500 plants h-1) two plants per hill. The recommended rate of P (69 kg ha-1) was
uniformly applied in all the plots. All other agronomic practices were applied
uniformly in all experimental plots as per their respective recommendations for
maize in the study area.

A composite surface soil (0-30 cm depth) sample was collected from both sites
with a gauge auger before planting. The samples were dried , cleaned and
analyzed for certain physio-chemical properties such as soil pH, total nitrogen,
available phosphorus, organic matter content, and Cation Exchange Capacity
(CEC) at Jimma Agricultural Research Center soil laboratory
Soil pH was determined in a 1:2.5 soil-water suspension using a combination of

the glass electrode. Organic carbon was estimated by the wet digestion method
(Okalebo et al., 2002) and organic matter was calculated by multiplying the
percent organic carbon (OC) by a factor of 1.724. Total soil N was measured using
the micro-Kjeldahl digestion, distillation, and titration procedure as described by
AOAC (1994). After extraction of the soil sample by sodium bicarbonate solution
as per the procedure outlined by Olsen et al. (1954), available P was determined
[521]
by measuring its absorbance using a spectrophotometer. The investigated soil
properties are shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Selected Physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites before planting

Kersa Melko
pH (1:2.5) 4.96 5.03
AvailableP (mg kg-1) 3.72 4.42
Total N (%) 0.20 0.13
OC (%) 2.12 6.88
OM (%) 3.65 ----
C:N ratio 10.61 ----
CEC ---- 15.71
Where pH= Hydrogen power, OC=Organic carbon, TN=Total Nitrogen, Av. P=Available phosphorous,
OM=Organic matter, CEC=Cation exchange capacity. Values are the means of duplicated samples.
Data collected
selected plants.
lodging in each plot and divided to the total number of plant stand at harvesting.

To assess the costs and benefits associated with different treatments (inter and
intra row spacing), the partial budget technique as described by CIMMYT (1988)
was applied. Economic analysis was done using the prevailing market prices for
inputs at planting and outputs, at the time the crop was harvested. All costs and
benefits were calculated on ha-1basis of Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The inputs and/or
concepts used in the partial budget analysis were the mean grain yield of each
treatment in both years, the field price of BH661 maize grain (sale price grain
yield minus the costs of fertilizer, seed, labor) the gross field benefit (GFB) ha-1
(the product of field price of the mean yield for each treatment), the field price of
seed rate kg ha-1, fertilizer and wage rate, the total costs that varied (TCV) which
included the sum of field cost of seed, fertilizer and its wage for planting and
application. The net benefit (NB) was calculated as the difference between the
GFB and the TCV. The actual yield was adjusted downward by 10% to reflect the
[522]
difference between the experimental yield and the yield farmers could expect from
the same treatment. There were expected plant population density, timely labor
availability, and better management (e.g. weed control, rainfall) under the
experimental conditions CIMMYT, (1988). The dominance analysis procedure as
detailed in CIMMYT (1998) was used to select potentially profitable treatments
from the range that was tested. The discarded and selected treatments using this
technique were referred to as dominated and undominated treatments,
respectively. The undominated treatments were ranked from the lowest to the
highest cost. For each pair of ranked treatments, the percent marginal rate of
return (MRR) was calculated. The MRR (%) between any pair of undominated
treatments was the return per unit of investment in fertilizer. To obtain an estimate
of these returns the MRR (%) was calculated as changes in NB divided by changes
in cost. Thus, the MRR of 100% was used indicating for every one ETB expended
there is a return of one ETB for a given variable input. Sensitivity analysis for
different interventions was also carried out to test the recommendation made for
its ability to withstand price changes. Sensitivity analysis simply implied redoing
marginal analysis with the alternative prices. Through sensitivity analysis, the
maximum acceptable field price of input was calculated with the minimum rate of
return as described by Shah et al. (2009).
Data Analysis
software version 9.3. The significant of differences between samples was
separated using the least significance difference (LSD) at 5% level of significance.

Plant Height
The plant height was not shown significant (P<0.05) effect by the main effects N
fertilizer rates and plant population density (Table 2). Although, statistical were
not significant the highest plant height 273.21 and 274.77cm were obtained from
69 kg ha-1 N rate and the higher (53333plants h-1) plant population density
respectively and followed by 272.29 and 273.17cm were from the application
higher 115 kg ha-1 N rate and (66666 plants h-1), respectively. While the shortest
268.29 and 269.73cm were recorded from lower 92 kg ha-1 N fertilizer rates and
(62500 plants h-1) respectively. There was an increase in plant highest with an
increase in N rate especially up to the application of the highest 161 kg ha-1 N rate.
The current result was in agreement with Rashid et al. plant height was linearly
increased with increasing levels of N fertilization. Similarly, Woldesenbet and
Haileyesus (2016) reported that the height of the maize plant increased with
increase nitrogen rates.
[523]
Lodging Percentage
Lodging percentage was significant (P<0.05) effect only due to plant population
density and but main effect of N rate and interaction effect were not significant
(Table 2). The highest lodging percentage of 45.13 was recorded from the highest
population density (66666 plants h-1) followed by (62500 plants h-1), respectively.
While the lowest lodging index was obtained from the lowest population density
(44444 plants h-1). There was a linear decrease with a decrease in plant population
density and it directly related to ear height and plant height. Similarly, Muhidin et
al. (2019) reported the highest lodging percentage was may be resulted due to the
highest plant population even though there were other factors like
wind. Increasing plant density can aggravate competition for natural resources like
nutrient, air, water and light that produced tall and weak stalks which are
susceptible to lodging. Similarly, Begizew G., et al. (2019) reported at the same
time increasing in N rate under dense population increase vertical growth towards
the light or towards free space that resulted in susceptible stalks for lodging.
Table 2. Main effect of N-fertilizer rate and plant population densities on yield and yield related parameters of maize
Nitrogen fertilizer Grain yield AGB Plant height Lodging
-1 -1 -1 (cm) (%)
rate (kg ha ) (ton ha ) (ton ha )
69 5.97 14.13 273.21 41.38
92 6.03 14.32 268.29 39.69
115 6.28 15.05 272.29 40.73
138 6.45 14.82 272.08 36.30
161 6.75 15.36 275.17 38.48

LSD (0.05) 0.45 1.15 ns ns
-1
Plant Population Density (plants ha )
75*20 (66666) 6.87 16.39 273.17 45.13
75*25 (53333) 6.69 15.51 274.77 37.56
75*30 (44444) 6.14 13.82 271.17 34.79
80*40 (62500) 5.49 13.24 269.73 39.79

Mean 2.70 14.73 272.20 39.31
LSD (0.05) 0.40 1.02 Ns 6.46
CV (%) 21.89 23.78 5.09 24.05
Aboveground Biomass Yield

The biomass yield was significant (P<0.005) effect due to N fertilizer rates and
(P<0.01) plant population density (Table 2). The highest above-ground biomass
yield 15.36 t ha-1 and 16.39 t ha-1 were recorded from the application of the
[524]
highest 161 kg N ha-1rate and population density (66666 plants h-1), respectively.
On the contrary, the lowest 14.13 and 13.24 t/ha from the lowest 69 kg N ha-1rate
and the higher (62500 plants h-1), one level of below from the highest population.
It implies that increased application of N rate directly increases plant dry matter.
These results in agreement with Tariku et al.(2018) reported that application of
higher nitrogen increased the dry matter of maize plants. The biomass yield was
significantly increased from 13.24 to 16.39 t ha-1 which means increased by
23.79% from (62500 plants h-1) to (66666).
Grain Yield
Grain yield was significantly (P<0.01) affected by both the main effect of N
fertilizer rates and plant population density but the interaction effect of the two
factors was not significant (Table 2). The results showed that the highest mean
grain yield 6.75 and 6.87 t ha-1 were recorded from the application highest 161 kg
N ha-1rate and highest (66666 plants h-1) plant population density, respectively and
followed by 6.45 and 6.69 t ha-1 were obtained in the higher 138 kg N ha-1fertilizer
rates and higher population density (53333 plants h-1), respectively. In contrast,
the lowest grain yield 5.97 and 5.49 t ha-1 were obtained from 69 kg N ha-
1
fertilizer rates and (62500 plants h-1), respectively. Similarly, Begizew et al.
(2019) reported that the positive relationship between grain yield and plant density
was due to the high number of plants per unit area. The grain yield productivity
was significantly increased by 13.07% t ha-1at application of 161 kg N ha-
1
compared to the lowest application rate of N 69 kg N ha-1. In general, application
of the highest rate of N fertilizer combined with highest plant population increases
the maize grain yield.
Economic Viability of Late Maturing BH661

Maize and N fertilizer Rates
The result of the partial budget analysis and the data were used in the development
of the partial budget is given in (Table 4). It was performed by considering
fertilizer, seed, application costs, and labor as the main input, mean grain yield
obtained across season and location. The total costs of fertilizers NPS (15.90
ETB/kg) and Urea (12.65 ETB/kg) and sale of grain maize at Melko (Jimma) and
Kersa open market average price (8.00 ETB/kg). Dominance analysis (Table 5)
led to the selection of treatments 69, 115, 138 and 161 kg N ha-1 from N rates and
from plant population density (62500), (44444), (53333) and (66666) was ranked
in increasing order of total costs that vary. The treatments having MRR below
100% were considered and unacceptable to farmers; thus, 115 and 138 kg N ha-1
were eliminated (CIMMYT, 1988) (Table 4). This was because such a return
would not offset the cost of capital (interest) and other related deal costs while still
giving an attractive profit margin to serve as an incentive. Partial budget analysis
based on the field prices of inputs and maize grain yield showed that, the
application of 161 kg N ha-1 gave the highest net benefit (41800.72 ETB ha-1)
[525]
with acceptable MMR (122.38 %) and plant population density of (66666) ha-1 net
benefit (47802.00 ETB ha-1) and acceptable MMR (688.32%).
Market prices are ever changing and as such a recalculation of the partial budget
using a set of likely future prices i.e., sensitivity analysis, was essential to identify
treatments thatmay likely remain stable and sustain satisfactory returns for farmers
despite price fluctuations. The sensitivity analysis study indicates an increase in
the field price of the total variable costs, and a fall in the price of maize grain,
which represented a price variation of 15% (Table 5). The price changes are
sensitive under market conditions prevailing at Melko (Jimma) and Kersa which
were all plant population densities 80*40 (62500), 75*30 (44444), 75*25 (53333)
and 75*20 (66666) ha-1 gave above the minimum acceptable MRR of 100% only
for except 138 and 161 N kg ha-1 were below the minimum acceptable MRR and
sensitive to price fluctuations.
Therefore, this investigation remained with changes application 161 N kg ha-1 as

and 75*20 (66666) ha-1 plant population density was promising new practices with
the highest net benefit of (41800.72 ETB ha-1) and (47802.00 ETB ha-1)
respectively for farmers at Melko (Jimma) and Kersa under the prevailing price
structure since they gave more than 100% MRR. These results agree with Bekele,
H. (2000).
Table 3. Partial budget analysis for N fertilizer rates and plant population density at current prices.
N fertilizer Grain yield AdjustedGrain Yield t Gross TCV Net Benefit MRR
rates (kg ha-1) t ha-1 ha-1 Benefit/ha (ETB ha-1) (ETB ha-1 (%)
69 5.97 5.373 42984.00 2913.98 40070.02
92 6.03 5.427 43416.00 3885.30 39530.70 D
115 6.28 5.652 45216.00 4856.63 40359.37 U
138 6.45 5.805 46440.00 5827.95 40612.05 U
161 6.75 6.075 48600.00 6799.28 41800.72 U
-1
Plan Population Density (ha )
80*40 (62500) 4.941 39528.00 1114.07 38413.93
5.49
75*30 (44444) 5.526 44208.00 1378.00 42830.00
6.14 U
75*25 (53333) 6.021 48168.00 1497.60 46670.40
6.69 U
75*20 (66666) 6.87 6.183 49464.00 1662.00 47802.00 U
TCV= total cost that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; EtB = Ethiopian Birr; Urea fertilizers = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit; D=Dominated; U=Un-
Dominated treatments
[526]
Table 4. Partial budget with estimated marginal rate of return (%) for N fertilizer rates and plant population density at
current prices.
N fertilizer TCV Net Benefit Raised Raised MRR
Rates (kg ha-1) (ETB/ha) (ETB/ha Cost Benefit (%)
69 2913.98 40070.02 ---- ---- ----
115 4856.63 40359.37 1942.65 289.35 14.89
138 5827.95 40612.05 971.32 252.68 26.01
161 6799.28 41800.72 971.33 1188.67 122.38
-1
Plan Population Density (ha )
80*40 (62500) 1114.07 38413.93 ---- ---- ----
75*30 (44444) 1378.00 42830.00 263.93 4416.07 1673.20
75*25 (53333) 1497.60 46670.40 119.60 3840.40 3211.04
75*20 (66666) 1662.00 47802.00 164.40 1131.60 688.32
TCV= total cost that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; EtB = Ethiopian Birr; Fertilizers urea = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit;
Table 5. Sensitivity analysis of maize production based on a 15% rise in total cost and maize
price of gross field benefit fall
N Fertilizer TVC (ETB NB (ETB Increment Increment MRR (%)
Rates (kg ha-1) ha-1) ha-1) Cost Benefit
138 3351.00 34060 ---- ---- ----
161 7819.17 35531 4468.17 1471.00 32.92
-1
Plant Population Density (ha )
80*40 (62500) 1281.18 32652 ---- ---- ----
75*30 (44444) 1584.70 36406 303.52 3754.00 1236.82
75*25 (53333) 1722.24 39670 137.54 3264.00 2373.13
75*20 (66666) 1911.30 40632 189.06 962.00 508.83
* TCV= total cost that varied, Retail price of grain =Birr 8.00 per kg; EtB = Ethiopian Birr; Fertilizers urea = Cost of Birr
12.65, per kg; NPs =Cost Birr 15.90 per kg; MMR= Marginal Rate of Return; NB = Net benefit;
Summary and Conclusion

The growth, yield components and yield of the maize variety BH661 responded
strongly to N fertilizer application and plan population density. Accordingly, grain
yield was increased with increases N fertilizer rates and plant population density.
From the range of tested treatments, 161 kg N ha-1 and (66666) gave significantly
higher grain yield. The grain yield was significantly increased by 13.07 and 11.94
% t ha-1 from the application of 69 to 161 kg ha-1 N rate, respectively and from 92
to 161 kg ha-1 N rate which means increased by 11.94% over the control. The
partial budget analysis based on the field prices of inputs and maize grain yield
showed that, the N fertilizer rates are sensitive under prevailing market conditions
and based on partial budget analysis the application 161 N kg ha-1 gave the highest
net benefit (41800.72 ETB ha-1) with acceptable MMR (122.38%) followed by
and (66666) ha-1 plant population density with the highest net benefit (47802.00
ETB ha-1) acceptable MMR (688.32%). It’s due to late maturing of the BH661
maize variety and highly response to high N rate of the version. Therefore, from
current on-farm input availability and economic feasibility, for late maturing
[527]
variety with the application of 161 kg N ha-1 and spacing of (66666) ha-1 plant
population density taken as optimum and recommended for farmer’s profitability
under rain fed condition of maize (BH661) variety at Melko (Jimma) and Kersa,
Jimma zone and other similar agro-ecologies of the West and SouthWest of
Ethiopia.
References
Begizew Golla, Muhidin Biya, Lemi Yadessa. 2019. Effect of Plant Density and Nitrogen
Fertilizer Rate on Grain Yield of Late Maturing Maize Hybrid BH661.Not include
the journal. Vol.7(7),pp.577-588,November
Bekele, H. 2000. Integrated nutrient management in irrigated wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.). MSc Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharward, India.
CIMMYT. 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economic
Traning Manual. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre, Mexico, D.F.
p.79.
Farnia, A., Mansouri, M., Farnia, A. and Branch, B. 2015. Study on Morphological
Characteristics of Maize (Zea mays L.) Cultivars under Different Plant Densities.Not
complited.
Muhidin Biya, Sisay Gurmu, Eshetu Yadete.2019."Determination of NP Fertilizer
Requirement for Newly Released Medium Maturing Maize Varieties at Jimma Zone,
Southwestern Ethiopia", International Journal of Research Studies in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 6, no.12, pp. 13-19,.
Qian, C., Yu, Y., Gong, X., Jiang, Y., Zhao, Y., Yang, Z., Hao, Y., Li, L., Song, Z. and
Zhang, W. 2016. Response of grain yield to plant density and nitrogen rate in spring
maize hybrids released from 1970 to 2010 in Northeast China. The Crop Journal,
4(6), pp.459-467.
Saha, H.M., Gacheru, E.N., Kamau, GM., O’Neill, M. K. and. Ransom, J. K. 1994. Effect
of nitrogen and plant density on the performance of Pwani hybrid maize.African
Crop Science Journal, 2: 63-67.
Shah, H., Sharif, M., Majid, A., Hayat, U. and Munawar, A. 2009. From experimental
data to farmer recommendation: an economic analysis of on-farm trial of UMMB
feed for milking animals in rain-fed Pothwar, Pakistan. Livestock Research and
Rural Development,21(8): 1-8.
Shrestha, J. 2013. Effect of nitrogen and plant population on flowering and grain yield of
winter maize.Sky J Agric Res, 2(5), pp.64-68.
SAS Institute Inc. Cray, 20008. Users Guide. Version 9.3. NC.USATariku Beyene,
ToleraAbera and Ermiyias Habte, 2018.Effect of Integrated Nutrient an agement on
Growth and Yield of Food Barley (Hordeumulgare) Variety in Toke Kutaye District,
West Showa Zone, Ethiopia.
Woldesenbet, M. and Haileyesus, A., 2016.Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Growth, Yield
and Yield Components of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Decha District, Southwestern
Ethiopia.Intl. J. Res. Granthaalayah, 4(2), pp.95-100.
[528]
Validation of Maize-Common Bean Intercropping
on Crop Productivity and Land Use Efficiency
under Two Tillage Practices at Jimma Zone,
South Western Ethiopia
Sisay Gurmu1*, Muhidin Biya1 and Eshetu Yadete1
1
Jimma Agricultural Research Center, P. O. Box 192, Jimma, Ethiopia; E-mail: sis.sis1835@gmail.com
Abstract
The field experiment entitled maize common bean intercropping on crop productivity and land use
efficiency under two tillage practices was done during 2016- 2018 main cropping seasons. The
results indicated that, sole maize with conventional tillage gave the highest maize grain yield 5.92 t
ha-1 and the highest common bean grain yield 1.86 t ha -1 was recorded from sole common bean of
zero tillage. The 1:2 maize common bean intercropping ratio of conventional tillage gave the
highest land equivalent ratio 1.82 which was not significant difference from 1:4 maize common
bean intercropping ratio. After that, validation of maize common bean intercropping on crop
productivity and land use efficiency under two tillage practices was conducted for further
evaluation of promising treatments and determine the best maize common intercropping ratio and
tillage practice at Jimma Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia during 2019 main cropping season. The
experiment had four treatments with farmers replications which were 1:2 and 1:4 maize to common
bean ratio respectively in between two maize plant stand and two tillage practices:- conventional
tillage and zero tillage. Each treatment was assigned to each plot in split plot of which maize to
common bean ratios were assigned to subplot and tillage practices were assigned to main plot. The
significant highest grain yield of maize 4060 kg ha -1 and above-ground biomass 10.08 ton ha-1 was
recorded from zero tillage with the highest net benefit 24,898.0 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) ha-1. Whereas
the significant maximum grain yield of common bean 1270 kg ha-1and aboveground biomass 3.87
ton ha-1was obtained from 1:4 maize common bean intercropping ratio with highest net benefit
15,345ETB ha-.1 Therefore, intercropping of maize common bean in a ratio of 1:4 with zero tillage
practice is recommended in the study area and adjacent district’ with similar agro-ecologies for
yield improvement of both crops.
Introduction
Intercropping is a type of mixed cropping and defined as the simultaneous
cultivation of more than one crop species on the same piece of land (Hauggaard-
Nielsen et al., 2008) which aims to match efficiently crop demands to the
available growth resources and labor. The most common advantage of
intercropping is the production of greater yield on a given piece of land, improves
soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation with the use of legumes (Russell,
2002), increases soil conservation through greater ground cover than sole cropping
(El-Swaify et al., 1988), and provides better lodging resistance for crops
susceptible to lodging than when grown in monoculture (Assefa and Ledin, 2001).
Intercrops often reduce pest incidence and improve forage quality by increasing
crude protein yield of forage. Intercropping also provides insurance against crop
failure or against unstable market prices for a given commodity, especially in
areas subject to extreme weather conditions such as frost, drought, and flood.
Thus, it offers greater financial stability than sole cropping, which makes the
[529]
system particularly suitable for labor-intensive small farms. Moreover,
intercropping allows lower inputs through reduced fertilizer and pesticide
requirements, thus minimizing environmental impacts of agriculture (Lithourgidis
et al., 2011).
For the success of intercropping system several aspects need to be taken into
consideration before and during the cultivation process (Seran and Brintha, 2010).
Those considerations include maturity of crop, compatible crops, time of planting
and plant density. The choice of compatible crops depends on the plant growth
habit, land, light, water and fertilizer utilization (Brintha and Seran, 2009). When
two or more crops are grown together the peak period of growth of components do
not coincide so as to make their major demands on resources at different times.
Plant competition could be minimized not only by spatial arrangement, but also by
choosing compatible crops which are able to exploit soil nutrients (Seran and
Brintha, 2010).
The primary rationale for this combination of practices is to protects the natural
resource base for agriculture (preventing soil erosion) thereby contributing to
maintenance of long-run agricultural productivity. Conservation Agriculture is
proposed to be widely applicable to areas and regions where it is not currently
practiced. It is also believed to effectively be applicable irrespective of size of land
area and agro-ecologies (FAO, 2010). Therefore it is, containing combination of
tested scientific technologies, and its practice in Africa is now taking roots with
increasing demand for more sustainable agricultural practices and better natural
resources management and conservation (Thiombiano and Meshack 2009) and it
is increasingly promoted in Africa as an alternative for coping with the need to
increase food production on the basis of more sustainable farming practices.
The field experiment entitled maize common bean intercropping on crop

productivity and land use efficiency under two tillage practices was done during
2016- 2018 main cropping seasons. The results indicated that, sole maize with
conventional tillage gave the highest grain yield 5.92 t ha-1 of maize. Regarding
common bean the highest grain yield 1.86 t ha-1 was recorded from sole common
bean of Zero tillage. The 1:2 maize common bean intercropping ratio of
conventional tillage gave the highest LER 1.82 which was not significant
difference from 1:4 maize common bean intercropping ratio. After that, validation
of maize common bean intercropping on crop productivity and land use efficiency
under two tillage practices was conducted for further evaluation of promising
treatments with objective to validate maize-common bean inter cropping under
two tillage practices.
[530]
Field farm experiment was conducted in two sites of Jimma Zone (Kersa and
Omonada woreda) Southwestern Ethiopia during the main cropping season of
2019. The Kersa site was located on latitude 7º42' N and longitude 36º 59'E and
laid at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l. The average minimum and maximum
temperature are 6ºC and 25.5ºC respectively and reliably receives good rains 1712
mm per annum during cropping season. Whereas, Omonada site was located on
latitude 7º37' N and longitude 37º 14'E and lay at an altitude of 1753 m.a.s.l. The
average minimum and maximum temperature are 6ºC and 25ºC respectively and
reliably receives good rains 1446 mm per annum cropping season. The farming
system of the study site is coffee and cereal crops dominated by coffee, maize, teff
and sorghum also has warm and cold climate, also convenient topography is very
suitable for all agricultural practices. It was situated in the tepid to cool humid-mid
highlands of southwestern Ethiopia. The soil type of the experimental area was
Eutric-nitisols (reddish brown).

A composite surface soil (0-30cm depth) sample was collected from both sites
with gauge auger before planting. Te sample was analyses for the selected physio
chemical properties of the soil at Jimma Agricultural Research Center soil and
plant laboratory (Table 1). The average soil pH of the trial sites ranges from 5.08
to 5.22 across locations, which was strongly acidic (Batjes, 1995) and ideal for the
production of most field crops. The pH of the soil affects maize growth by
suppressing the root development and reducing availability of macronutrients to
plants especially phosphorus (Brady and Weil, 2008). The soil total N of both
location mean was 0.17 and SOM ranges from 3.22 to 3.29% were found medium
rate for crop growth and development for both nutrients (Berhanu, 1980). For all
locations the Bray II extractable available P ranges from 9.00 to 23.42 mg kg-1
which was above the critical level (8 mg kg-1) for most crops as described by
Tekalign and Haque (1991).
Table 1. Selected physico-chemical properties of the soil of the experimental sites before planting
Kersa Omonada
pH(1:2.5) 5.22 5.08
Av P(mg kg-1) 23.42 9.00
TN (%) 0.17 0.17
OC (%) 1.91 1.87
SOM (%) 3.29 3.22
C:N ratio 11.05 12.45
Where pH= hydrogen power, OC=Organic carbon, TN=Total Nitrogen, Av P=Available Phosphorous, SOM=Soil Organic
Matter. Values are the means of duplicated samples.
[531]
Description of the experimental materials
Hybrid maize variety BH661 and Nasir variety of common bean was used in the
present study. The maize variety BH661 is the most promising variety released by
Bako Agricultural Research Centre and both crop varieties were adapted well to
the agro-ecologies of Jimma areas.
Experimental treatments and procedures

This experiment had four treatments with farmers replications which were 1:2 and
1:4 maize to common bean ratio respectively in rows of maize and between two
maize plant stand and two tillage practices:- conventional tillage and zero tillage.
The treatments were laid out in split plot design with farmers replications.The plot
size 48m2 (4.8 m x 10 m) was used for each treatment.
The experimental field that received conventional tillage was ploughed and
prepared well before planting in all locations and the field that received zero
tillage was applied by round chemical before one month to control the weed and
prepare for planting both crops. The maize was planted during 18 up to 22 May at
different locations and the common bean intercropped based on the treatment at
maize planting. Three maize seeds were planted per hill and then thinned to two
plants per hill after good establishment of seedlings so as to maintain a single
healthy plant per hill.
Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers were applied, respectively per stand or hill
base for maize and per row for common bean. For maize nitrogen fertilizer rates
were applied during planting and knee height stage to increase the nitrogen use
efficiency. For common bean, it was applied at planting time and 30 days after
planting. All other agronomic practices were applied uniformly to all experimental
plots in the study area.
Data collected
Maize components
Plant height (cm) was measured at ground level to terminal stem using measuring
stick at the point where the tassel starts branching from six randomly selected
plants. Number of ear per plant was obtained by counting total number of ears in
each plot and divided to total number of plant stand harvested. Stem diameter
(girth) was measured at 50cm from the ground level on six randomly selected
plants using caliper. Grain yield (kg ha-1) was recorded using electronic balance
and then adjusted to 12.5% moisture and converted to hectare basis. Above ground
biomass (kg ha-1) was harvested from net plot and weighted, ears were removed
and weighted separately, six plants were selected, chopped and oven dried till get
uniform weight. Lodging percent was obtained by counting the total number of
stalk and root lodging in each plot and divided to the total number of plant stand at
[532]
harvesting. Harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to above
ground biomass yield on dry weight basis (Donald, 1962).
Common bean components

Plant height (cm) was measured by centimeters from the ground level to the top of
the plant at 50% flowering from 5 randomly selected plants from each plot.
Number of pods per plant was counted from five randomly selected plants of
harvestable rows at the time of harvesting from each plot and their averages were
recorded. Grain yield (kg/ha) was measured from each plot using electronic
balance and then adjusted to 7.0% moisture and converted to hectare basis. Above
ground biomass (ton ha-1) was harvested from net plot and weighted, sample
plants were selected dried till get uniform weight. Harvest index was expressed as
the ratio of economic yield per plant to the total above ground biomass (Donald,
1962).
Data analysis
version 9.3 statistical software. Whenever the ANOVA results showed the
significant differences between sources of variation, the means were compared
using least significant difference. The homogeneity test was done as suggested by
Gomez and Gomez, (1984).

Partial budget analysis was performed to investigate the economic feasibility of
the treatments and assess the costs and benefits associated with different
treatments of common bean intercropped and tillage practices. The partial budget
technique as described by CIMMYT (1988) was applied. The partial budget
analysis was done using the prevailing market prices for seed inputs of common
bean and cost for tillage practice performed at planting and for outputs at the time
the crop was harvested. All costs and benefits were calculated on hectare basis in
Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The inputs and/or concepts used in the partial budget
analysis were the mean grain yield of each treatment, the gross field benefit (GFB)
ha-1 (the product of field price and the mean yield for each treatment), cost of
labor spent on chemical application, preparation of the land, the total costs that
varied (TVC) which included the sum of field costs.
[533]
The homogeneity test of the error variances over locations indicated that the error
variance was homogenous and hence combined analysis of variance was
conducted. Over locations combined analysis (Table 2) indicates the interaction
and main effect of maize common bean ratio didn’t show significant (P >0.05)
difference on plant height, number of ears per plant, stem diameter (girth), lodging
percentage, grain yield and HI of maize. However, the tillage practice was
significantly (P <0.05) affected plant height, number of ears per plant, lodging
percent, grain yield and above ground biomass of maize but no significant effect
(P >0.05) on stem girth and harvest index of maize. On the other hand, tillage
practice and maize-common bean ratio had highly significant (P <0.01) interaction
effect on grain yield of maize.
Table 2. Mean square values of tillage practices and maize-common bean intercropping on growth, yield and yield
components of maize
Parameter
Tillage Maize common Interaction Error a Error b
practice (1) bean ratio (1) (1) (4) (8)
Plant height(cm) 661.25** 31.25ns 266.45ns 79.57 266.5
Ears per plant 0.018* 0.007ns 0.0039ns 0.0036 0.0039
Girth(cm) 0.00196 ns 0.1164ns 0.0014ns 0.0285 0.0014
Lodging (%) 202.95* 3.436ns 8.3076ns 46.978 8.31
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 2423472.2** 175219.2ns 684500ns 298170.6 684500
AGB (t ha )
-1 6.938 ** 1.897 ns 4.494** 0.496 4.49
Harvest index 0.0039ns 0.0005ns 0.000001ns 0.0015 0.000087
*Numbers in parenthesis = Degrees of freedom; *= Significant (P < 0.05); ** = highly significant (p<0.01) difference; NS=
non-significant; AGB= Above-ground biomass; ha = Hectare
Regarding the effect of tillage practices and maize-common bean intercropping

ratio on growth, yield components and yield of common bean, maize common
bean was highly significantly (P <0.01) affected grain yield and aboveground
biomass of common bean. In another case, tillage practice and interaction effects
of the two didn’t show significant (P>0.05) difference on plant height, number of
pods per plant, grain yield and above ground biomass of common bean. However,
tillage practice highly significantly (P <0.01) influenced harvest index of the
common bean. Whereas, harvest index was not significantly (P>0.05) affected
by their interaction effect (Table 3).
[534]
Table 3. Mean square values of tillage practices and maize-common bean intercropping ratio on growth, yield and yield
components of common bean

Parameter Tillage Maize common Interaction Error a Error b
practice (1) bean ratio (1) (1) (4) (8)
Plant height(cm) 164.74 ns 38.64ns 414.05ns 271.2 414.05
Pod per plant 11.25 ns 103.058ns 22.05ns 25.77 22.1
Grain yield (kg ha-1) 17224.3ns 360227.69** 4768.798ns 40952.3 4768.8
AGB (t ha-1) 0.535ns 3.724** 0.011ns 0.3196 0.011

Harvest index 0.0013** 0.0002ns 0.00008ns 0.00016 0.00008
*Numbers in parenthesis = Degrees of freedom; *= Significant (P < 0.05); ** = highly significant (p<0.01)
difference; NS= non-significant; AGB= Above-ground biomass; ha = Hectare
Plant height
Over location mean indicated that the highest plant height of maize 266.7cm was
recorded from zero tillage while the conventional tillage gave the lowest plant
height 255.2cm (Table 4). Highest plant height of maize under zero tillage might
be due to the presence of higher crowding effect of the plant and other resources
that decrease in the stem diameter and the number of green leaves. This could be
attributed to the ample soil cover for the zero tillage plots which conserves soil
moisture as well as the decomposition of the slashed residues that improve on the
fertility of the soil and thus enhancing crop growth. These results are similar to
those by Sornpoon and Jayasuriya (2013) who reported taller corn plants in the
minimum tillage plots.
Number of Ear per plant

Over location mean indicated that the maximum number of ear per plant (1.02) of
maize was obtained from zero tillage practice, while the minimum number of ears
per plant (0.96) was recorded from conventional tillage practice (Table 4). The
reduced tillage practice increased 6.3% number of ears per plant of maize over
conventional tillage practices. This might be due to efficiently use of the crop to
the nutrient and water this which in turn had increased the nutrient availability for
vigorous plant growth thus might have increased the number of ears plant-1.
Grain yield
The response of grain yield of maize to tillage practices indicated that the highest
grain yield 4060 kg ha-1 was recorded from zero tillage. While, the lowest grain
yield of maize 3370 kg ha-1 was recorded from conventional tillage (Table 4). The
data also showed that practicing zero tillage there was 20.5% grain yield increase
over the conventional tillage. Regarding grain yield of common bean the
significant highest grain yield 1270 kg ha-1 was recorded from one maize plant to
4 common bean intercropping ratio, while, the lowest grain yield of common bean
1000 kg ha-1 was recorded from 1 maize plant to 2 common bean ratio (Table 5). It
showed that by planting one maize plant to 4 common bean intercropping ratio
there was 27.0% grain yield increase over the 1 maize plant to 2 common bean
[535]
intercropping ratio. The yield increase with no-tillage was likely due to better
weed control and water conservation compared with conventional tillage
(Nezomba et al., 2010).Water conservation was probably improved with no-
tillage, especially as significant soil water was probably lost with ploughed tillage
and the extra weeding. Farmers weeded only once with no-tillage, as compared to
twice with conventional tillage, and achieved better weed control. The yield
reduction due to intercropping can be attributed to competition for moisture,
nutrients and solar radiation associated with intercropping mixtures (Belel et al.,
2014). According to Matusso et al. (2014) crops with C4 photosynthetic pathways
have been known to be dominant when intercropped with C3 species. The shading
of the bean by the taller maize plants may also have contributed to the reduction of
the yields of the intercropped bean (Belel et al., 2014).
Table 4. Over location main effect of maize-common bean intercropping ratio and tillage practices on growth, yield and
yield components of maize at Omonada and Kersa woreda Jimma zone 2019 main cropping season
Over location
Tillage practices Plant height Girth Lodging EPP Grain yield AGB HI
(cm) (cm) (%) (ton ha-1) -1
(ton ha )
Conventional Till 255.2b 2.33 33.6 0.96b 3370b 8.90b 0.40
Zero Tillage 266.7a 2.31 27.3 1.02a 4060a 10.08a 0.43
LSD (0.05) 8.69 0.16 6.68 0.059 530 0.69 0.04
CV (%) 3.42 7.26 22.5 14.7 7.42 9.5 6.1
F-test ** NS NS * ** ** NS
Maize-common bean intercropping ratio
1:2 262.2 2.40 30.87 0.97 3810 9.80 0.41
1: 4 259.7 2.25 30.05 1.01 3620 9.18 0.42
LSD (0.05) 8.69 0.16 6.68 0.059 530 0.69 0.04
CV (%) 6.26 1.60 9.46 6.3 18.3 17.3 2.3
F-test NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
LSD= Least significant difference; CV=Coefficient of variation; NS=Non-significant; HI= Harvest index;
AGB=Aboveground biomass; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
Aboveground biomass yield

As regards to the effect of tillage practices on above ground biomass of maize the
obtained results clearly indicated that the significant highest above ground
biomass 10.08 kg ha-1 was recorded from zero tillage while, the lowest above
ground biomass 8.90 ton ha-1 was recorded from conventional tillage (Table 4).
The zero tillage increased 13.3% above ground biomass of maize over
conventional tillage practice. Regarding the common bean the highest above
ground biomass 3.87 ton ha-1 was recorded from one maize plant to four common
bean intercropping ratio, while the lowest 3.01 ton ha-1 was obtained from one
maize plant to two common bean ratio (Table 5). There was an increase of 28.6%
above ground biomass of common bean by planting 1:4 maize common bean
[536]
intercropping ratio over 1:2 maize common bean intercropping ratio. This shows
that an increase in common bean plant intercropped increased above ground
biomass yield because the plant per meter square area increase and consequently
the above ground biomass. The low competitive capacity of legumes compared to
the cereals has been ascribed to its short root system, shallow root distribution,
resulting to low competitive ability for mineral nitrogen (Mucheru –Muna et al.,
2011).
Table 5. Over location main effect of maize-common bean intercropping ratio and tillage practices on growth, yield and
yield components of common bean at Omonada and Kersa woreda Jimma zone 2019 main cropping season
Over location
Tillage practices Plant height No. of pod Grain yield AGB HI
(cm) -1 -1 -1
plant (ton ha ) (ton ha )
Conventional Tillage 93.9 24.9 1160 3.61 0.32b
Zero Tillage 88.16 23.4 1110 3.28 0.34a
LSD (0.05) 16.05 4.95 20 0.55 0.012
CV (%) 18.1 18.0 17.8 16.4 3.8
F-test NS NS NS NS **
Maize common bean intercropping ratio
1:2 89.6 26.4 1000b 3.01b 0.33
1: 4 92.4 21.9 1270a 3.87a 0.33
LSD (0.05) 16.05 4.95 20 0.55 0.012

CV (%) 19.4 16.4 6.1 3.1 2.7
F-test NS NS ** ** NS
LSD= Least significant difference; CV=Coefficient of variation; NS=Non-significant; HI= Harvest index; AGB=Above-
ground biomass; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
Harvest index
Harvest index is the ratio of grain yield to total above ground biomass and the
obtained result was in the acceptable range of 0.4 - 0.6 for maize (Hue, 1995).
Regarding the common bean the highest harvest index 0.34 was obtained from
zero tillage, while conventional tillage gave the lowest harvest index 0.32 (Table
5). This increased the harvest index by 6.3% over conventional tillage practice.

The economic analysis was performed using partial budget analysis following the
procedure described by CIMMYT (1988) in which prevailing market prices for
inputs at planting and for outputs at harvesting were used. All costs and benefits
were calculated on a hectare basis in Ethiopian Birr (ETB). The total costs of NP
fertilizer (13.5 ETB kg-1) and urea = 10 ETB kg-1 were calculated based on store
sale prices on both woreda’s farmers’ Cooperative in May, 2019 and sale of grain
maize and common bean at both woreda’s open market average price 7 and 15
ETB kg-1 respectively in December, 2019. The cost common bean seed purchase
[537]
was also used for analysis. Grain yield was adjusted by 10% for management
difference to reflect the difference between the experimental yield and the yield
that farmers could expect from the same treatment (Getachew and Taye, 2005,
CIMMYT, 1988).
Table 6. Partial budget analyses of tillage practices and maize-common bean intercropping ratio on grain
yield of maize at Jimma zone during 2019 cropping season
Tillage practices GY Adj.GY GFB TVC NB

Conventional Tillage 3370 3033.0 21231 1920.0 19311.0
Zero Tillage 4060 3654.0 25578 680.0 24898.0
1:2 3810 3429.0 24003 900.0 23103.0
1: 4 3620 3258.0 22806 1800.0 21006.0
*GY= Grain yield; GFB = Gross field benefit; TCV = Total cost that varied; NB = Net benefit;
The partial budget analysis of maize grain yield presented in Table 6 indicates that the highest net benefit 24,898 ETB ha-
1 and 23,103 ETB ha-1 was obtained from zero tillage practice and 1:2 maize common bean ratio respectively. It shows
there were 28.9% (5587 ETB ha-1) and 10.0% (2097 ETB ha-1) increase over conventional tillage and 1:4 maize common
bean ratio respectively.
Table 7. Partial budget analyses of tillage practices and maize-common bean intercropping ratio on grain yield of
Common bean at Jimma zone during 2019 cropping season
Tillage practices GY Adj.GY GFB TVC NB

Conventional Tillage 1160 1044.0 15660 1920.0 13740.0
Zero Tillage 1110 999.0 14985 680.0 14305.0
1:2 1000 900.0 13500 900.0 12600.0
1: 4 1270 1143.0 17145 1800.0 15345.0
*GY= Grain yield; GFB = Gross field benefit; TCV = Total cost that varied; NB = Net benefit;
Regarding partial budget analysis of common bean grain yield as indicated in

Table 7, the highest net benefit (14305 ETB ha-1) and 15345 was obtained from
zero tillage practice and 1:4 maize common bean ratio respectively. The same
table also shows that planting 1:4 maize common bean ratio with zero tillage
practice increased the net benefit by 21.8% (2745 ETB ha-1) and 4% (565 ETB ha-
1
) as compared with one maize to two common bean ratio and conventional tillage
practice respectively.

Based on the result, the tillage practices significantly improved grain yield and
above ground biomass yield of the maize whereas the maize common bean did not
[538]
significant effect on the maize yield. In other case the maize common bean
intercropping ratio significantly affected the grain yield and above ground biomass
of common bean, whereas the tillage practices did not.
The maximum grain yields (4060 kg ha-1) and above ground biomass (10.08 ton
ha-1) of maize was recorded from zero tillage with the highest net benefit 24,898.0
ETB ha-1. Whereas the maximum grain yield of common bean 1270 kg ha-1 and
above ground biomass 3.87 ton ha-1 was obtained from 1:4 maize common bean
intercropping ratio with highest net benefit 15,345ETB ha-1. Therefore, in
conclusion 1:4 maize common bean intercropping ratio with zero tillage practice
can be the best combination for yield improvement of the both crop in the study
area and similar agro-ecologies.
References
Assefa G and Ledin I. 2001. Effect of variety, soil type and fertiliser on the establishment,
growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches
cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology
92:95-111.
Batjes NH. 1995. Aglobal data set of soil pH properties. Technical Paper 27, International
Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC), Wageningen.
Berhanu D. 1980. A survey of studies conducted about soil resources appraisal and
Belel, M. D., Halim, R. A., Rafii, M. Y. andSaud, H. M., 2014. Intercropping of corn with
some selected legumes for improved forage production: A review. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 6 (3): 48 –62
Brady, N., Weil R.R., 2008. Nature and Properties of Soils (14th edn.). Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River. 992p.
Brintha, I. and Seran, T.H., 2009. Effect of paired row planting of radish (Raphanus
sativus L.) intercropped with vegetable amaranthus (Amaranthus tricolor L.) on
yield components of radish in sandy regosol. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4:19-
28.
CIMMYT, 1988. From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics
Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico, D.F.79p
Donald, C. M., 1962. In search of yield. Journal of Australian Institute of Agricultural
Science, 28(1): 171-178.
El-Swaify SA., Lo A.K.F., Joy R., Shinshiro L., Yost R.S., 1988. Achieving conservation
effectiveness in the tropics using legume-intercrops. Soil Technology 1:1-12.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2005. Conservation agriculture in Africa.
FAO regional office for Africa, Acra, Ghana
Getachew, A., and Taye, B., 2005. On-farm integrated soil fertility management in wheat
on nitisols of central Ethiopian highlands. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Resources,
7: 141-155.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A., 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research.
2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York.
[539]
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jørnsgaard, B., Kinane, J. and Jensen, E.S., 2008. Grain legume–
cereal intercropping: the practical application of diversity, competition and
facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems, 23(1), pp.3-12.
Hue, N.V., 1995. Sewage sludge. pp.199-247. In: Jack E. Rechcigl (eds). Soil
amendments and environmental quality. Lewis Publisher, London.
Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A. and Vlachostergios, D., 2011. Annual
intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian journal of
crop science, 5(4):396.
Matusso, J. M. M., Mugwe, J. N. and Mucheru -Muna, M., 2012. Potential role of cereal-
legume intercropping systems in integrated soil fertility management in smallholder
farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. ResearchApplication Summary. Third
Ruforum Biennial Meeting 24 -28 September 2012, Entebbe, Uganda. pp. 1815 –
1843.
Mucheru -Muna, M., Mugendi, D. N., Pypers, P., Mugwe, J., Vanlauwe, B., Merckx, R.
and Kungu, J. B. 2011. Increasing productivity through maize-legume intercropping
in Central Kenya. In: A. Bationo et al. (Eds). Innovations as key to the Green
Revolution in Africa: Exploring the scientific facts. Springer Science and Business
Media. pp. 843 –858
Nezomba, H, Tauro, T.P., Mtambanengwe, F., Mapfumo, P., 2010. Indigenous legume
fallows (indifallows) as an alternative soil fertility resource in smallholder maize
cropping systems. Field Crops Research, 115:149–57.
Russell AE., 2002. Relationship between crop-species diversity and soil characteristics in
southwest Indian agroecosystems. Agricultural Ecosystem Environment 92:235-
249.
Seran, T.H. and Brintha, I., 2010. Review on maize based intercropping. Journal of
agronomy, 9(3), pp.135-145.
Sornpoon, W., Jayasuriya, H.P., 2013. Effect of different tillage and residue management
practices on growth and yield of corn cultivation in Thailand. Agricultural
Engineering International: CIGR Journal, 15(3):86-94
Thiombiano, L. and Meshack, M., 2009. Scaling up conservation agriculture in Africa:
Strategies and approaches.
Tekalign, M. and Haque, I., 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils, II. Forms
and distribution of inorganic phosphates and their relation to available phosphorus.
Tropical Agriculture, 68(1): 2-8.
[540]
Evaluation of Common Bean Varieties
Compatibility to Intercropping with Maize at
Melkassa and Miesso areas
Fitsum Merkeb*1 and Berhanu Amsalu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center;
E-mail: fitsummerkeb8@gmial.com
Abstract
The experiment was carried out at Melkassa and Miesso research stations for two
consecutive years, in 2018 and 2019 main cropping seasons, to evaluate the
performance and compatibility of different varieties of common bean intercropping
with maize. Three sole crops of common bean varieties (early maturing KAT-B1;
medium maturing Awash-2; and late maturing Deme where tested with and MH-2 and
MH-4 maize varieties at Melkassa and MH-1 and MH-7 at Miesso giving six
intercropping of each two maize varieties with three common bean varieties.
Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three
replications. Among the intercropped treatments, at Melkassa; maize variety MH-4
with Awash-2 common bean variety showed higher grain yield (785.9 kg/ha and
1245.9 kg/ha in both 2018 and 2019), The combined mean intercropped grain yield of
bean also indicated relatively higher though it’s not significant and sustainable land
equivalent ratio (1.01 in 2018 and 1.32 in 2019) as compared to intercropping maize
variety MH-2. While the early maturing bean variety KAT-B1 which is suitable for the
area of Miesso and being compatible with maize variety MH-1 having better yield and
land- use efficiency. In conclusion, the study indicated that farmers with subsistence
and low-input farming can benefit more from intercropping of the two compatible
varieties of common bean and maize to maximize land productivity and resource use
efficiency, and it is recommended to use maize variety MH-4 with common bean
variety Awash-2 and Deme at Melkassa areas. While for Miesso the combined
analysis result indicates intercropping of maize variety MH-1 and the early maturing
bean variety KAT-B1 gives the higher (1030.2 kg/ha) grain yield which is sustainable
on both seasons.
Introduction
Maize and beans are popular intercrops in many parts of the world. Farmers can
benefit from the high protein of the beans as well as the improved soil fertility
(Zaka et al., 2004).Both maize and common bean are the most important crops as
the main staple and important dietary protein sources (CSA, 2011). Maize and
bean co-existence can be considered as strategic mitigation of mono cropping
which is drastically reducing land and crop productivity. Maize mono-cropping
reduced yield by 30% at Bako, western Ethiopia whereas complete crop failure in
continuous maize mono-cropping without N application was reported for the
Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia (Tesfa et al., 2001).
[541]
In Ethiopia, improved maize and common bean varieties have been recommended
for various agro-ecologies over the years. Farmers’ variety preference assessment
in southern Ethiopia demonstrated the selection of common bean varieties is
primarily based on seed size, color and marketability (Abush and Leta, 2001). In
Bako area, early maturing varieties are more preferred by farmers for sole
production (Girma et al., 2004). Certainly, compatibility study of varieties in
maize/common bean intercropping systems is not well-addressed (Tesfa et al.,
2012). Hence, the works have limitations in identifying varieties of the two crops
suitable for intercropping.
The main advantage of intercropping is the more efficient utilization of the

available resources and the increased productivity compared with each sole crop
of the mixture (Dhima et al., 2007; Agegnehu et al., 2008; Mucheru- Muna et al.,
2010). The practice is further used by farmers as insurance against total crop
failure under adverse weather conditions (Lithourgidis et al., 2011; Rusinamhodzi
et al., 2012). This is because the damage to one crop is buffered by the companion
crop because they are not affected to the same extent in the face of adverse abiotic
and/or biotic conditions. Although maize/common bean intercropping research
activities have been undertaken in Ethiopia in many places, concrete information
is lacking on morphological characteristics positively influencing the performance
of component crops useful for use in intercropping (Shiferaw et al., 2015). In
selection of suitable common bean genotypes for a maize/common bean intercrop,
Atuahene et al. (2004) identified genotypes of different canopy width and canopy
height preferred for better ground cover in intercropping systems.Compatibility
studies of maize and beans in an intercrop system have not been adequately done
(Kitonyo, 2013). Consequently, farmers may not be getting the best returns in
terms of yield or cash because they do not necessarily select the most compatible
maize varieties for intercropping (Kitonyo, 2013). In view of the potential of
intercropping systems in intensifying farm productivity, it is imperative to select
both maize and bean varieties that are compatible with intercrop systems
commonly practiced by farmers.
The selection of an appropriate intercropping system is quite complex as the

success of intercropping systems depend much on the interactions between the
component species, the available management practices, and the environmental
conditions (Lithourgidis et al., 2011).
Interaction effects of variety by cropping system are expected to be arising from

morphological features such as leaf arrangement, canopy shape and growth habit.
For sustainable intensification of maize and common bean in maize-based
cropping system of western Ethiopia, growth and morphological characters
governing compatibility of varieties of the component crops under intercrop
conditions need to be understood. The information generated can further be used
[542]
in future breeding programs aimed at developing varieties that can be used across
a range of cropping systems. Therefore, economically viable intercropping largely
depends on the selection of compatible crops (Seran and Brintha, 2009) that
maximize positive interaction and minimize competition.
Objectives
To evaluate the performance and compatibility of different common bean varieties
for intercropping with maize at Melkassa and Miesso areas for higher productivity
and profitability.

Description of the study area
The experiment was conducted at Melkassa Agricultural Research Center
(MARC) on station in the central Rift valley of Ethiopia and Meisso sub stations
in West hararghe Oromia region under rain fed conditions during the main
cropping seasons (June– October). Melkassa is located at 8° 24' N latitude and 39°
12' E longitude with an altitude of 1550 m a.s.l. The long-term mean annual
rainfall is 791.69 mm with erratic distribution having peaks in July and August.
The long-term mean monthly maximum and minimum temperature is 28 and
14°C, respectively (MARC, 2005). Meisso is also located with a latitude and
longitude of 9°14′N40°45′Ewith an elevation of 1394 meters above sea level. The
Soil Physico-chemical properties of the experimental site were clay sandy loam
(sand 44, silt 21 and clay 35%) which is suitable for common bean and maize
production.
Planting materials
Three common bean varieties with distinct maturity groups;- early, medium and
late maturing represented by KAT-B1, Awash-2 and Deme, respectively were
used. Regarding maize varieties Melkassa-2 (MH-2) and Melkassa-4 (MH-4) were
used for Melkassa site, while Melkassa-1 (MH-1) and Melkassa-7 (MH-7) were
released for the moisture stress areas of Meisso site. The varieties were selected
based on their performance and suitability for the areas.
Experimental design and procedure

A total of eleven treatments consisted of factorial combinations of three common
bean varieties and two maize varieties with their respective sole planting were laid
out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The
experiment was conducted during 2018 and 2019 main cropping seasons. Sole
crops of maize and common bean varieties were sown at recommended spacing to
provide standard comparisons with the intercropping treatments. Sole maize was
sown at 75 cm inter row spacing and 25 cm intra row spacing and sole common
bean at 40 cm inter row spacing and 10 cm intra row spacing. Intercropping of
[543]
maize and common bean at 100% of the sole maize plant population density
(44,444plants ha-1) and 50% of common bean plant population density (125,000
plants ha-1) as additive series between the two maize rows at the same time was
recommended for the eastern hararghe area (Tamado and Eshetu, 2000). Two
seeds per hill of maize were planted to ensure germination and were thinned to
one plant per hill after emergence. All crops were hand weeded at weeding time.
The recommended fertilizer rate (64:46 kg N: P2O5 ha-1) was applied for both sole
and intercropped maize. Blended NPS fertilizer was applied at the rate of 100 kg
ha-1 (19 kg N, 38 kg P2O5 and 7 kg S ha-1), at planting. Urea at the rate of 100 kg
ha-1 (46 kg N ha-1) was applied as top dressing in two splits one-third at planting,
and two third was applied 6 weeks after sowing.
Data collection and management

Phonologies, growth parameters and yield components of the both crops were
recorded during their growth stages. Yield components of maize and common
beans were determined from five randomly selected plants from each plot. Grain
yield was taken from the central rows and the moisture content was taken using
electronic moisture tester after which the final grain yield was adjusted to 12.5%.
Plant height was determined at physiological maturity from five randomly
sampled maize and bean plants in the middle rows. Ten randomly sampled ears
and pods were used to determine seeds per ear and seeds per pod for maize and
bean respectively. Hundred seed weight of maize and bean was determined from
randomly sampled grains at moisture content of 12.5%. Overall, the advantage of
intercropping, which is land equivalent ratio (LER) is the most common index
adopted in intercropping to measure the land productivity. The LER was
calculated as (Willey, R.W. and Osiru, D.S.O. (1972).
LER = ( )
Where Yim and Yib were the yields of maize and beans, respectively in intercrop
and Ysm and Ysb are the yields of sole maize and beans, respectively, as.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SAS version 9.0 (SAS, 2002) computer software and
were subjected to ANOVA to determine significant differences among factors.
Means were separated using LSD test. For all analyzed parameters, P < 0.05 was
interpreted as statistically significant.
[544]
Growth, yield and yield Components of Common
bean at Melkassa
The results revealed that yield and yield contributing parameters of the
intercropped common beans were significantly (P<0.05) affected by the treatment
effects in both years. Days to flowering of common bean was affected by
intercropping of bean varieties with maize, but no significant effect was observed
between the intercropping and sole cropping system. Intercropping of bean
varieties neither with MH-2 nor with MH-4 resulted differences in days to
flowering. In contrary, Karikari et al. (1999) found that sole Bambara groundnut
flowered in a significantly shorter period than that of the intercropped one. Addisu
and Selten (2013) also reported that though the difference was not significant
statistically, sole Awash melka took the least days (40) to flower, while days to
flowering in the intercropping was (45 days).
Plant height of common bean was significantly influenced by maize varieties in

intercropping and sole cropping (Table 1). The highest common bean plant height
(49cm) was recorded from the long maturing variety Deme in both sole and
intercrops in 2018 cropping season, while in 2019 Awash-2 and Deme recorded
the highest plant height in both sole and intercrops. The lowest plant height was
recorded from the early maturing KAT-B1.This might be due to the variety
earliness in its maturity. In other studies, it was reported that there was no
significant difference in plant height between the intercropped and sole crops of
haricot bean varieties in maize/haricot bean intercropping system Molla and
Getachew (2018). The combined mean results were also indicate that at both sole
and intercropped treatments common bean varieties of Awash-2 and Deme gave
the highest plant height.
The number of pods/plant was significantly affected by the treatment differences.

During2018 cropping season the lowest number of pods/plant was recorded as
compared to the 2019 cropping season, and it has a positive effect on grain yield
of common beans. In both seasons the highest number of pods/plant was recorded
from sole cropping of Awash-2 variety. The combined mean result of number of
pods per plant (33.3) for Awash-2 variety was the highest. Also, Awash-2
intercropped with MH-2 and MH-4 gave a higher number of pods/plant in both
seasons. Similar results were obtained by Shiferaw et al.(2015) indicating that
intercropping common bean variety Haramaya with maize variety Gibe-2
produced the highest number of pods per plant. Awash-2 is a medium maturing
and semi-erect common bean variety which shows a high productivity potential
when intercropped with maize variety MH-4 at the study area.
[545]
The highest seed weight was recorded from Deme and KAT-B1 varieties from the
sole and in intercropping with MH-2 maize variety. The overall combined mean
result for seed weight of common bean indicates Deme variety has the highest
(46.8g) weight as compared to the others. The grain yield of common bean was
significantly affected by the treatment differences of sole and intercrop (Table 2).
The highest grain yield of common bean was recorded from the sole cropping of
KAT-B1 (2269.8 kg/ha) and Awash-2 (1831.1 kg/ha) varieties in 2018. In 2019
main cropping season sole KAT-B1 and Deme was recorded the highest grain
yield of 1768 kg/ha and 1750.8 kg/ha respectively. Awash-2 was also produced a
comparable grain yield of 1561.4 kg/ha. The highest grain yield of common bean
varieties in the sole cropping than that of intercropping could be due to
competition exerted by the maize component for growth factors. The yield of
common bean intercropping has no significant difference in 2018.In 2019
intercropping Awash-2 with MH-4 gave relatively the highest bean yield. Overall
Awash-2 common bean variety has shown good yields in intercropping and sole
cropping. This might be due to its genetic performance for the intercropping
system. These results were in line with the results of Addisu and Selten (2013)
who reported Nassir variety recorded the highest grain yield from both
intercropping and sole cropping. According to Shiferaw et al.,(2015) the
usefulness of common bean varieties for intercropping with maize depends on the
growth habit of the common bean variety. The yield reduction of common bean is
more manifested by intercropping with maize variety, MH-2. The result shows
that there is a higher seasonal variability on the grain yield of common bean
besides the treatment effect, so the combined mean result shows that intercropping
of common bean variety Awash-2 resulted good yield with maize variety MH-4.
[546]
Table 1. Yield and yield components of three common bean varieties intercropped with maize varieties at Melkassa, during 2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment Plant height (cm) Combined No. of pods Per Combined No. of seeds per Combined
mean plant mean pod mean
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
Melkasa-2+ KAT-B1 33d 39.2b 36.13b 3.9c 8.5d 6.23e 3.4ab 3.3d 3.35cd
Melkasa-2+ Awash-2 41.6bc 52.5a 47.08a 9.6bc 22.4bc 16.02bc 3.9ab 4.2a 4.03ab
Melkasa-2+ Deme 48.3a 55.1a 51.72a 3.7c 9.5d 6.63e 3.8ab 3.4bcd 3.62abcd
Melkasa-4+ KAT-B1 32.6d 34.6b 33.63b 5.4bc 11.6d 8.53de 3.2b 3.3cd 3.30cd
Melkasa-4+ Awash-2 46.6ab 55.9a 51.32a 8.3bc 25.9b 17.13b 4.4a 4abc 4.18a
Melkasa-4+ Deme 49a 53.3a 51.18a 4.8bc 10.3d 7.53de 3.3b 3.6abcd 3.43cd
KAT-B1 (sole) 36.6cd 35.8b 36.27b 12b 14.5cd 13.25bcd 3.6ab 3.4bcd 3.52bcd
Awash-2 (sole) 42bc 52.9a 47.47a 32a 34.6a 33.30a 3.5ab 4ab 3.77abc
Deme (sole) 48.3a 55.4a 51.90a 9.5bc 13.2d 11.33cde 3.0b 3.1d 3.05d
LSD (0.05%) 5.88 8.7 5.1 7.24 8.6 5.7 1.01 0.64 0.5
CV% 8.1 10.5 9.6 42.1 29.6 37.2 16.3 10.4 13.6
LSD=LeastSignificantDifference;CV=CoefficientofVariation;Valuesfollowed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
Table 2. Yield and yield components of three common bean varieties intercropped with maize varieties at Melkassa, during 2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment HSW (gm) Combined GY (kg/ha) Combined mean
2018 2019 mean 2018 2019
Melkasa-2+ KAT-B1 39.5a 43.5cd 41.55abc 726.5c 1268.7cd 997.6c
Melkasa-2+ Awash-2 17.2b 19.2e 18.20d 749.7c 1165.8d 957.8c
Melkasa-2+ Deme 37.5a 56.2a 46.85a 689.3c 1343.1bcd 1016.2c
Melkasa-4+ KAT-B1 38.4a 42.3d 40.38bc 702.6c 1400bc 1051.3c
Melkasa-4+ Awash-2 19.2b 18.3e 18.78d 785.9c 1245.9cd 1015.9c
Melkasa-4+ Deme 41.5a 51.6ab 46.57ab 700.8c 1407.2bc 1054.0c
KAT-B1 (sole) 38.8a 38.4d 38.67c 2269.8a 1768a 2018.9a
Awash-2 (sole) 19.5b 15.3e 17.43d 1831.1a 1561.4ab 1696.2ab
Deme (sole) 40.1a 48.2bc 44.15abc 1338.3b 1750.8a 1544.6b
LSD (0.05%) 9.94 5.12 6.4 480.7 227.6 350.1
CV% 17.7 7.9 15.8 25.5 9.2 23.8
LSD= Least Significant Difference; CV=Coefficient of Variation; HSW=hundred seed weight, GY=grain yield; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly
different at P< 0.05.
[547]
Growth, yield and yield Components of Maize at Melkassa
Yield and yield related traits of intercropped maize were significantly affected by
the treatments (P<0.05) in both 2018 and 2019 main cropping seasons and the
combined analysis. The results indicated that there is no statistical difference
(P>0.05)between days to tasseling and days to silking of maize (table 4) in
between intercropping and sole cropping of maize except the varietal differences
of maize. In line with this Karikari et al. (1999) and Yesuf (2003) indicated that
days to flowering did not differ significantly between the sole crop and the
intercropped cereals. Similarly, according to Tilahun (2002) in maize-faba bean
intercropping no variation was observed in days to silking and tasseling of maize.
Likewise, Molla (2018) also reported no significant differences were observed for
tasseling and silking days to sole and intercrop cereals.
The highest plant height (table 3) of maize was recorded from the intercropping of
MH-2 with KAT-B1 and Awash-2 bean varieties. This might be due to
morphological difference between the two maize varieties. Common bean
varieties KAT-B1 and Awash-2 are erect types with short and medium maturing as
compared to Deme. Maize number of seeds per cob and hundred seed weight were
significantly affected by the treatment effects and growing season. Large number
of seeds per cob (434.5) was recorded from maize variety MH-2 intercropped with
KAT-B1. Seed weight of maize was also significantly affected (P < 0.05) by the
treatments. The seed weight was ranged from 22g – 29g from the combined mean
result. The highest seed weight (29.3g) was from sole cropping of variety MH-4.
The highest seed weight values were recorded in 2019 compared to 2018. In line
with this Alemayehu et al., (2016) also found lower seed weight of maize due to
moisture deficiency during grain filling stage at Mecha.
Maize grain yield over years at Melkassa area were significantly (P < 0.05)
affected by the treatments (table 3). The highest maize grain yield of 5185.2 kg/ha
and 5180.5 kg/ha was obtained from sole crops of MH-2 and MH-4 maize
varieties respectively. In line with this, Ashenafi (2016) also reported sole cropped
maize had significantly (P<0.05) higher grain yield than intercropped maize.
Tolera (2003) also indicated that planting haricot beans in intercropping had no
appreciable effect on the yield of maize. In contrast Alemayehu et
al.,(2016)reported the yield advantage of 14% and 24% were obtained from
intercropping of maize lupine relative to sole cropped maize at Jabitenan and
Mecha areas. Though there is no significant difference between the intercropped
treatments from the combined mean result MH-4 with Awash-2 and Deme gives
good yield for the area. According to Alemayehu et al., (2016) yield increase of
the intercropped maize might be due to interspecific facilitation or
complementarity in root interactions between the intercropped maize and legume
species.
[548]
Table 3. Yield and yield components of maize varieties intercropped with common bean varieties of distinct maturity groups at Melkassa,
during 2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment Plant height Combined Combined Combined Combined

(cm) mean No. of seed/cob mean HSW (gm) mean GY (kg/ha) mean
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
Melkasa-2+ KAT-B1 234.6a 171.7 203.1a 485.1a 383.9ab 434.5a 24.6ab 28.7abc 26.68ab 4709ab 2218.6b 3463.8b
Melkasa-2+ Awash-2 238.6a 167.9 203.3a 431.3ab 387.6ab 409.47abc 23.9ab 24.9bc 24.42ab 3059bc 2175.9b 2617.6b
Melkasa-2+ Deme 229ab 163.3 196.1abc 467.5ab 344.8b 406.13abc 22.4ab 29.4abc 25.92ab 2624c 2491.2b 2558.0b
Melkasa-4+ KAT-B1 210c 163.7 186.8bc 389.1ab 348.5b 368.80bc 15.5b 33.6a 24.582ab 2681bc 2602.5b 2641.9b
Melkasa-4+ Awash-2 208c 163.3 185.6c 374.5b 347.8b 361.13c 23.9ab 31.1ab 27.47ab 3789bc 2226.7b 3008.3b
Melkasa-4+ Deme 210.6c 172.1 191.3abc 393.1ab 352.8b 373.00 21ab 23.2c 22.12b 2394c 2638.7b 2516.6b
Melkasa-2 (sole) 230ab 167.9 198.9ab 432.1ab 413.8a 422.97ab 30a 27abc 28.52ab 6702a 3668a 5185.2a
Melkasa-4 (sole) 215bc 170.1 192.5abc 426ab 357.1b 391.57abc 26ab 32.5a 29.28a 6565a 3795.6a 5180.5a
LSD (0.05%) 17.6 ns 13.1 108.6 52.2 55.5 12.1 7.14 7.1 2032 886.6 1310.2
CV% 4.5 5.93 5.7 14.6 8.12 11.9 29.4 14.15 23.2 28.5 18.56 32.9
LSD= Least Significant Difference; CV=Coefficient of Variation; HSW=hundred seed weight, GY=grain yield; Values followed
by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
[549]
Table 4. Days to tasseling and days to silking of maize varieties intercropped with common bean varieties of distinct
maturity groups at Melkassa, combined over years.
Treatment Days to tasseling Days to silking

Melkasa-2+ KAT-B1 73.6a 75.6a
Melkasa-2+ Awash-2 73.6a 75.6a
Melkasa-2+ Deme 73.6a 75.6a
Melkasa-4+ KAT-B1 61.3b 65.6b
Melkasa-4+ Awash-2 61.3b 65.6b
Melkasa-4+ Deme 61.3b 65.6b
Melkasa-2 (sole) 73.3a 75.3a
Melkasa-4 (sole) 61.3b 65.6b
LSD (0.05%) 0.52 0.88
CV% 0.4 0.7
Growth, yield and yield Components of common bean at Meisso

In both2018 and 2019 main cropping season at Meisso grain yield of common
bean was significantly affected (P<0.05) by treatment differences. Grain yield of
the varieties were differed in between the sole and intercrops (Table 6). The
highest grain yield of 995.5 kg/ha was obtained from sole KAT-B1 variety in 2018
cropping season. From the intercropping of bean varieties with both maize
varieties intercropping of MH-1 and MH-7 with KAT-B1 also resulted in highest
609.8 kg/ha and 499.5 kg/ha grain yield in 2018 cropping season respectively.
While in 2019 a significant and higher common bean yield 2314.1 kg/ha and
2014.4 was obtained from the sole cropped Awash-2 and KAT-B1 varieties
respectively. The higher grain yield of KAT- B1 variety in both cropping systems
with MH-1 variety might be due to the genetic potential and suitability of the
variety for the moisture stressed areas of Meisso.
Common bean variety Deme had produced the highest plant height in intercropped
with both maize varieties. In both 2018 and 2019 cropping season plant height of
Deme was highest in both intercropping and sole cropping’s. Number of pods per
plant of common bean was also significantly affected by cropping system in both
years. In 2018 intercropping of MH-1 with Awash-2 variety had produced the
highest number of pods per plant (7.5) while other bean varieties were produced
lowest number of pod per plant whereas, in 2019 cropping season Awash-2
intercropped with MH-7 (22.2) followed by intercropping of Awash-2 with MH-1
(17.7) variety (table 5). The combined means result indicated that number of pods
per plant was higher (14.5) in intercropping of maize variety MH-7 with Awas-2.
Similar results were also obtained by Shiferaw et al., 2015 when Haromaya was
intercropped with Gibe-2 at Bako. In line Alemayehu et al., (2016) obtained a
significant increase in pods per plant of narrow leaf lupine when intercropped with
maize.
[550]
Table 5. Yield and yield components of three common bean varieties intercropped with maize varieties at Meisso, during 2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment Combined
Plant height (cm) mean No. of pods Per plant Combined mean No. of seeds per pod Combined mean
2018 2019 2018 2019 2018 2019
Melkasa-1+ KAT-B1 34.6c 38.7cd 36.72d 5.7ab 9.5cd 7.57c 3.3 3.5 3.40
Melkasa-1+ Awash-2 43.6bc 44.2abc 43.92bc 7.5a 17.7abc 12.60abc 3.3 4.3 3.83
Melkasa-1+ Deme 53.7a 49.2a 51.42a 4.1b 12.0bcd 8.07c 3.4 3.7 3.55
Melkasa-7+ KAT-B1 34.6c 37.1d 35.88d 6.9ab 9.9cd 8.37c 3.4 3.2 3.32
Melkasa-7+ Awash-2 42c 45.0ab 43.52bc 6.7ab 22.2a 14.47a 3.2 3.7 3.42
Melkasa-7+ Deme 56.7a 47.1ab 51.88a 6.7ab 10.5cd 8.60c 3.4 3.5 3.43
KAT-B1 (sole) 35.3c 42.1bcd 38.73cd 8.2a 8.1d 8.17c 3.5 3.1 3.32
Awash-2 (sole) 51.7ab 43.7abc 47.72ab 7.9a 20.0ab 13.97ab 3.8 4.1 3.95
Deme (sole) 59.7a 45.0ab 52.35a 7.7a 10.6cd 9.17bc 3.4 3.9 3.65
LSD (0.05%) 9.56 5.7 6.6 3.29 8.6 5.1 ns ns ns
CV% 12.1 7.6 12.7 27.9 37.4 43.2 24.3 21.3 21.1
LSD= Least Significant Difference; CV=Coefficient of Variation; Values followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
[551]
Table 6. Yield and yield components of three common bean varieties intercropped with maize varieties at Meisso, during
2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment HSW (gm) Combined GY (kg/ha) Combined mean

2018 2019 mean 2018 2019
Melkasa-1+ KAT-B1 29.8a 44.6ab 37.27ab 609.8c 1450.6de 1030.2b
Melkasa-1+ Awash-2 15.7c 22.3d 19.00c 330.4d 1279.8ef 805.1bc
Melkasa-1+ Deme 24.6b 47.4a 36.03ab 141.6f 1530.9cde 836.3bc
Melkasa-7+ KAT-B1 29.9a 43.2ab 36.57ab 499.5c 1000.5f 750.0c
Melkasa-7+ Awash-2 15.3c 20.6d 17.95c 303.6df 1673.9bcd 988.8bc
Melkasa-7+ Deme 26.7ab 48.2a 37.47a 175.3ef 1405.7de 790.5bc
KAT-B1 (sole) 27.6ab 36.1c 31.90b 995.3a 2014.4ab 1504.9a
Awash-2 (sole) 14.9c 18.9d 16.95c 801.2b 2314.1a 1557.7a
Deme (sole) 25.9ab 39.6bc 32.80ab 798.2b 1888.9bc 1343.6a
LSD (0.05%) 4.31 6.78 5.4 142.7 369.1 274.7
CV% 10.6 10.9 15.8 15.9 13.1 22.1
LSD= Least Significant Difference; CV=Coefficient of Variation; HSW=hundred seed weight, GY=grain yield; Values
followed by the same letter within a column are not significantly different at P< 0.05.
Combined over years for days to tasseling and days to silking of maize has a
significant difference between sole and intercropping treatments. The highest
days to tasseling (42.6) and days to silking (45.3) was recorded from intercropping
of MH-7 with Awash-2 (table 8). Plant height, number of seeds per cob and seed
weight were also significantly affected by the treatment effects of sole and
intercropping systems in both 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons (table 7). The
combined mean result shows that maize plant height was significantly affected by
the intercropped bean varieties. Due to varietal differences and earliness in
maturity, maize variety MH-7 have the highest height as compared to MH-1 maize
variety.
Maize yield was highly significant in sole cropping at both seasons (Table 7). The
highest grain yield of 2218.7 kg/ha and 3566.8 kg/ha was recorded from sole MH-
7 during 2018 and 2019 main cropping seasons respectively. In line with this
Molla and Getachew (2018) reported grain yield of sole maize were superior to
that of intercropping. The finding of Tamado and Eshetu (2000) also revealed that
sorghum grain yield in sole cropping was higher than that of the intercropping.
Similarly Yesuf (2003) reported that significant grain yield reduction on sorghum
crop was recorded in the intercropping compared to that of sole cropping. Cardoso
et al. (2007) also reported a 17% reduction in maize yield due to maize/common
bean intercropping. These higher differences between the sole- and intercropping
for maize grain yield would be associated with competition between the main and
secondary crops in the intercropping for limited growth resources. The
intercropped treatments were not significantly affecting maize yields in 2019, but
intercropping of MH-7 with KAT-B1 and MH-1 with Deme gave relatively
significant effect in 2018. The overall combined mean also indicates that sole
cropping of both maize varieties produced the highest grain yield compared to the
intercropping.
[552]
Table 7. Yield and yield components of maize varieties intercropped with common bean varieties of distinct maturity groups at Meisso, during 2018 and 2019 main cropping season
Treatment Plant height (cm) Combined No. of seed/cob Combined HSW (gm) Combined GY (kg/ha) Combined
2018 2019 mean 2018 2019 mean 2018 2019 mean 2018 2019 mean
Melkasa-1+ KAT-B1 166c 129.6ab 147.80b 380.9 291d 335.97a 16.2b 25.4 20.83a 1594.2c 1951.7b 1773.0b
Melkasa-1+ Awash-2 169bc 144.6a 156.80ab 330.7 358.7abc 344.72a 20.9a 24.8 22.88a 1734.6c 1915.3b 1825.0b
Melkasa-1+ Deme 166c 136.3ab 151.15ab 337.5 395a 366.25a 19.3ab 24.5 21.93a 1852.7bc 2143.5b 1998.1b
Melkasa-7+ KAT-B1 177ab 121.3b 149.13b 389.1 323.4cd 356.25a 19.2ab 25.4 22.32a 1859.8bc 1966.9b 1913.3b
Melkasa-7+ Awash-2 184a 138.3ab 161.00a 356.9 331.7bcd 344.35a 18.7ab 25.3 22.00a 1754.4c 2135.5b 1944.9b
Melkasa-7+ Deme 181a 137.1ab 159.23ab 323.5 324.6cd 324.05a 19.4ab 25.8 22.62a 1757.9c 2071.5b 1914.7b
Melkasa-1(sole) 167bc 132.9ab 150.30ab 334.4 383.5ab 358.95a 20.2ab 24.9 22.55a 2177ab 3358.1a 2767.6a
Melkasa-7 (sole) 174abc 137.1ab 155.90ab 400.3 334.3bcd 367.35a 19.1ab 25.1 22.08a 2218.7a 3566.8a 2892.8a
LSD (0.05%) 10.3 18.1 11.7 ns 55.9 66.6 3.9 1.26 2.1 330.4 662.9 443.2
CV% 3.4 7.7 6.4 18.2 9.3 16.2 11.8 2.8 8.3 10.1 15.8 17.8
LSD= Least Significant Difference; CV=Coefficient of Variation; HSW=hundred seed weight, GY=grain yield; Values followedby the same letter within a column are not significantly
different at P< 0.05.
[553]
Table 8. Days to tasseling and days to silking of maize varieties intercropped with
common bean varieties of distinct maturity groups at Meisso, combined over years.
Days to Days to
Treatment tasseling silking
Melkasa-1+ KAT-B1 41.3abc 44.3bc
Melkasa-1+ Awash-2 40c 44.3bc
Melkasa-1+ Deme 40c 44c
Melkasa-7+ KAT-B1 41bc 45ab
Melkasa-7+ Awash-2 42.6a 45.3a
Melkasa-7+ Deme 41.6ab 45ab
Melkasa-1(sole) 40c 44c
Melkasa-7 (sole) 41bc 45ab
LSD (0.05%) 1.43 0.9
CV% 2.0 1.2
Intercrop advantage
The two years combined result indicates at both locations of Melkassa and Meisso
the recorded total LER value is greater than one and it indicates the relative yield
advantage of the system. Significantly highest LER of 1.18 and 1.33 were
obtained from the intercropping of MH-4 with common bean variety Awash-2 and
MH-1 with common bean variety KAT-B1 at Melkassa and Meisso respectively.
Among the maize/common bean intercrop combinations, Awash-2 and Deme
intercropped with MH-4 produced relatively higher partial LER. At Meisso all the
combinations were produced the highest LER. A yield advantage of 34%, 33%
and 31% were obtained from the intercropping of maize variety MH-1 with Deme
and KAT-B1 and MH-7 with Awash-2. It expressed that by intercropping maize
with common bean a farmer can produce an extra yield of both maize and bean
from one hectar of land instead of growing them separately as sole crop. The
result is in agreement with Alom et al. (2009) and and Razzaque et al. (2007).
Since all the LER values are greater than one it could be shown as a good yield
advantage and better land use efficiency.
Table 9. Partial and total Land Equivalent Ratio of maize and bean combined over years
Treatments Melkassa
Partial LERm Partial LERb LER
Melkasa-2+ KAT-B1 0.67 0.49 1.16
Melkasa-2+ Awash-2 0.50 0.56 1.07
Melkasa-2+ Deme 0.49 0.66 1.15
Melkasa-4+ KAT-B1 0.51 0.52 1.03
Melkasa-4+ Awash-2 0.58 0.60 1.18
Melkasa-4+ Deme 0.49 0.68 1.17
Treatments Meisso
Melkasa-1+ KAT-B1 0.64 0.68 1.33
Melkasa-1+ Awash-2 0.66 0.52 1.18
Melkasa-1+ Deme 0.72 0.62 1.34
Melkasa-7+ KAT-B1 0.66 0.50 1.16
Melkasa-7+ Awash-2 0.67 0.63 1.31
Melkasa-7+ Deme 0.66 0.59 1.25
[554]
During both seasons in both locations, the yield of common bean and maize was
significantly affected by the intercropping treatments. In 2018 yield of common
was lower than that of 2019 which is relatively higher yield. In both seasons
relatively a stable yield was observed from intercropping of MH-4 with Awash-2,
it shows the varieties performance under different seasons. Considering the
compatibility and relative performance of varieties of the component crops as
manifested in the yield and LER, intercropping MH-4 (a maize variety with erect
morphology) with Awash-2 (a medium maturing common bean variety) and MH-1
with KAT-B1 (an early maturing bean variety) is recommended for Melkassa and
Meisso areas, respectively to maximize land use efficiency in the semi-arid areas
of Ethiopia. Common bean and maize breeding programs in the area need to
revisit their strategies to consider morphology and the varieties maturity time
especially for the moisture stressed areas of the two crops as selection criteria in
developing varieties that can be used across range of cropping systems.
References
Abush Tesfaye and Leta Tullu, 2001. On farm evaluation of pipeline haricot bean
genotypes in major bean production areas of southwestern Ethiopia. pp. 136-
141. In: Crop Science Society of Ethiopia (CSSE). Sebil.Vol. 9. Proceedings
of the Ninth Conference, 22 - 23 June 1999 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Addisu Getahun and Seltene Abady, 2013 Effect of Maize (Zea mays.L) on Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Yield and its Components in Maize Bean
Intercropping. Not journal
Alemayehu Assefa, Tamado Tana Nigusie Dechassa, Yigzaw Dessalgn, Kinde
Tesfaye and Wortmann C.S., 2016 Maize-common bean/lupine intercrop
productivity and profitability in maize-based cropping system of
Northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Sci. & Technol. 9(2) 69- 85,
Alom M.S., N.K. Paul and M.A. Quayyum, 2009. Performances of different
hybrid maize (Zea mays l.) varieties under intercropping systems with
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.).
Ashenafi Nigussie Adafre, 2016 Advantages of Maize-Haricot bean Intercropping
over Sole Cropping through Competition Indices at west Badewacho woreda,
Hadiya Zone, SNNPR. cademic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and
Research Vol. 4(1), pp. 1-34. ISSN: 2360-7874
Atuahene G, AD Beatie, TE Michales and DE Falk, 2004. Cropping system
evaluation and selection of common bean genotypes for a maize/bean
intercrop. African Crop Sci. J. 12(2): 105-113.
Cardoso EJBN, MA Nogueira and SMG Ferraz, 2007. Biological N2 fixation and
mineral N in common bean–maize intercropping or sole cropping in
southeastern Brazil. Exp. Agric. 43: 319–330.
[555]
CSA, 2011 Statistical Abstract. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central
Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa.
Dhima K.V, Lithourgidis A.S., Vasilakoglou I.B., Dordas C.A., 2007 Competition
indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field
Crops Research 100 249–256
Getachew Agegnehu, Amare Ghizaw, Woldeyesus Sinebo, 2008 Yield potential
and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba bean mixed intercropping.
Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/ EDP
Sciences/INRA, 28 (2), pp.257-263. hal-00886401
Girma Aboma, Dereje Bacha and Abdissa Gemeda, 2004. Promotion of improved
haricot bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) can enhance sustainable
production in the Bako area. pp. 211-215. In: Crop Science Society of
Ethiopia (CSSE). Sebil, Vol. 10. Proceedings of the tenth conference, 19-21
June 2001. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Karikari, S. K., O. Chaba., B. Molosiwa, 1999 Effects of intercropping Bambara
Groundnut on Pearl Millet, Sorghum and Maize in Botswana. African Crop
Science Journal, 7 (2): 143-152.
Kitonyo, O.M.; Chemining'wa, G.N.; Muthomi, J.W., 2013 Productivity of
farmer-preferred maize varieties intercropped with beans in semi-arid Kenya.
International Network for Natural Sciences
Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A and Vlachostergios, D.N., 2011.
Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture.
Australian Journal of Crop Science5(4): 396-410.
Melkassa Agricultural Research Center. Progress Report. Melkassa Ethiopia,
2005;1. (in press)
Molla Abate and Getachew Alemayehu, 2018, Biological Benefits of
Intercropping Maize (Zea mays L) with Fenugreek, Field Pea and Haricot
Bean Under Irrigation in Fogera Plain, South Gonder Zone, Ethiopia
Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 19-35. doi:
10.11648/j.aff.20180701.14
Mucheru-Muna, M., Pypers, P., Mugendi, D., Kung‟u J., Mugwe, J., Merckx R.,
Vanlauwe, B., 2010 Staggered Maize–Legume Intercrop Arrangement
Robustly Increases Crop Yields and Economic Returns in the Highlands of
Central Kenya. Field Crops Research 115 (2010) 132–139. 2009 Elsevier
B.V. All rights reserved. Journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr.
Razzaque, M.A., S. Rafiquzzaman, M.M. Bazzaz, M.A. Ali and M.M.R. Talukdar,
2007 Study on the intercropping groundnut with chilli at different plant
populations. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 32(1): 37-43.
Rusinamhodzi L., Marc Corbeels, Justice Nyamangara, Ken E. Giller, 2012.
Maize–grain legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological
intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central
Mozambique. Field Crops Research 136, 12–22
[556]
Seran, T.H., & Brintha, I., 2009 Biological and economic Efficiency of radish
(Raphanus sativus L.) intercropped with vegetable amaranthus (Amaranthus
tricolor L.). The Open Horticulture Journal, 2, 17-21.
Shiferaw Tadesse, Setegn Gebeyehu and Nigussie Dechassa, 2015 System
Productivity and Yield of Component Crops as Affected by Intercropping
Maize and Common Bean Varieties with Distinct Morphological
Characteristics
Tamado, T and Eshetu. M., 2000. Evaluation of Sorghum, Maize and Common
Bean cropping Systems in East Hararge, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of
Agricultural Science. 17: 33-45.
Tesfa Bogale, Tolera Abera, Tewodros Mesfin, Gebresilasie Hailu, Temesgen
Desalegn, Tenaw Warkayehu, Waga Mazengia and Hussen Harun, 2012.
Review on crop management research for improved maize productivity in
Ethiopia. pp. 113-119. In: Mosisa Worku, S.Twumasi-Afriye, Legesse
Wolde, Birhanu Tadesse, Gezehagn Bogale, Girma Demissie, Dagne Wegari
and B.M. Parasanna (eds.).
Tesfa Bogale, Tolessa Debele, Setegn Gebeyehu, Tamado Tana, Negash Geleta
and Tenaw Werkayehu, 2001. Development of appropriate cropping systems
for various maize producing regions of Ethiopia. pp. 61-70. In: Mandefro
Nigussie, D.Tanner and S.Twumasi-Afriye (eds.). Enhancing the contribution
of maize to food security in Ethiopia. Preeceding of second national maize
workshop of Ethiopia.12-16 November 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tilahun T, 2002. Effect of plant density and arrangement of component crops on
productivity of maize /faba bean intercropping system. MSc. Thesis. Alemaya
University. PP. 30-40.
Tolera Abera, 2003. Effects of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Farmyard Manure and
population of Climbing Bean on the performance of Maize (Zea mays L) /
Climbing Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) intercropping system in Alfisols of
Bako. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University, Alemaya, Ethiopia. 116p ,
Willey, R.W. and Osiru, D.S.O., 1972 Studies on Mixtures of Maize and Beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris) with Particular Reference to Plant Population. Journal of
Agricultural Science, 79, 517-529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600025909
Yesuf, M, 2003. Effects of Plant Arrangement and Population Densities of Haricot
bean on Productivity of Sorghum/Haricot bean Additive mixtures. MSc.
Thesis in Agriculture (Agronomy). Alemaya University.
Zaka R, Vandecasteele CM, Misset MT., 2002. Effects of low chronic doses of
ionizing radiation on antioxidant enzymes and G6PDH activities in Stipa
capillata (Poaceae). J Exp Bot. 53(376):1979–1987.
[557]
Validation of Plant Population Densities
for Maize Varieties in East Showa
Bahiru Tilahun1*, Yaya Tesfa1, and Getachew Jimayu1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR),Melkassa Agricultural Research Center,
P.O.Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia; E-mail: bahirusaron@gmail.com
Abstract
Low land maize optimum plant population is one of the key agronomic practices that
need to be updated for improved maize productivity under climate change and
variability. On-farm field experiments were conducted at three districts in East Shoa
to validate performance of promising maize plant densities identified through field
research in previous studies. Two promising plant densities of 53,333 and 61,500
plant per hectare recommended for validation based on previous studies were
validated on three farmer fields at three different districts using hybrid maize MH-
140 and open pollinated variety Melkassa-2. The experiments were laid out in RCBD
with farmers as a replication. Analysis of variance showed maize grain yield,
biomass yield, cob weight, stover weight and harvest index were significantly
affected by the main effect of plant density, location and variety. The highest grain
yield (7158 kg/ha) was due to the effect of plant density of 61,500 plant per hectare.
Planting with 61,500 plant density per hectare had 21% yield advantage as
compared to 53,333 plant per hectare. . On the other hand, hybrid maize MH-140
showed 31% and 33% grain and biomass yield advantage as compared to Melkassa-
2, respectively. Maize grain yield was improved across sites with highest plant
density. Therefore, we recommend plant density of 61,500 plant per hectare with 75
cm inter and 25 cm intra plant geometry for improved maize productivity in the
lowland areas of Central Rift Valley and other similar agroecologies in Ethiopia.
Introduction
Maize (Zea mays .L) is the second most important in area of production next to tef
while first in productivity in Ethiopia (CSA, 2015). It is produced across six agro
ecologies and almost all regions of the country; however, about 75% of maize
production is concentrated in four regional states (Oromiya, Amahara, (SNNPR),
and Ben Shangul-Gumuz (BSG) while 25% refers to other regional states (Tsedek
et al. 2015; CSA 2011). The national productivity of maize is 3.7t ha-1 (CSA,
2017).The crop is used as source of food, feed, and fuel in Ethiopia. It is produced
as a sole crop or intercropped with legumes such as dry bean in order to minimize
risk due to moisture stress as well as to have additional nutrition and income.
Though maize production increased from time to time its productivity is far below
the world average and constrained by different production factors among which
poor agronomic practices, inappropriate plant population, limited use of inputs,
insufficient access to technology, lack of credit facilities, poor seed quality,
incidence of diseases, pests and weeds are most important (Taffesse et al. 2011;
Erkossa et al. 2007)
[559]
Plant density is one of the most important cultural practices determining grain
yield, as well as other important agronomic attributes of maize crop. Stand density
affects plant architecture, alters growth and developmental patterns and influences
carbohydrate production and partition (CASAL, 1985). Maize population for
maximum yield varies between 30,000 to over 90,000 plants per hectare (Olson &
Sanders, 1988).Optimum density varies depending on environmental as well as
controlled factors such as soil water, soil fertility, hybrid selection, planting date
and planting pattern, among others.
Ideally, plants spaced equidistantly from each other compete minimally for
nutrients, light and other growth factors (Lauer, 1994). Narrow rows make more
efficient use of available light and also shade the surface soil more completely
covered during the early part of the season while the soil is still moist (Bullock et
al., 1998).Maize grain yield declines above optimum density due to decline in the
harvest index and increased stem lodging (Tollenaar et al., 1997).
Early planted maize usually requires a higher population to maximize yield

(Aldrich et al., 1986; Anderson, 1995). Lemu and BH-540 maize varieties at 65-
75 cm row spacing resulted higher biomass and grain yield of under irrigation
condition in Wolayita area (Eyasu et al. 2018). Planting maize in a population
density of 88,888 plant per hectare (75-cm inter row and 15 cm intra row spacing)
under moisture conservation condition gave better yield for hybrid in rain fed
condition in Hamelmalo area in Eritrea (Okbagabir et al., 2016).Plant densities at
harvest are in most cases lower by 12.5% than any of the recommended plant
densities for most of the maize growing zones in Ethiopia (Tesfaye et al, 2019).
There is a positive relationship between cob number and plant density, plant
density and grain yield, cob number and grain yield, implying using sub-optimal
plant density could potentially affect grain yield (Tesfaye et al, 2019).
For each production system, there is a population that maximizes the utilization of
available resources, allowing the expression of maximum attainable grain yield on
that environment. Studies were conducted in lowland areas of Central Rift Valley
to identify optimum plant density for lowland maize production. Based on the
study, promising plant densities were suggested by researchers. Therefore, the
objective of this study was to validate optimum maize plant density on farmer
fields for improved maize production and productivity.

Study area, treatments and experimental design
Plant population density studies were conducted for different maize varieties
(Melkassa-2, MH-130 and MH-140) for three years. Results from this previous
[560]
study indicated higher plant density, compare to the standard maize plant
population, was promising and suggested for validation to improve maize
productivity in the lowland Central Rift Valley areas. Maize yields were higher for
61,500 plants per hectare density than check (53,333) across all varieties and for
all site-seasons combination. Most of the varieties investigated gave better yield
for the most populated densities. Thus, plan densities of 61, 500 and 53, 333 per
hectare were suggested for further validation based on the previous studies results.
Therefore, experiment was designed to validate the promising maize plant density
on farmer fields using one open pollinated variety and hybrid in the Central Rift
Valley. Plant density of 61, 500 per hectare was compared with the check plant
density of 53, 333 using open pollinated maize variety Melkassa-2 and hybrid
MH-140 (Table 1)which are recommended for lowland areas in Ethiopia. The
experiments were conducted in Adami tulu, Dugida and Boset districts in the
lowland Central Rift Valley areas of Ethiopia where lowland maize production is
common. The study was conducted on three farmer fields at each Anano
Shisho,Walda Meskela and Bofa kebeles. RCBD design was used for the study
considering a farmer plot as a replicate. A gross plot size of 200 square meters was
used. Tied-ridge moisture conservation practice was applied every 5-m length
following row. Other crop management practices were applied based on
recommendations.
Table 1: Characteristics of maize variety and hybrid validated during the study.
Varieties Days to maturity Plant height (cm) Leaf architecture Plant density
130 200 Semi-erect 53,333
Melkassa-2
130 200 Semi-erect 61,500
140 250 Dropping 53,333
MH-140
140 250 Dropping 61,500

Yield and yield component parameters were measured to compare the two plant
density treatments based on open pollinated variety and hybrid maize. Grain yield,
biomass, stover, cob weight and harvest index were measured based on standard
procedures. Data were analyzed using STATISTIX 10 software.

Irrespective of the crop varieties and locations the highest plant population density
of 61,500 plant/ha had given better yield advantage over the previously
recommended density (53,333 plant/ha). The new plant density of 61,500 plant/ha
gave 19, 25 and 20% grain yield and 16,12 and 12% stover yield advantages
compared to plant density of 53,333 plant/ha at Adami tulu, Boffa and Dugida,
[561]
respectively. It also gave 18 and 28% grain yield and 6 and 23% stover yield
advantage for MH-140 and Melkassa-2 maize varieties, respectively (Table 2).
The new plant population densities of 61,500 plant/ha had yielded over 1000
kg/ha (21%) grain yield and 14% stover yield advantage as compared to the
recommended population density (Table 2).
Table 2. The interaction effects of plant density with variety and with site on grain and stover yields.
Grain Yield (t/ha) Stover yield (t/ha)
Yield Yield
Location *D1 D2 advantage (%) D1 D2 advantage (%)
Adami tulu 4.8 5.7 19.0 8.7 10.1 16.0
Boffa 6.0 7.5 25.0 10.1 11.3 12.0
Dugida 6.6 7.9 20.0 11.7 13.1 12.0
Mean 5.8 7.0 21.1 10.2 11.5 13.3
Varieties
MH-140 6.7 7.9 18.0 12.5 13.2 6.0
Melkassa-2 5.0 6.4 28.0 8.2 10.1 23.0
Mean 5.9 7.2 23.0 10.4 11.7 14.4
*D1, recommended plant density of 53,333 plant per ha; D2, new validated plant density of 61,500 plant/ha.
Cob weight, stover, biomass and grain yields were significantly affected by the
main effects of plant density and varieties (Tables 3). The highest cob weight,
biomass, and grain yield were recorded from the 61,500 plant/ha density. This
showed the new plant density had 21% and 18% advantage in grain yield and
biomass as compared to the check plant density (53,333), respectively. On the
other hand the hybrid MH-140 had scored 31 and 33% advantage in grain yield
and biomass compared to Melkassa-2, respectively.. In line with the current study,
result reported by Eyasu etal (2018) revealed that grain yield and its component
were increased with increasing plant density irrespective of varieties when
moisture is not limiting.
Table 3. Main effects of plant population and variety on maize yield and yield components..
Density SW(kg/ha) CW(kg/ha) BM(kg/ha) GY(kg/ha) HI(%)

61,500 9358 9641a 18999a 7158a 37.99
53,333 8183 7985b 16168b 5917b 36.87
Variety
MH-140 10276a 10076a 20351a 7417a 38.41
Melkassa-2 7265b 7550b 14815b 5658b 36.46
CV (%) 22.7 19.17 14.05 19.1 14.56
LSD(0.05) 1353 1148 1679 848.5 3.71
CW, cob weight; BM,biomass; GY,grain yield; HI, harvest index; SW, stover weight.

Maize grain yield and stover were significantly affected by the interaction effects
of plant density with variety and with site. Grain yields and yield components
[562]
were significantly affected by the main effects of plant density and variety. Grain
yield and yield components of maize varieties were increased with plant
population density of 61,500 plant/ah. Grain yield were higher in sites where
moisture stress was not limiting yield. Therefore, plant density of 61, 500 plant per
ha could be recommended for both open pollinated and hybrid maize in lowland
maize producing areas in Ethiopia for improved productivity.
References
CASAL, J.J., DEREGIBUS, V.A., SÁNCHEZ, R.A. 1985.Variations in tiller dynamics
and morphology in Lolium multiflorum Lam. vegetative and reproductive plants as
affected by differences in red/far-red irradiation. Annals of Botany, London, v.56,
p.533-559.
CSA (Central Statistics Authority) 2011. Agricultural sample survey 2011,Volume I
report on area and production of crops, Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Erkossa T, Itanna F, Stahr K. 2007. Indexing soil quality: a new paradigm in soil science
research. Aust J Soil Res 45:129–137
Esayas Eyasu, Dereje Shanka, Dawit Dalga and Eyasu Elias. 2018. Yield Response of
Maize (Zea mays L.) Varieties to Row Spacing Under Irrigation at Geleko, Ofa
Woreda, Wolaita Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Experimental Agriculture
International JEAI, 20(1)
OLSON, R.A., SANDERS, D.H. 1988. Maize production. In: SPRAGUE, G.F. DUDLEY,
J.W. Corn and corn improvement. Madison. American Society of Agronomy. Cap.11,
p.639-686.Taffesse A Dorosh P, Asrat S (2011) Crop production in Ethiopia regional
patterns and trends. Ethiopia strategy support program II.
Tesfaye Balemi, Mesfin Kebede, Tolera Abera, Gebresilasie Hailu, Gebreyes Gurmu and Fite
Getaneh. 2019. Some maize agronomic practices in Ethiopia: A review of research
experiences and lessons from agronomic panel survey in Oromia and Amhara regions
Tsedeke Abate, Bekele Shiferaw, Abebe Menkir, DagneWegary, Yilma Kebede, Kindie
Tesfaye, Menale Kassie , Gezahegn Bogale , Berhanu Tadesse & Tolera Keno. 2015.
Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia.
[563]
Evaluation of Sorghum-Based Sequential
Double-Cropping Systems in
Semi-Arid Eastern Ethiopia
Tewodros Mesfin1* and Mohammed Salah1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia; E-mail: tewodrosmes3@gmail.com
Abstract
Farmers in eastern Ethiopia's semi-arid regions typically cultivate late-maturing
sorghum landraces during the short rainy season (Belg), which runs from March to
April and ends in October. Alternatively, they leave the fields fallow during the Belg
rainy season and grow short-maturing sorghum or maize when the main rainy season
onsets later in July. A study at Meiso and Fedis in the East and West Hararge zones
demonstrated that grain productivity of double-cropped common bean + sorghum
(CB–SC) and mung bean + sorghum (MB–SC) sequential systems was higher than
that of the local traditional system and its conventional counterparts, which included
the practice of fallowing during the short rainy season and sowing early maturing
sorghum during the main rainy season. Furthermore, when N fertilizer is used, the
local practice of using long landrace sorghum is more unviable and riskier than the
double-cropping system. Unless the grain yields exceed 3 t ha -1, the advantage from N
fertilizer application to the preceding legumes is unlikely to improve the succeeding
sorghum grain productivity. When compared to single-cropped sorghum systems,
double cropping of MB–SC or CB–SC systems increased average total productivity
while also increasing extra monetary gain by more than 8,440 Birr ha-1 yr-1. Our
findings imply that double cropping systems enhance system productivity, and are
more financially advantageous, and less risky than traditional practice on Vertisol in
semi-arid Ethiopia where bimodal rainfall is common. As a result, the productivity
and risk profile of the sorghum-based systems for small-holder farmers in semi-arid
Ethiopia has the potential to be a pathway to sustainable intensification.
Introduction
The double cropping system involves the growing and harvesting of two crops
from the same piece of a field in a given year. This practice is thought to provide
more system productivity in terms of grain and biomass yields, as well as improve
soil quality for farmers through accrued nitrogen from the preceding legume
crops. The financial performance and feasibility of various cropping systems are
also dependent on increasing cropping intensity through multiple cropping. The
cheaper means of improving soil fertility and productivity are, therefore, necessary
to improve crop-livestock production levels and their stability. The potential of
these alternative systems has received a great deal of attention across the globe.
The double cropping system was targeted as a transformative technical alternative
that could fit the environment with the bi-modal rainfall pattern of the various
farming systems in the semi-arid region of Ethiopia. In this regard, crop
intensification as a feasible option through sequential double cropping of legumes-
[565]
sorghum systems was sought to improve system productivity and profitability over
the traditional mono-cropping of sorghum. Agronomic trials were, therefore,
conducted to evaluate the performance of various improved extra-quick legume
varieties with the goal of determining their potential contribution to enhancing
system productivity and profitability in the legume-sorghum sequential cropping
systems.

The study was conducted in 2017 and 2018 at Fedis (9o 06’ N and 42o 04’ E; 1669
m) and Meiso (8° 45´ N, 40° 45´ E; 1470 m) in the eastern part of Ethiopia. The
locations have a tropical semi-arid climate with a bi-modal rainfall distribution,
with an average annual rainfall of 520 mm for Mieso and 872 mm for Fedis (Fig
1). The trial in 2017 at Meiso and Fedis in 2018 was failed due to drought. The
soils were low in soil organic matter. The soil order of the two sites is Vertisol.
The experimental design was a split-plot with cropping systems as main plots and
three rates of N fertilizer application as subplots. For the sequential double-
cropping systems, different extra-early legume varieties (common bean, mung
bean, and cowpea varieties) as preceding crops were sown in the short-rain (Belg)
with a succeeding early sorghum variety in the main-rain (Kiremt), and these were
compared against the traditional sorghum mono-cropping systems (Table 1). The
five cropping systems are: local sorghum cultivar; fallow–short-cycle sorghum;
cowpea–short-cycle sorghum; and common bean–short-cycle sorghum; and mung
bean–short-cycle sorghum. The three nitrogen (N) fertilizer levels are: 0 kg N ha-1;
30 kg N ha-1; and 60 kg N ha-1.
Fig 1. Long-term means monthly rainfall at Mieso and Fedis
[566]
Table 1. Cropping systems examined in this study, with abbreviations
Abbrev. System Description Legumes variety Sorghum variety

LS Local sorghum landrace ─ Masugi
FA-ISC Fallow–improved sorghum cultivar (cv.). ─ Meko-1
CP-ISC Cowpea–improved sorghum cv. Black Eye Meko-1
CB-ISC Common bean–improved sorghum cv. Batu Meko-1
MB-ISC Mung bean–improved sorghum cv. N-26 Meko-1
Fertilizer N equivalence, defined as the amount of nitrogen fertilizer N required to

achieve the same yield in sorghum following fallow as was attained by non-N-
fertilized sorghum that followed a legume (Fox and Piekielek, 1988), has long
been used to estimate the credit of legumes when fertilizer recommendations for
succeeding non-legume crops are made. This has also been referred to 'fertilizer-
N-replacement value' (Hesterman, 1988).
The analysis of variance was conducted using GenStat 12th edition (VSN
International, Hemel Hempstead, UK). Treatments and their interactions were
considered fixed effects. Means were separated using the protected least
significant difference (LSD) test and presented at a P< 0.05 value.

The grain yield of sorghum was significantly influenced (P< 0.05) by the
main effect of the cropping system at Mieso and the N rates by cropping system
interactions at Fedis (Fig 2a and b). Overall, our findings imply that at both the
Meiso and Fedis sites, double-cropping strategies boosted sorghum grain yield.
Fig 2. Effect of different cropping systems and N rates on the grain yield of sorghum at Mieso in 2018 (a) and Fedis in
2017 (b)
[567]
The total average grain yields produced at Mieso and Fedis from the double-
cropping CB-SCS and NB-SCS systems were 2.45 and 3.91 t ha-1, respectively,
compared to 1.18 and 3.21 t ha-1 from the FA-SCS and CP-SCS systems (Fig 3).
The grain yield of the local sorghum landrace was the lowest, with 1.73 and 1.86 t
ha-1 at Mieso and Fedis, respectively (Fig 3). The double cropping systems also
generated significantly more dry matter than the sorghum-based single-cropping
systems (Fig 4). In general, the feasibility of a legume-sorghum sequential
cropping system was demonstrated by Abduselam et al. (2017) by growing extra-
quick-legumes early in the Belg season as preceding crops and the medium-
maturing sorghum as a preceding crop in the main Kiremt season.
Fig 3. Combined grain yields of the sorghum and legumes as affected by the different cropping systems at Mieso in 2018
(a) and Fedis in 2017 (b)
Fig 4. Effect of different cropping systems and N rate on the stover yield of sorghum (a) and the combined stover yields of
both sorghum and the legumes of the different cropping systems at Mieso in 2018
[568]
The intensified sequential double-cropping of either common-bean-sorghum or
mungbean-sorghum without any N fertilizer applied recorded a much higher
average gross profit gain of 35, 000 Birr ha-1 yr-1, compared to 26, 560 Birr ha-1 yr-
1
with the local farmers' crop production system. According to a gross profit
analysis, the traditional practice of using long-season landraces or waiting until the
main season resumes to sow the early sorghum variety is financially risky,
especially when nitrogen fertilizer is used.

The results revealed that double cropping of mungbean–sorghum or common
bean–sorghum systems not only increased the average total productivity and
profitability significantly, as compared to the local farmers' practice of either
growing only sorghum of the local landraces or the short-maturing sorghum
variety in the main season of Kiremt rain. Mung bean residual N contribution or
fertilizer replacement value to subsequent sorghum was greater than all the other
cropping systems, which was equivalent to ~15 kg ha-1. In the future, crop
simulation models should be used to evaluate risk analysis for the feasibility of
double-cropping systems by providing decision-makers with alternative options
depending on their willingness to risk while minimizing economic risks and
maximizing productivity. This aids in evaluating the long-term benefits of double
cropping, as well as establishing a viable pathway to sustainable crop
intensification in the face of seasonal climate variability and future climate
scenarios.
References
Abduselam F, Tana T, Abdulahi J, Nida H, and Tadese T. 2017. Evaluation of
Double Cropping System for Sorghum Production at Fedis, Eastern Ethiopia.
Journal of Plant Sciences, 5(2): 75-81.
Fox RH and Piekielek WP. 1988. Fertilizer N equivalence of alfalfa, birdsfoot
trefoil, and red clover for succeeding corn crops. Journal of Production
Agriculture, 1(4): 313-317.
Hesterman OB. 1988. Exploiting forage legumes for nitrogen contribution in
cropping systems. Cropping strategies for efficient use of water and nitrogen,
51:155-166.
[569]
Response of a Sorghum Hybrid to Different Plant
Densities and N and P Fertilizer Rates
at Meiso in Semi-Arid Eastern Ethiopia
Tewodros Mesfin1* and Mohammed Salah1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Melkassa Agricultural Research Center,
P.O. Box 436, Adama, Ethiopia; E-mail: tewodrosmes3@gmail.com
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted at Mieso, in western Hararghe, during the main
cropping season from 2017 to 2019 to study the effect of plant density, N and P fertilizer
levels on the crop yield response and to determine the economic optimum and cost-
effective rate of N and P fertilizer for the recently released hybrid sorghum production in
the semi-arid environment of Ethiopia. The experimental design was set up in a
randomized complete block design with a complete 5 x 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure
and three replicates. Three factors consisted of five nitrogen (N) levels of 0, 23, 46, 69 and
92 kg N ha-1, three phosphorus (P) levels of 0, 10 and 20 kg P ha -1, and two plant densities
(PD) of 66, 700 and 88, 900 plants ha-1. The results revealed that sorghum grain yield is
significantly affected by the interaction effects of N and year (YR) and the P and PD.
When averaged over 2018 and 2019, the application of N significantly increased yield
over the zero N level, but there is no difference among the N rate of 23 kg N ha -1 and
beyond up to 92 kg N ha-1 and the yield gain was ranging from 8 to 17%. In 2018, when
the season was poor, the yield with N application was comparable to the zero N fertilized
treatment A maximum yield was achieved with the application of N at a rate of 69 kg ha -1
during a good season of 2019. Applying P fertilizer at 10 kg ha -1 increased sorghum yield
over the zero P rate when the crop was sown at the high density of 88, 900 plants ha-1.
Farmers that are financially-constrained, on the other hand, can profit from the higher
returns even with a lower N fertilizer rate of 23 kg N ha -1, and the economic gain can be
maximized with the higher rates of N ranging from 67 to 82 kg N ha -1 with the scenario of
different cost price (CP) ratios. However, applying P fertilizer was not worthwhile
because it did bring no economic gain over the zero P level.
Introduction
Low soil N and P availability are major constraints to sorghum production
(Wortmann et al. 2006), which is exacerbated by soil fertility depletion through
nutrient removal during harvest, as well as losses in runoff and soil erosion (Vlek
1993; Sanchez et al. 1997). Commercial fertilizer is one of the most significant
inputs for hybrid sorghum production. However, due to infrastructural and other
marketing constraints, as well as a lack of direct or indirect government support
and high opportunity costs for available funds, its use in Ethiopia is prohibitively
expensive. Apart from the aforementioned issues, sorghum is largely grown by
small-scale, financially-constrained farmers who need high returns with little risk
to justify fertilizer use (CIMMYT 1988; Jansen et al 2013). Furthermore, there is
no agronomic package available, including proper plant density recommendations,
[571]
to enhance the economic benefit and input use-efficiency of fertilizer, for the
recently released sorghum hybrids to adapt to the semi-arid lowlands of Ethiopia.
The experiment was conducted in Meiso from 2017 to 2019, with the goal of
assessing the response of sorghum to the different plant densities and N and P
rates, as well as determining the economic optimum and cost-effective rate of N
and P fertilizer for hybrid sorghum production in the semi-arid environment of
Ethiopia.
Materials and Method

A field experiment was conducted in 2017-2019 at Meiso in the central Rift
Valley of Ethiopia. The experiment in 2017 failed due to a critical drought during
the cropping season and only the results from the experiments in 2018 and 2019
were reported. In general, the seasonal rainfall in 2018 and 2019 was generally
more and less than the long-term average, respectively. Composite soil samples of
6 to 10 cores for the 0 to 30-cm depths were collected for each site before planting
and fertilizer application. The soil order is Vertisol (Table 1) with the texture class
of clay.
Table 1. Site and soil characteristics for the trial conducted

at Meiso in eastern semi-arid Ethiopia
Property Meiso in 2019
Coordinate 8°45´ N
40°45´ E
Altitude 1470 m
Clay, g kg–1 580
Silt, g kg–1 700
Sand, g kg–1 240
Textural class Clay
pH H2O (1:2.5) 7.7
Organic carbon, g kg–1 10.7
Kjeldah N, g kg–1 0.9
Olsen available P, mg kg–1 5.6
The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block (RCBD) with a
factorial 5 x 3 x 2 treatment structure and three replicates. Three factors consisted
of Five N levels of 0, 23, 46, 69 and 92 kg N ha-1. three P levels of 0, 10 and 20 kg
P ha-1, and two plant densities of 66, 700 and 88, 900 plants ha-1. The sources of N
and P were urea and diammonium phosphate, respectively. The total amount of P
fertilizer was applied as basal fertilizer at planting. To maximize N use efficiency,
the N fertilizer was applied in two equal doses to maximize N efficiency. Thus,
one-half of N was applied at planting and one-half at 35 days after planting, when
the plants started to grow rapidly and N demand was high. All fertilizers were
applied in a subsurface band about 0.05 m to the side of the sorghum row. As a
[572]
control treatment, farmers’ practice of no fertilizer application was used. The
sorghum hybrid, ESH-1, was used as a test crop.
The analysis of variance was conducted by combining 2018 and 2019 data using
Statistix (Version 9.0; Analytical Software, Tallahassee, FL). The mean was
compared with the protected LSD means separation test. Treatment effects and
relationships were considered significant at P<0.05.
Economically optimal nutrient rates (EORs) for the different fertilizer costs to
grain price (CP) ratios were computed based on the grain yield, grain value (9.5
Birr kg-1), and fertilizer value (15 Birr kg-1) in 2018. Nonlinear regression analysis
was used to derive an equation to relate EORN to varied CP ratios of 1.50, 2.00
and 2.50, with CP as the independent variable. The profit to cost ratio (PCR) was
calculated by subtracting the cost of fertilizer use from the value of yield gained
due to nutrient application at a given N and P rate, then dividing the difference by
the fertilizer use cost. In other words, the PCR is calculated by dividing the
marginal net benefit by the marginal cost of fertilizer application.

Grain yield was significantly affected by the main effects of year (Yr) and
nitrogen (N), as well as the two-way interaction effects of Yr x N and P x PD
(Table 2 & 3). However, none of the main effects of P and PD, the two-way
effects of N x P and N x PD, and the three-way effects of PD x N x P, or their
linear and quadratic polynomial responses were significant (Table 2). This could
be explained by the nearly same response of the grain yield at each treatment
factor across every other treatment factor investigated.
[573]
Table 2. Significant effects (P-value) for the main, two-way and three-way interactions on sorghum grain yield (kg ha−1)
evaluated in experiments with different N rates (0, 23, 46, 69, and 92 kg N ha−1), P rates (0, 20, and 40 kg P
ha−1) and plant densities (66, 600 and 88, 800 plants ha-1) at Meiso in eastern Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019
Main effect or † NDF ‡ DDF

P-value
interaction Partitioned contrasts§
Linear Quadratic
Year (Yr) 1 4 <0.001
Nitrogen (N)) 4 116 0.001 0.001 0.006
Phosphorous (P) 2 116 0.763
Plant density (PD) 1 116 0.105
Yr x N 4 116 <0.001 <0.001
Yr x P 2 116 0.174
NxP 8 116 0.362
Yr x PD 1 116 0.149
N xPD 4 116 0.294
P x PD 2 116 0.041
Yr x N x P 8 116 0.190
Yr x N x PD 4 116 0.145
Yr x P x PD 2 116 0.493
N x P x PD 8 116 0.493
Yr x N x P x PD 8 116 0.785
Rates of N and/or P and are partitioned into linear, quadratic, and cubic polynomial Contrasts
† NDF, numerator degrees of freedom; ‡ DDF, denominator degrees of freedom;
The P values for the significant effects are underlined
In 2019, the average grain yield was more than 38% greater than in 2018.
Sorghum grain yield increased significantly (p <0.001) only when N fertilizer was
used in 2019; whereas, N rates had no influence in 2018.That is, there was no
difference in grain yields between the zero and other N rates used.
When only sorghum was grown at a high plant density of 8.8 plants ha-1, applying
P at a rate of 20 kg ha-1 significantly increased sorghum grain yields over a zero
kg P ha-1, but did not differ from a 10 kg P ha-1. With 20 kg P ha-1, sorghum
grown at a high density yielded at least 11% more grain than sorghum grown with
no P application.
Table 3. Least significant difference (LSD0.05) mean comparisons for the main effects of year and N, and the two-way
interactions of year x nitrogen and phosphorus x plant density) on sorghum grain yield (kg ha-1) experiments
conducted to assess five N rates (0, 23, 46, 69 and 92 kg N ha-1), and three rates (0, 10, and 20 kg P ha-1) at
Meiso in eastern Ethiopia in 2018 and 2019)
Effect Component
Year (Yr) 2018 2019
1738 a 2845b
Nitrogen (N) N0 N23 N46 N69 N92
2069 ab 2243 bc 2400 c 2419 c 2324 c
Yr x N N0 N23 N46 N69 N92
2018 1764 a 1808 a 1914 a 1643 a 1560 a
2019 2375 b 2679 bc 2887 cd 3195 d 3088 d
P0 P10 P20
Plant density (PD) x Phosphorus 6.6 plants m-2
(P) 2173 a 2301 ab 2255 a
8.8 plants m-2 2231 a 2323 ab 2466 b
[574]
The quadratic response of grain yield to the main effect of N was significant and it
consistently increased up to 46 kg N ha-1 before declining beyond this N rate (Fig
1a). According to the analysis of variance combined across seasons, grain yield
was raised by 174 and 331 kg ha-1 with the application of 23 and 46 kg N ha-1,
respectively. However, there can be no conclusions drawn based just on the main
effects or combinations of the main effects when there is a two-way effect that is
significant as a result of either a crossover or non-crossover interaction from a
change in treatment rank. In the study, the response of sorghum grain yield to N
rates was inconsistent between the two years (Fig 1b). The linear response of N in
the Yr x N interaction was significant (Fig 1b), as was the two-way interaction of
Yr x N (Table 3).
Fig 1. The quadratic responses of grain yield to the effect of N fertilizer averaged across P rates, plant densities, and two
years (a), and the linear effect for the two-way interaction of N x years (b) at Meiso
The average economic optimum N rates (EONs) for sorghum at varied cost price
to grain ratios (CP) ranging from 1.5 to 3 are presented in Table 4. Fertilizer use is
unlikely to be economical unless stress due to water deficits can be reduced,
resulting in a grain yield of at least 2500 kg ha-1 (Mesfin et al., 2009). Smallholder
farmers are often financially constrained and, therefore, they require high net
returns to justify using fertilizer on their crops (Wortmann and Sones 2017). The
use of P in sorghum cultivation is assumed to be not economically viable at the
Miesso site since the P application was not statistically different either from the
zero P rate or among each other. Neither N or P application provide any advantage
during the poor season in 2018.
Farmers that are financially-constrained, on the other hand, can even benefit from
the higher returns earned by adopting even a modest N fertilizer rate of 23 kg N
ha-1, and they can maximize their economic gain even more by using higher rates
[575]
of N ranging from 67 to 82 kg N ha-1 with CP ratios ranging from 1.5 to 3 in the
fairly good season of 2019 (Table 4 and Fig 2).
Table 4. Asymptotic nonlinear regression coefficients (a, b, and c) for grain yield response to N rate and economically
optimal N rates (EONRs) for sorghum, determined across all P levels, with a cost of fertilizer N use (Birr kg-1) to
the farm gate price of sorghum grain (Birr kg-1) ratio (CP) of 1.5, 2, and 3
Season Coefficients R2 CP=1.5. CP=2 CP=3

a b c
-------------Kg ha-1------- EONs
2018 1762 5.35 -0.085 0.83 - - -

2019 2355 17.25 -0.095 0.99 82 80 67
EONRs
2019 3,127 3,122 3,109
Maximum return (Birr ha-1)
2019 29761 2367 2264

The response equation with no P applied was yield = 1891+12N+0.19N2 for 2018 and
yield = 2355-17.26(0.095N) for 2019 where N is the N application rate.
The EON was economically more profitable as the CP decreased. The overall
mean PCR was 6.84 for CP = 1.5, 4.88 for CP = 2 and 3.25 for CP = 3 (Fig 2). As
the cost of fertilizer use relative to the value of sorghum grain declines, EOR and
PCR increase. Smallholder farmers in Ethiopia with limited resources can boost
their sorghum productivity and profitability (PCR) by applying an affordable
amount of fertilizer at less than EOR to even a small plot of land (Liben et al.,
2020).
Fig 2. Net returns of maize to fertilizer N application to at varying

N rates and fertilizer cost to grain price ratios (CP).
[576]
There was no response to fertilizer in 2018 because of a severe dry-spell in August
and September that caused a water shortage at the critical stage of crop booting to
grain filling stage. Among the nutrients, the use of nitrogen is crucial in achieving
high yield, but the response of sorghum to nitrogen input is highly variable,
indicating that more field study is required to better address the diversity of
production conditions in the semi-arid regions in Ethiopia. Farmers can maximize
their economic gain by using higher rates of N ranging from 67 to 82 kg N ha -1
with different fertilizer cost and sorghum price scenarios. For the vast majority of
farmers who are financially constrained, applying just 23 kg N ha-1can provide a
moderate economic gain. Although applying P at a rate of 20 kg ha-1 increased
sorghum yield compared to the non-fertilized one, it is not worth investing in such
a high quantity since it provides no economic gain over the zero level of P. To
maintain the available soil P, it may be sufficient to apply no more than 10 kg P
ha-1. Fertilizer management decisions based on crop simulation modeling, on the
other hand, could greatly improve the capability to investigate the potential risk
consequences of varied rates of fertilizer application in the various semi-arid areas
in Ethiopia, which is impractical with just shorter-term conventional agronomic
experimentation.
References
CIMMYT. 1988. From agronomic data to farmer recommendations: an economics training
manual. CIMMYT, Mexico.
Jansen J, Wortmann CS, Stockton MC, Kaizzi KC. 2013. Maximizing net returns to financially
constrained fertilizer use. Agron Journal 105:573–578.
Liben Feyera M., Tigist Adisu, Obsa Atnafu, Israel Bekele, Hayelom Berhe, and Charles S.
Wortmann. 2020. Maize and sorghum nutrient response functions for Ethiopia. Nutrient
Cycling in Agroecosystems 117: 401-410.
Mesfin Tewodros, Gebreyesus Brhane Tesfahunegn, Charles S. Wortmann, Olani Nikus, and
Martha Mamo. 2009. Tied-ridging and fertilizer use for sorghum production in semi-arid
Ethiopia. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems 85 (1): 87-94.
Sanchez PA, Sheperd KD, Soule MJ, Place FM, Buresh RJ, Izac AM, Mokwunye AV, Kwesiga
FR, Ndiritu CG, Woomer PL. 1997. Soil fertility replenishment in Africa: an investment in
natural resource capital. In: Buresh RJ et al (eds) Replenishing soil fertility in Africa. SSSA
Spec. publ. 51. SSSA, Madison, pp. 1-46.
Vlek PLG. 1993. Strategies for sustaining agriculture in sub-Saharan Africa. In: Rogland J, Lal R
(eds) Technologies for sustaining agriculture in the tropics. ASA Spec. publ. 56. ASA, CSSA,
and SSSA, Madison, pp 265-277.
Wortmann CS, Mamo M, Abebe G, Mburu C, Kayuki KC, Letayo E and Xerinda S. 2006. Atlas of
sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench: production in five countries of Eastern Africa. Atlas
of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench: production in five countries of Eastern Africa.
[577]
Effect of Trust-Difol on Upland Cotton
Varieties (Gossypium hirsutum L.)
under Irrigated Condition
1Yonas Bekele, 1Fikeremariam Tegegn, 1Tamiru Dejen,
1Takele Zike, 1Merdasa Balcha, and 1Getinet Belay
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Werer Agricultural Research Center;
P.O.Box 2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Abstract
One of the most limiting factors for cotton picking operation in Ethiopia is shortage
of man power. Even, the existed cotton pickers are not comfortable with the bulk leaf
of the crop. Because of this reason, high amount of matured cotton seeds is left
beneath the half part of the plant which decreases the yield of the cotton seed.
Moreover, since shortage of man power is becoming serious, the growers are forced
to think about importing of cotton-picking machine. Therefore, reductions of bulk
leaves at crop maturity stage become the bottle neck problem in the production of
cotton crop. Thus, this study was conducted on upland cotton varieties for two
cropping seasons (2018 and 2019) at Werer Agricultural Research Center (WARC)
with the objective to identify appropriate cotton maturity stage for Defoliant (Thrust-
Difol 180 SC) spray under irrigated condition. A factorial combination of three
upland cotton varieties (Delta Pine-90, Weyto-07, Werer-50) and three crop
maturity stages for defoliant spray (60% boll opening stage, 70% boll opening stage,
80% boll opening stage) and no defoliant spray (control) treatments were employed
for testing in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications.
The defoliated leaf counting data and the visual leaf defoliation assessment result
showed that 60% boll opening stage in all varieties showed best leaf defoliation
performance compared to 70%, 80% boll opening stages and the control treatments.
The least trash content was recorded from 60% boll opening stages in all varieties.
Number of bolls per plant, seed cotton yield, ginning out turn (GOT) and lint yield
parameters were significantly affected by defoliant application at 60% boll opening
stage. Variety Weyto - 07with Trust-Difol 180 SC spray at 60 % boll opening stage
appearedthe best cotton crop maturity stage for defoliant spray followed by Delta
Pine-90 by 60 % boll opening stage on the basis of lint yield. The same holds for
seed cotton yield albeit the second-best treatment combination was weyto-07 by 70%
boll opening stage. Accordingly, we can assert that 60 % boll opening stage found
suitable for Trust-Difol 180 SC application combined with upland cotton variety
Weyto-07.
Introduction
Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is one of the most important commercial and
industrial crops playing a key role in economic and social affairs of the world. It is
considered as a king of fibers. About 80 percent of raw materials require for
[579]
textile industries contributing from cotton alone (Virdia, 2011). In spite of severe
competition with synthetic fibers, cotton continues to enjoy a place of prime
importance in the textile industry (Kairon et al., 2004).
In Ethiopia cotton is grown both in irrigated and rain fedagro-ecologies. Even if
there are so many cotton producers in the country, because of low cotton
productivity and lack of management, the domestic production cannot satisfy the
need of the country. In addition to these, the cotton-picking operation also one of
the most limiting factors that determines the production of cotton crop. This
means that since the cotton-picking operation is implemented by human labor,
most of the seed cotton yield produced beneath the half part of the plant cannot be
picked properly by the laborers. This is existed mainly due to the bulk leaf of the
plant which covers the ease observation of the opened bolls for picking. Because
of this reason, it will reduce yield and quality of the crop. Therefore, to make the
cotton-picking operation easier and to improve the productivity of the crop,
avoiding of the bulk leaf will be mandatory task in the production of quality and
quantity cotton.
On the other hand, production system of the study area (Amibara District) has
been on the way of shifting to double cropping system in which cotton crop in
main season and wheat crop in offseason. However, because of the bulk leaf
influence of the cotton crop, the picking operation of the crop took long period.
Because of this reason, the normal sowing date of the wheat crop will become
distorted and it will be forced to extend till hot season. Moreover, because of this
extended wheat sowing date the normal sowing date of the main crop; cotton will
be also highly affected. However, using of cotton-picking machine might reduce
these problems in sustainable way. Nevertheless, to reduce the amount of trash,
the bulk leaf must be removed first. Therefore, to facilitate this cotton-picking
operation; either for human picking or in machine harvesting, the best solution
will be use of cotton leaf defoliant chemical.
Defoliant is a kind of chemical that helps to shed the leaves that naturally occurs
when leaves become physiologically mature. Trust-Difol 180 SC is one of the
most important cotton leaf defoliants. Some of the benefits of defoliant are, it
removes leaves, eliminated the main source of stain and trash, better lint grades,
prevent boll rot, faster and more efficient picker operation and manages maturity
and allowing earlier harvest (L.Thomaset al., 2013). In normal situation the cotton
boll formation starts in July and continues to September, the boll formed during
July normally open due to relatively higher temperature but the bolls formed
during the month of September usually remain unopened due to cooler
environment and ultimately could not contribute to final seed cotton yield
(Sawanet al., 1988). To avoid these losses, defoliants are applied with dual target
i.e., helps in early boll opening and to prevent staining the lint during the picking
operation which causes loss in quality. Defoliants normally contain ethylene
[580]
which is a ripening agent that causes leaf drop, bolls to crack open and fluff out so
that cotton can be picked in single picking. It is generally said that the cotton
should be defoliated before the temperatures become cooler as the defoliants do
not work properly but exact timing for its application is yet to be explored. Proper
stage of defoliation involves balancing the value of potential increases in yield
with the value of changes in fiber quality; hence its exploration is of prime
importance for cotton growers for fetching maximum returns from their produce
(Showler, 2009).Therefore, this research work is designed to identify the
appropriate crop maturity stage for Defoliant (Thrust-Difol 180 SC) spray for
cultivated cotton under irrigated condition of Werer, Ethiopia.

The field experiments were conducted during 2018 and 2019 cropping seasons in
Werer Agricultural Research Center. A factorial combination of three upland
Cotton cultivars (Deltapine-90, Weyto-07 and Werer-50) and three crop maturity
stages (60% boll opening stage, 70% boll opening stage, 80% boll opening stage)
along with the control (no defoliant spray) were laid out in randomized complete
block design with three replications. 250 ml/ha of leaf defoliant chemical (Thrust-
Difol 180 SC) and 100 l/ha of water was used for dilution. The defoliant was
sprayed by using hand knapsack chemical sprayer. During the defoliant spray
utmost care was taken to have equal coverage of the chemical for all leaves.The
seeds were planted with a spacing of 90 cm. between rows and 25 cm between
plants. The plot size of the experiment was 22.5 m2. The dose of defoliant was
determined according to the temperature. However, in this experiment the
temperature of the experimental site was ranges from 25 ℃ to 30 ℃ daytime
which was good. Data on plant basis were taken from randomly selected 10 plants
per plot. To know the exact stage for 60, 70 and 80% boll opening stages, opened
and un-opened boll count were done every three days interval commencing from
50 % boll opening stage. When the crop reached to its 60, 70 and 80 % boll
opening stages, initial leaf count was done before spray from 10 randomly
selected and tagged plants. Green and dead leaf counts and visual assessments
were done after 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 20 days of the defoliant application. A net
plot size of 10.8 m2 (three central rows) was considered for data on plot basis. All
the recommended cultural practices were applied alike. Finally, the recorded data
were analyzed by statistical analysis software (SAS version 9.1) and the means
were separated using LSD test.

Analysis of variance indicated that number of bolls per plant, seed cotton yield,
ginning out turn (GOT) and lint yield parameters were significantly affected by
defoliant application at different boll opening stages. While plant height, branches
[581]
per plant, steam diameter, average boll weight and 100 seed weight were non-
significant (Table  and .
The average number of bolls per plant in the experiment was 17.2 (Table 2).
When we have looking through it, the number of bolls per plant ranges from 15 to
19.8 depending upon the varieties and stages of boll opening (Table 2). The
highest boll number per plant was recorded from Weyto – 07variety combined
with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage. Whereas, the least
number of bolls per plant was recorded from variety Werer – 50combined with no
Trust-Difol SC spray (control). Concomitant with this finding, Hayatet al. (2012)
stated that the number of bolls per plant was significantly affected by defoliant
application at different stages.
The average seed cotton yield depends upon the variety and stages of cotton boll
opening, it was 4.66t/ha. The seed cotton yield ranges from 4.28 to 5.10t/ha (Table
2). Significantly higher seed cotton yield (5.10 t/ha) was obtained from Weyto –
07variety with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage whereas the
least seed cotton yield 4.28 t/ha was found from Werer – 50variety with no Trust-
Difol 180 SC spray (control). Although, the highest seed cotton yield was obtained
from variety Weyto – 07with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage,
the remaining two varieties (Deltapine-90 and Werer-50) had also achieved the
highest yield when they were combined with 60 %boll opening stage than the rest
boll opening stages considered. Therefore, 60 %boll opening stage could be taken
as the best boll opening stage and can thrive best/reasonable seed cotton yield
could be obtained from all three varieties if they were being defoliated at 60% boll
opening stage. Similarly, Hayat et al. (2012) reported that seed cotton yield was
significantly affected by defoliant application at different stages.
The average Ginning out Turn (GOT) result of this experiment was 37.0 and it
ranged from 36.4 to 38.0 % depending upon the varieties and stages of boll
opening for defoliant spray (Table 2). According to the statistical analysis result,
the highest ginning out turn was recorded from Deltapine-90variety with Trust-
Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage. While the least ginning out turn
was recorded from Weyto - 07 variety and No Trust-Difol 180 SC spray
(control).The North Carolina State University Cotton Information Report (2012)
indicated that the most common recommendation for a defoliant application is
when 60% of the bolls in a field are open. Defoliating too early can lower yield
potential and micronaire value. Defoliating too late may increase the likelihood of
boll rot and weather-related lint damage. Late defoliation may expose the crop to
cooler temperatures which may reduce defoliant activity. Tayyab et al. (2005)
reported that for getting higher lint yield and for harvesting the crop before winter
season recommended application of defoliant at 60% boll opening stage.
However, they reported that Ginning outturnwas not significantly affected by
defoliant application timing in contrary to what we have found.
[582]
Lint yield was statistically affected by variety and boll opening stage. The lint
yield was ranged from 1.40 to 17.2 t/ha and the average lint yield was 1.55 t/ha
(Table 2). The highest (1.72 t/ha) lint yield was recorded from variety Weyto-07
and 60% boll opening stage; whereas the lowest lint yield (1.40 t/ha) was recorded
from variety Werer-50 and no Trust-Difol 180 SC spray (control) treatment.
Although, the highest seed cotton yield was obtained from variety Weyto – 07by
Trust-Difol 180 SC spray at 60 %boll opening stage, in all varieties the highest lint
yield was obtained from 60 %boll opening stages. Therefore, this indicated that 60
%boll opening stage could be used as appropriate boll opening stage for Trust-
Difol 180 SC application for all varieties considered in this study. In line with this
finding, Tayyab et al. (2005) reported that for getting higher lint yield and for
harvesting the crop before winter season, they recommended application of
defoliant at 60% boll opening stage. Hussan et al. (2006) also reported
significantly higher lint yield when defoliant is at applied at the 60% boll opening
stage.
[583]
Table 1. Main effect of cotton varieties and its maturity stage across the two cropping years (2018 and 2019)
Seed 100
Stem Number of Average Ginning Lint
Plant height Branches cotton cotton
Varieties (V) diameter Bolls boll wt. out turn yield
(cm.) per plant yield seed wt.
(cm.) per plant (gm.) (%) t/ha
(t/ha) (gm.)
Deltapine – 90 77.1 c 10.8 c 1.3 17.1 4.6 4.22ab 37.5 a 1.57 a 8.3
Weyto – 07 91.6 b 12.3 b 1.3 17.9 4.3 4.42 a 36.7 b 1.62 a 8.3
Werer – 50 100.0 a 13.0 a 1.3 16.5 4.3 4.04 b 36.9 b 1.48 b 8.3
Mean 89.6 12.0 1.3 17.2 4.4 4.23 37.0 1.55 8.3
F-probability ** ** ns ns ns ** ** ** ns
Boll opening stages for defoliant spray (BOS)

Control (No Trust-Difolspray) 90.2 12.1 1.3 15.8 b 4.5 4.03 b 36.6 b 1.46 c 8.3
Trust-Difol spray at 60 % Boll Opening Stage 88.8 12.1 1.3 19.2 a 4.3 4.45 a 37.4 a 1.66 a 8.4
Trust-Difol spray at 70 % Boll Opening Stage 89.4 12.0 1.3 17.2 b 4.4 4.29ab 36.9 ab 1.57 ab 8.3
Trust-Difol spray at 80 % Boll Opening Stage 89.9 12.0 1.3 16.5 b 4.4 4.14 b 37.2 ab 1.53 bc 8.3
Mean 89.6 12.0 1.3 17.2 4.4 4.23 37.0 1.55 8.3
F-probability ns ns ns ** ns ** ** ** ns
CV (%) 12.2 7.2 8.3 16.2 13.2 9.5 2.6 10.0 3.4
*, **, *** significant at P ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.001 probability levels, respectively; ns= not significant. Means in a column followed by the same letters are
not significantly different.
[584]
Table 2. Interaction effect of varieties and maturity stages of cotton for defoliant spray in 2018 and 2019 cropping season.
100
Stem No. of Average
Plant height Branches Seed cotton Ginning out Lint yield cotton
V X BOS diameter Bolls boll wt.
(cm.) per plant yield (t/ha) turn (%) t/ha seed wt.
(cm.) per plant (gm.)
(gm.)
DP - 90 * No Trust-Difol spray (Control) 76.7 10.9 1.3 15.8 cd 4.6 4.04 bcd 36.9 bc 1.49 cde 8.2
DP - 90 * Trust-Difol Spray at 60 % Boll Opening Stage 76.9 10.9 1.3 19.2 ab 4.5 4.45ab 38.0 a 1.69 ab 8.5
DP - 90 * Trust-Difol Spray at 70 % Boll Opening Stage 77.2 10.4 1.3 17.3 abcd 4.6 4.26abcd 37.4 abc 1.58 abcd 8.3
DP - 90 * Trust-Difol Spray at 80 % Boll Opening Stage 77.7 10.9 1.3 16.2 bcd 4.6 4.10bcd 37.5 ab 1.53 bcde 8.1
Weyto - 07 * No Trust-Difol Spray (Control) 92.3 12.2 1.4 16.5 bcd 4.3 4.17abcd 36.4 c 1.50 cde 8.2
Weyto - 07 * Trust-Difol Spray at 60 % Boll Opening Stage 90.7 12.3 1.3 19.8 a 4.2 4.63 a 37.2 bac 1.72 a 8.4
Weyto - 07 * Trust-Difol Spray at 70 % Boll Opening Stage 91.6 12.4 1.3 18.0 abcd 4.3 4.50ab 36.5 bc 1.63 abc 8.2
Weyto - 07 * Trust-Difol Spray at 80 % Boll Opening Stage 91.7 12.1 1.3 17.3 abcd 4.3 4.38 abc 36.9 bc 1.61 abcd 8.4
Werer - 50 * No Trust-Difol spray (Control) 101.7 13.1 1.3 15.0 d 4.4 3.88 d 36.5 bc 1.40 e 8.3
Werer - 50 * Trust-Difol Spray at 60 % Boll Opening Stage 98.6 13.2 1.3 18.7 abc 4.1 4.25abcd 37.2 abc 1.57 abcde 8.4
Werer - 50 * Trust-Difol Spray at 70 % Boll Opening Stage 99.5 12.9 1.3 16.3 bcd 4.4 4.10bcd 36.8 bc 1.49 cde 8.3
Werer - 50 * Trust-Difol Spray at 80 % Boll Opening Stage 100.2 12.8 1.2 16.0 bcd 4.3 3.93 cd 37.1 abc 1.44 de 8.4
Mean 89.6 12.0 1.3 17.2 4.4 4.23 37.0 1.55 8.3
LSD (0.05) ns ns ns 1.9 ns 2.7 0.6 1.0 ns
CV (%) 12.2 7.4 8.3 16.2 13.2 9.5 2.6 10.0 2.8
[585]
Cotton Leaf Defoliation Assessment
According to the statistical analysis, visual assessment, and leaf count data, from
the three tested cotton varieties, Weyto – 07variety with Trust-Difol 180 SC spray
at 60 % boll opening stage was the best cotton crop maturity stage for defoliant
(Trust-Difol 180 SC) spray under irrigated condition. Since leaf defoliation was
one of the main targets of this experiment, both visual assessment and leaf count
data were taken after 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 20 days of defoliant application.
According to visual assessment data, in all three varieties considered, 60% boll
opening stage showed better leaf defoliation performance after 3, 5 and 7 days of
defoliant application. Despite, after 7 days of defoliant application, 70 % and 80 %
boll opening stages defoliated all leaves like 60 % boll opening stage. As can be
seen from the data, 60% boll opening stage has shown better leaf defoliation
performance after 3, 5 and 7days of spray. However, after 20 days of defoliant
spray the plant starts re-growth of its leaf in all boll opening stages (Figure 1 and
2).
Figure 1. Visual assessment of defoliated cotton leaf (%) after treatment application
[586]
Figure 2. Defoliated cotton leaf count (%) after treatment application
Trash Content (%)

Trash content is one of the main parameter which determines the efficacy of the
defoliant. Because of this reason, this parameter was taken to evaluate the efficacy
of the chemical which was applied in different boll opening stages. So, the least
trash content (1 %, 0.83 % and 1.26 %) were recorded from combination of 60%
boll opening stages with Deltapine-90, Weyto-07 and Werer-50 varieties,
respectively. While as shown in the figure 3, the highest trash content 1.76 %,
2.61 % and 2.46 % were recorded from the combination of control with Deltapine-
90, Weyto-07 and Werer-50 varieties, respectively.
[587]
Trash Content %
Control 60 % BOS 70 % BOS 80 % BOS Control 60 % BOS 70 % BOS 80 % BOS Control 60

% BOS 70 % BOS 80 % BOS
Deltapine - 90 Weyto - 07 Werer -
Figure 3 Trash Content (%) as affected bydefoliant spray atdifferent boll opening stages and varieties
Number of bolls per plant

The average number of bolls per plant in the experiment was 17.2 (Table 2).
When we have looking through it, the number of bolls per plant ranges from 15 to
19.8 depending upon the varieties and stages of boll opening (Table 2). The
highest boll number per plant was recorded from Weyto – 07variety combined
with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage. Whereas, the least
number of bolls per plant was recorded from variety Werer – 50combined with no
Trust-Difol SC spray (control). Concomitant with this finding, Hayatet al. (2012)
stated that the number of bolls per plant was significantly affected by defoliant
application at different stages.
Seed Cotton Yield (q/ha)

The average seed cotton yield depends upon the variety and stages of cotton boll
opening, it was 4.23 t/ha. The seed cotton yield ranges from 3.88 to 4.63 t/ha
(Table 2). Significantly higher seed cotton yield (4.63 t/ha) was obtained from
Weyto – 07variety with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage
whereas the least seed cotton yield 3.88 t/ha was found from Werer - 50 variety
with no Trust-Difol 180 SC spray (control). Although, the highest seed cotton
yield was obtained from variety Weyto – 07with Trust-Difol 180 SC Spray at 60
%boll opening stage, the remaining two varieties (Deltapine-90 and Werer-50)
had also achieved the highest yield when they were combined with 60 %boll
opening stage than the rest boll opening stages considered. Therefore, 60 %boll
[588]
opening stage could be taken as the best boll opening stage and can thrive
best/reasonable seed cotton yield could be obtained from all three varieties if they
were being defoliated at 60% boll opening stage. Similarly, Hayat et al. (2012)
reported that seed cotton yield was significantly affected by defoliant application
at different stages.
Ginning Out Turn (GOT)

The average Ginning out Turn (GOT) result of this experiment was 37.0 and it
ranged from 36.4 to 38.0 % depending upon the varieties and stages of boll
opening for defoliant spray (Table 2). According to the statistical analysis result,
the highest ginning out turn was recorded from Deltapine-90variety with Trust-
Difol 180 SC Spray at 60 %boll opening stage. While the least ginning out turn
was recorded from Weyto - 07 variety and No Trust-Difol 180 SC spray
(control).The North Carolina State University Cotton Information Report (2012)
indicated that the most common recommendation for a defoliant application is
when 60% of the bolls in a field are open. Defoliating too early can lower yield
potential and micronaire value. Defoliating too late may increase the likelihood of
boll rot and weather-related lint damage. Late defoliation may expose the crop to
cooler temperatures which may reduce defoliant activity. Tayyab et al. (2005)
reported that for getting higher lint yield and for harvesting the crop before winter
season recommended application of defoliant at 60% boll opening stage.
However, they reported that Ginning out Turn (GOT) was not significantly
affected by defoliant application timing in contrary to what we have found.
Lint Yield
Lint yield was statistically affected by variety and boll opening stage. The lint
yield was ranged from 1.40 to 1.72 t/ha and the average lint yield was 1.55 t/ha
(Table 2). The highest (1.72 t/ha) lint yield was recorded from variety Weyto-07
and 60% boll opening stage; whereas the lowest lint yield (1.40 t/ha) was recorded
from variety Werer-50 and no Trust-Difol 180 SC spray (control)treatment.
Although, the highest seed cotton yield was obtained from variety Weyto – 07by
Trust-Difol 180 SC spray at 60 %boll opening stage, in all varieties the highest lint
yield was obtained from 60 %boll opening stages. Therefore, this indicated that 60
%boll opening stage could be used as appropriate boll opening stage for Trust-
Difol 180 SC application for all varieties considered in this study. In line with this
finding, Tayyab et al. (2005) reported that for getting higher lint yield and for
harvesting the crop before winter season, they recommended application of
defoliant at 60% boll opening stage. Hussan et al. (2006) also reported
significantly higher lint yield when defoliant is at applied at the 60% boll opening
stage. But it should not be in higher dose as in sudden death the leaves cannot
drop from the plant and abrupt break down of the assimilates also disturbs the
quality of lint.
[589]
Since significant amount of the bulk leaves being barrier to pick the matured
cotton seeds beneath the half part of the plant which decreases the yield of the
cotton seed; and shortage of man power is becoming serious in Ethiopian
condition, and to use the existed labor power effectively, reduction of bulk leaves
at crop maturity stage become the most important task in the production of cotton
crop. Thus, this study was conducted to identify the appropriate cotton maturity
stage for defoliant (Thrust Difol 180 SC) spray under irrigated condition.
Therefore, according to the statistical analysis, visual assessment, and leaf count
data we could assert that all three upland cotton varieties (Deltapine-90, Weyto-07
and Werer-50) combined with Trust-Difol 180 SC spray at 60 % boll opening
stage gave significantly higher lint yield than the rest combinations. And hence,
this could be recommended as a best cotton crop maturity stage for defoliant
(Trust-Difol 180 SC) spray for each variety considered in this study under irrigated
condition.
References
Cotton Information, North Carolina State University. 2012. http://www.cotton.ncsu.edu.
(verified 09/05/2012).
DubaleBefikadu. 2018. Postharvest Losses in Ethiopia and Opportunities for Reduction,
Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Food Science Research Directorate,
January 2018 report, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hayat Ullah Awan, Inayat Ullah Awan, Muhammad Mansoor, Abdul azizKhakwani,
Muhammad Azam Khan, Ghazanfarullah and BaharullahKhattak. 2010. Effect of
Defoliant Application at Different Stages of Boll Maturity and Doses of Sulfur on
Yield and Quality of Upland Cotton, Sarhad J. Agric.28(2).
Hussan, G., S. Latif and S. Waheed. 2006. Effect of sulfur on growth of cotton crop. J.
Biol. Sci. 23(1): 56-60.
Kairon, M. S., D. B. Laise and M.V. Venugopalam. 2004. Cotton. In: R. Prasad (ed.)
Field Crops Production, ICAR, New Delhi, India. pp. 646-674.
L.Thomas Barger et al. 2013. Mid-South Cotton Defoliant Guide, University of Arkansas.
Sawan Z.M., EL-S.H.M. Hefni and M.A. Allam. 1988. Effect of concentration and time
of application of the defoliant harvade on the lint, seed, protein and oil yields and
oil properties of cottonseed. Expt. Agric. 24: 123-127.
Showler, A. 2009. Efficiency of tank-mixing insecticide with defoliant against adult boll
weevil (Coleoptera: curculionidae) populations as determined by late-season field
disturbance trapping. Subtrop. Plant Sci.60:58-65.
Tayyab, M., M. Bilal and M. Musa. 2005. Impact of sulfur on early maturity of cotton. J.
Agron. &Envion. 6(2): 44-47.
Virdia, H.M. 2011, Effect of topping on growth and yield of hybrid cotton (Gossypium
hirsutumL.). Adv. Res. J. Crop Improv. 2(1):21-23.
[590]
Effect of Seedling Age at Transplanting on Yield
and Yield Components of Low Land Rice in
Fogera Plain, North Western Ethiopia
Zelalem Tadesse1*, Tilahun Tadesse1, Habtamu Assega1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center
(FNRRiTC), P.O.Box 1937 Fogera, Ethiopia; E-mail: zelalemtadesse46@gmail.com
Abstract
Transplanting and direct seeding are the two methods of rice plant establishment.
Direct seeding is the major method of rice planting being used in Fogera plain.
However, transplanting is the major means of rice planting used in other parts of the
world. Therefore, field experiments were conducted in the area of two growing
seasons during the 2018 and 2019 cropping years to study the effects of seedling age
at transplanting on the yield and yield components of the rice crop under rain-fed
condition. The treatments consists of six seedling age 0, (dry seed as a control) 7,
(pre-germinated), 14, 21, 28, 35 days old seedlings were laid down in replicated
complete block design with three replications. Data were collected on yield and
yield components of the crop. The data were subjected to analysis of variance using
SAS software. Economic analysis was also performed to compare the economic
advantage of the treatments. The results of the experiment indicated that seedling
age had highly significantly affected (p<0.001), plant height, number of total tillers
per m-2 and number of filled grain per panicle and significantly affected (p<0.01)
panicle length, and grain yield. Moreover, age of seedlings for transplanting affected
(p<0.001) straw yield and thousand grain weight. The highest grain and straw yield
(4.54 and 11.7 tonsha-1) was obtained from 21 days old seedling age, respectively.
The economic analysis indicated that 21 days old seedling age was the most
profitable treatment with mean net benefit of 75,132.0. ET Birr ha-1 Therefore, it can
be concluded that twenty one days old seedling age in the nursery was appropriate
and recommended for transplanting method of rice production in Fogera plain.
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important food crops and is considered
as a major source of calories for more than half of the global population (Carrijo et
al., 2017). More than 90% of rice is produced and consumed in Asia (Subedi et
al., 2019). The total world rice production has risen steadily from about 200
million tons (1960) to over 678 million tons (2009). In the 2010/2011 and
2011/2012, the world paddy rice productions were estimated at 691.3 and 713.8
million tons, respectively. Globally, 158.9 million hectare (ha) of rice was
harvested during the 2011/2012 (USDA, 2012). Africa has sufficient land and
water resource to produce enough rice to feed its own population and, in the long
term, generate export revenues. Rice cultivars, rice-based cropping systems and
the rice itself will, however, have to undergo adaptations and improvements in
[591]
order to meet future demands for both food security of the growing population and
environmental conservation (Asch and Brueck, 2010).
Rice is a recent introduction to Ethiopia, its importance is well recognized as the
production area coverage of about 10,000 ha in 2006 has increased to over 63,000
ha in 2018 (CSA, 2019). The area coverage in domestic rice production has
increased considerably linked with expansion of production in the wetland and
upland areas with the introduction of suitable rice varieties for the different agro-
ecologies. In line with the area expansion, the production levels have been
increasing consistently over years. Central Statistical Authority (CSA) data
indicate that rice production increased from 71, 316.07 tons in 2008 to 171, 854.1
tons in 2018. The number of farmers engaged in rice production has also grown
year after year. Rice production has brought a significant change in the livelihood
of farmers and created job opportunities for a number of citizens in different areas
of the country. Currently, Amhara, Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples
Region (SNNPR), Oromiya, Somali, Gambella, Beni Shangul Gumuz, and Tigray
regions are the rice producing areas in Ethiopia (MoARD, 2010). The Amhara
region takes the lion’s share of producing the crop and accounted for 65-81% of
the area coverage and 78-85% of the production in the years 2016-2018 (CSA,
2017; CSA, 2018 and 2019). According to the report of MoARD (2010), the
potential rice production area in Ethiopia is estimated to be over 5,590,895 ha.
Most of Ethiopia’s rice production potential area lies in the western part of the
country. The national average yield of rice is about 2.8 t ha-1 (CSA, 2018) which is
lower compared to the world average productivity of 4.6 t ha-1 (FAOSTAT, 2018).
Weeds, pests, soil nutrient deficiencies and terminal moisture stress are the major
causes of low rice productivity in Ethiopia (MoARD, 2010; Gebey et al., 2012).
Rice is generally established through direct seeding or by transplanting (Pandey
and Velasco, 2002). Direct seeding is the practice of sowing seeds directly in the
main field (Farooqa et al., 2011). On the other hand, transplanting is the practice
of raising seedlings in a nursery and moving them into the main field. The major
advantages of transplanting over direct seeding are better weed suppression and
higher grain yield (Farooqa et al., 2011). In some temperate Asian countries such
as Japan and Korea, transplanting rice helped farmers to deal with the low
temperature that can adversely affect the performance of direct-seeded rice at
higher altitudes (Pandey and Velasco, 2002). Transplanting has high labour
demands for uprooting nursery seedlings, puddling fields, and transplanting
seedlings into fields (Farooqa et al., 2011).
Several researchers have emphasized the importance of seedling age and
transplanting time on the performance of transplanted rice (Baloch et al., 2007;
Mobasser et al., 2007; Ginigaddara andRanamukhaarachchi, 2011). When
seedlings are transplanted at the right time, tillering and growth proceed normally
with uniform stand establishment (Mobasser et al., 2007). If the age of a seedling
[592]
is more than optimum, the seedling produces fewer tillers thereby resulting in poor
yield. According to Mobasser et al. (2007), seedlings older than 35 days led to
more prolonged recovery from transplanting shock than younger seedlings. Baloch
et al. (2007) indicated that, in addition to seedlings age, transplanting time
determined rice yield. Transplanting at the optimum age of seedlings and time is
important for ensuring less risk of crop failures in rain fed lowland environments.
According to Azhiri et al. (2004), delayed transplanting particularly at an
inappropriate seedling age resulted in adverse effects on rice yields due to the
compounding effect of late-season drought and heavy insect and pest infestations.
Ginigaddara and Ranamukhaarachchi (2011) reported that transplanted rice
matured earlier and escaped terminal moisture stresses than direct seeded rice.
Farmers in Fogera plains of northwestern Ethiopia generally establish rain-fed
lowland rice through broadcast direct seeding. Rice production in the study often
faces the problem of terminal moisture stress owing to abrupt ending of rainfall at
the reproductive and grain filling stages of the crop (Tilahun et al., 2012). The
farmers spend much of their family labour and money on weeding. The average
rice productivity of the area is 2.53 t ha-1 and is much lower than the world’s
average rice productivity of 4.4 t ha-1 (MoARD, 2010; FAO, 2012). Terminal
moisture stress, weeds and soil nutrient deficiencies are the major reasons for the
low productivity of rice in Ethiopia (Tilahun et al., 2012). This research was
therefore conducted to determine appropriate seedling age for transplanting for
better rice production in Fogera Plains of North Western Ethiopia.

Description of Experimental Site
The experiment was conducted for two consecutive (2018-2019) cropping
seasons in Fogera rice research station The experimental site is located between
Latitude 11°49’55 North and Longitude 37° 37′ 40 East at an altitude of 1815
meters above sea level. It receives averages mean annual rainfall, minimum and
maximum temperature of 1219 mm, 12.75°C and 27.37°C, respectively. The
dominant soil type on the Fogera plains is black clay soil (ferric Vertisols)
(Tilahun et al., 2012). The experimental soil was clay in texture with a pH of 6.05.
Experimental Procedure
Nursery Management
In order to raise the seedlings first a mixture of soil and rice husk at a ratio of 8:1
was prepared. Then the mixture was spread on the plastic covered seed bed at a
thickness of about 5cm. The rice seeds were broadcasted at a rate of 25 kg
seed/100 m2 seed bed. Finally the seeds were covered with very thin layer of soil
and dry grass which was removed when the seeds started emerging. The seed bed
[593]
was watered in the morning and night every day till the transplanting. Hand
weeding was used to control the weeds from nursery field. It is necessary to
develop the healthy and weeds free nursery, which is essential to get maximum
yield. Land was well prepared during puddling.
Treatments and Experimental Design

The treatments consists of six seedling ages 0, (dry seed as a control) 7, (pre-
germinated), 14, 21, 28, 35 days old seedlings were laid in RCB Design with three
replications. The gross plot size was 4 m x 3 m (12 m2) with 1 m spacing between
plots and blocks. Treatments were assigned to each plot randomly. Seeding at the
nursery was staggered to coincide with the transplanting schedule. For field
planting, seedlings were transplanted at the spacing of 25 cm between rows and 20
cm between plants. Three seedlings were planted per hill according to the planned
treatment (Tilahun et al., 2013). The variety Edget was used for this experiment.
Recommended fertilizer rates of 69/23 kg N/P2O5 ha-1 for each treatment were
used (Tilahun et al., 2007). Urea fertilizer was applied for all the plots few days
after transplanting just after the seedlings recover from the transplanting shook.
Data Collection and Measurement

Data were collected from a net plot size of 3m x 2m avoiding two rows from the
left and two rows from the right as border rows and 50 cm from each of the top
and bottom sides of the plots. Data collected include plant height, panicle length,
number of total tillers/m2, and number of fertile panicle /m2, number of filled grain
/panicle, thousand seeds weight, grain yield, straw yield and harvest index. The
harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain yield to biological yield
following the equation: Harvest index (%) =
Data analysis
All collected data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS
software version 9.2 (SAS-Institute, 2008). Wherever treatment differences are
found to be significant, mean separation of treatments would be calculated based
on results of F-test at 1 and 5% and probability levels. Economic analysis was
performed following the partial budget analysis methodology of CIMMYT (1988).
The cost of raising seedlings, transplanting, and weeding as well as market prices
of grain and straw were considered for economic analysis. Labor cost of 50 Birr
per man-day, rice grain price of 13.5 Birr per kg, and straw price of 1.20 Birr per
kg were considered in the economic analysis.

Plant Height
The combined analysis of variance over two years indicated that effects of
seedling age at transplanting had highly (p<0.001) significantly affected plant
[594]
height (Table 3). The taller plant height (91.5 cm) was recorded from 14 days old
seedling ages followed by 21 days seedling age (91.2), which were statistically
similar (Table 3). On the other hand, the shortest plant height (73.9 cm) was
obtained from the control treatment or dry sowing (Table 3). The result indicated
that plant height increased significantly by planting younger seedlings as
compared to older and dry sowing. This might be due to higher phyllocrone
production in younger seedlings before entering to reproductive stage, as well as
less transplanting shock at this stage. These results are in line with Mishra and
Salokhe (2008), who recorded taller plant height after transplanting younger
seedlings, as compared to older seedlings. Significant variation in plant height was
also observed due to variation in seedling age (Khatun et al., 2002).
Panicle Length
The combined analysis of variance over two years showed that effects of seedling
age at transplanting highly significantly (p<0.01) affected panicle length .The
taller panicle length (18.6 cm) was recorded from 14 days old seedling age
followed by 21 days seedling age (18.2.) (Table 3). On the other hand, the
shortest panicle length (15.7 cm) was obtained from the control treatment or dry
sowing followed by 7 days seedling age (pre-germinated seed), (Table 3). The
longest panicle length observed from 14 and 21 days old seedlings might be due to
appropriate seedling age for transplanting as compared to older seedlings and
direct seeded rice planting method. The result was in line with Ginigaddara and
Ranamukhaarachchi (2011) who reported that seedling age is an important
element affecting the number of filled grains per panicle, panicle length, 1000-
grain weight and grain yield in rice.
Number of Tillers Per m2

The two years combined analysis of variance showed that effects of seedling age
at transplanting very highly (p<0.001) significantly affected number of tillers per
m-2 .The highest values of total tillers per m-2 (268 and 265) was recorded from 21
and 14 days old seedling age, respectively, which were statistically similar (Table
3). The lowest number of total tillers per m-2 (216) was obtained from dry sowing
method of planting (control). However, statistically it was not significantly
different from the 7, 28, and 35 treatments (Table 3). Overall younger seedlings
produced higher numbers of total tillers compared to dry planting and older
seedlings transplanting, which might be due to less root damage and minimum
transplanting shock, as younger seedlings can more easily establish themselves
after transplanting in the main field. These results were supported by Mishra and
Salokhe (2008), who reported younger seedlings, produced a higher number of
productive tillers after transplanting. These results are also supported by some
research that reported positive increases in the number of tillers after transplanting
of younger seedlings in SRI (Ceesay et al., 2006; Kabir and Uphoff, 2007; Sinha
and Talati, 2007).
[595]
Number of Fertile Panicles per m-2
Effects of seedling age at transplanting statistically (P<0.05) influenced number of
fertile panicles per m-2.The highest number of fertile panicle per m-2 (268) were
recorded from 21 days old seedling age followed by 14 days seedling age (237).
The lowest number of fertile panicles per m-2(192 and 196) was obtained from the
control and pre-germinated seed treatments, respectively, in 2018 cropping year
(Table 1). Moreover, the analysis of variance exhibited that seedling age at
transplanting had significantly (P< 0.05) influenced number of fertile panicle. The
highest number of fertile panicle per m2 (259 and 256) was observed from 21 and
14 days old seedling age. Moreover, the lowest number of fertile panicle /m2 (211
and 213) were observed from 28 days seedling age and dry sowing (control)
treatments which were statistically similar in 2019 cropping season (Table 2). The
two years combined analysis showed that effects of seedling age at transplanting
very highly (p<0.001) significantly affected number of fertile panicle per m2.
Highest values of (263) fertile panicle per m2 were observed in 21 days seedling
age which was statistically at par with 14 days old seedling age (247) (Table 3);
whereas, the lowest number of fertile panicle per m2 (203) was observed from dry
planting method followed by 28, 35 and 7 (pre-germinated seed) days old seedling
age (Table 3). This result may indicate that more transplanting shock that may
have been suffered by older seedlings (28 and 35 old seedlings) than the younger
seedlings (14 and 21 day-old seedlings). In line with the present results, among the
yield attributes, the number of productive tillers is an important agronomic trait,
which finally determines the number of fertile panicles and grain yield per unit
land area (Ginigaddara and Ranamukhaarachchi, 2011).
Table 1. Effects of seedling age at transplanting on yield and yield components of low land rice (Edget Var.) in Fogera
plain year 2018.
Treatments
Ph(cm) Pl (cm) TT/m2 NFP/m2 NFG/P GY t/ha SY t/ha TGW HI %
1-Dry Sowing 74.9c 15.7b 212c 192c 70b 3.01c 7.05c 31.8 43.0
2-Pre germinated seed 86.5b 18.0a 211c 196c 95a 3.64cb 8.93bc 34.6 41.1
3-14 Days S.Age 94.4a 18.8a 260ba 237ba 91a 3.55cb 10.25ba 36.5 35.2
4-21 Days S Age 97.0a 18.8a 275a 268a 105a 4.97a 11.77a 37.2 43.2
5-28 Days S Age 85.0b 18.0a 209c 200bc 90a 3.53cb 9.26bc 31.3 38.4
6-35 Days S.Age 86.0b 18.0a 229bc 217bc 88a 3.88b 9.19bc 29.9 42.4
Sig.diff. ** * ** * * ** * NS NS
CV (%) 4.43 5.53 9.07 10.4 11.0 12.7 13.3 11.9 19.0
PH = plant height (cm), PL = panicle length (cm), TT/m2 = total tillers/m2, NFP = number of fertile panicles/m2, NFG/P=
number of filled grain per panicle, GY = grain yield (t ha-1), SY = straw yield (t ha-1), TGW=thousand grain weight (g), HI =
harvest index (%), ** = highly significant at P<0.01, * = significant at P<0.05, ns = not significant at P≥0.05
[596]
Table 2. Effects of Seedling age at Transplanting on Yield and Yield Components of Low Land Rice (Edget Var.) in
Fogera plain Year 2019.
Treatments
Ph(cm) Pl (cm) TT/m2 NFP/m2 NFG/ Gy Sy t/ha TGW HI %
P t/ha
1-Dry Sowing 72.9c 15.7b 220c 213b 67c 2.68b 6.01bc 33.3ba 46.0
2-Pre germinated seed 73.4c 15.7b 225bc 221ba 76bac 2.74b 5.58c 33.1ba 49.0
3-14 Days S.Age 88.7a 18.3a 271a 256a 88ba 3.85a 7.57ba 34.3a 50.8
4-21 Days S Age 85.4ba 17.7a 261ba 259a 90a 4.11a 8.57a 34.3a 48.2
5-28 Days S Age 77.7bc 16.6b 224bc 211b 68bc 2.71b 6.01bc 32.1b 45.9
6-35 Days S.Age 76.6c 17.8a 233bac 221ba 67c 2.70b 5.58c 32.2b 49.1
Sig.diff. ** ** * * * *** * * NS
CV 5.97 3.53 9.25 10.25 14.7 9.55 15.1 2.61 11.9
number of filled grain per panicle, Gy = grain yield (t ha-1), SY = straw yield (t ha-1), TGW=thousand grain weight (g), HI =
harvest index (%), *** = very highly significant at P<0.001, ** highly significant at P<0.01 ,* = significant at P<0.05, NS =
not significant at P≥0.05
Number of Filled Grains per Panicle

As shown in Table 1, maximum number of filled grains per panicle (105grains)
was produced by 21 days seedling age followed by 14 days seedling age (91
grains) at transplanting which was remained statistically similar. However, the
lowest number of filled grains per panicle (70 grains) was showed by dry planting
(farmer practice) in 2018 (Table 1). The highest number of filled grain per panicle
(90grains) in 2019 were observed from 21 days seedling age, whereas the lowest
filled grain per panicle was observed from dry sowing (control treatment) (Table
2). The combined analysis of variance over the two years showed that average
highest number of filled grain per panicle (98 and 90 grains) were obtained at 21
and 14 days seedling age ,respectively. However, the lowest number of filled
grain per panicle (69 grains) was exhibited from dry sowing or the control
treatment followed by 35, 28 days old seedlings (78 and 79 grains) which were
statistically similar, respectively (Table 3). This result might be due to appropriate
seedling age for transplanting produced more number of fertile panicles per m-2
that leads to produce more number of filled grains per panicle. These results are
inconformity with Ginigaddara and Ranamukhaarachchi, (2011) and Tari (2012).
Khusrul and Aminul (2009) and Bagheri et al. (2011) reported that more
productive tillers and spikelets were obtained from transplanting 20-25 day-old
seedlings. In general, , transplanting of 21day-old seedlings led to the producing
of higher numbers of filled grain per panicle than direct sowing of seed and other
treatments.
Grain Yield
Data showed that seedling at transplanting highly and very highly significantly
influenced grain yield in both years, respectively (Table 1 and 2). Among the
seedling age, in 2018, maximum yield was recorded in (4.97 t ha-1) from 21 days
old seedling age followed by 35 days seedling age (3.88 t ha-1) while the
minimum value was found by dry seed sowing or the control treatments (3.01 t ha-
[597]
1
). As regarding from 2019 growing period, maximum grain yield was recorded in
21 days old seedling age (4.11 t ha-1) followed by 14 days seedling age (3.85 t ha-
1
), while the minimum yield was given by dry seed sowing or farmer practices
(2.68 t ha-1) followed by 28 35 and 7(pre-germinated seed) days old seedlings
treatment (2.70, 2.71 and 2.74 t ha-1).
The combined analysis of variance over years showed that seedlings age was
found to be highly significant ((p<0.01) affected grain yield. The maximum grain
yield was recorded from 21 days seedling age (4.54 t ha-1), which was
significantly higher than all other treatments. The minimum grain yield (2.84 t ha-
1
) was recorded from dry planting or the farmer practice which was lower than
other treatments (Table 3). The highest grain yield obtained from 21-day-old
seedlings might be attributed to the highest number of total tillers/m2, number of
filled grains/panicle, and number of fertile panicle per m-2 that cumulatively
increased the grain yield. The results agree with the finding of Iqbal, et al. (2007)
who reported that transplanting younger seedlings produced significantly higher
grain yield than direct seeding. The increase in the grain yield in response to
transplanting of younger seedling could be attributed to the production of more
productive tiller and fertile panicle numbers (Azhiri et al., 2004).
Straw Yield
The rice straw yield was significantly (P<0.05) affected by seedling age at
transplanting in both years (Table 1 and 2). Significantly higher straw yield (11.77
and 8.57 ton /ha) was obtained with 21 days old seedling age followed by 14 days
seedling age (10.2 and 7.57 ton/ha), respectively. The lowest straw yield (7.05 and
5.58 ton/ha) were recorded from dry sowing and 35 days old seedlings (Table 1
and 2).
The combined analysis of variance over two years of seedling age was found to
be highly significant (P<0.05) affected rice straw. . Maximum straw yield was
recorded from 21 days seedling age (10.17 t ha-1), which was statically similar
with 14 days seedling age (8.91 t ha-1). The lowest value (6.53 t ha-1) was recorded
from dry planting or the farmer practice which is lower than all other treatments
(Table 3). This result might be due to transplanting of seedling age of rice crop
produced more number of tillers/m2, longest panicle length and maximum
harvest index (HI) as compared to dry sowing or farmer practice. In consistent
with the finding of Ahmad, et al. (2009) and Bagheri, et al. (2011) who reported
that rice seedling age and transplanting time affected total dry biomass of the crop.
This result is also in line with that of Ginigaddara and Ranamukhaarachchi (2011)
who reported higher HI with transplanting than direct seeding.
Thousand Grains Weight

Data regarding thousand grains weight presented in Table 2 showed that
significantly (P<0.05) responding to seedling age at transplanting in 2019 but not
[598]
in 2018 cropping season (Table 1). The combined analysis of variance over two
years showed that effects of seedling age at transplanting significantly (p<0.05)
affected thousand grains weight. Heavier grains (35.8 and 35.4 g) were recorded
in 21 and 14 days old seedling age which was statistically similar (Table3). On the
other hand, the lowest thousand grain weight (31.0 and 31.7g) was obtained from
35 and 28 days seedling age, respectively (Table 3). This result might be due to
transplanting of healthy and younger seedlings with appropriate seedling age can
produce fully matured and a heavier grain weight. This result was in line with
Farooq et al. (2007) that reported no significant difference in thousand grains
weight by planting healthy and younger seedlings grown with seed priming.
Thousand seeds weight obtained from the 21-day-old seedlings increased
thousand grains weight produced from plants established by direct sowing by
about 2.9 g. and 4.4 g from 35 days older seedlings. This result corroborates the
findings of Ginigaddara and Ranamukhaarachchi, (2011) who reported greater
thousand seeds weight with transplanting over direct seeding.
Table 3. Two years combined analysis of 2018 and 2019 Effects of seedling age at transplanting on yield and yield
components of low land rice (Edget Var.) in Fogera plain
Treatments
Ph(cm) Pl (cm) TT/m2 NFP/m2 NFG/P GY t/ha SY t/ha TGW (g) HI %
1-Dry Sowing 73.9c 15.7d 216b 203b 69c 2.84c 6.53c 32.5ba 44.5
2-Pre germinated 80.0cb 16.9dc 218b 209b 86ba 3.19cb 7.25bc 33.9ba 45.0
seed
3-14 Days S.Age 91.5a 18.6a 265a 247a 90ba 3.70b 8.91ba 35.4a 43.0
4-21 Days S A[ge 91.2a 18.2ba 268a 263a 98a 4.54ba 10.17a 35.8a 45.7
5-28 Days S Age 81.3b 17.3bc 217b 205b 79bc 3.12cb 7.63bc 31.7b 42.2
6-35 Days S.Age 81.3b 17.9bac 231b 219b 78bc 3.29cb 7.39bc 31.0b 45.8
Sig.diff. *** ** *** *** ** ** * * NS
CV(%) 7.61 5.66 8.64 10.1 15.5 16.0 24.0 8.44 17.3
number of filled grain per panicle, GY = grain yield (t ha-1), SY = straw yield (t ha-1), TGW=thousand grain weight (g), HI =
harvest index (%), *** = very highly significant at P<0.001, ** highly significant at P<0.01 ,* = significant at P<0.05, NS =
not significant at P≥0.05
Economic analysis or partial budget analysis

Based on the principles of economic analysis CIMMYT (1988), the minimum
acceptable marginal rate of return (MRR %) should be 100%.The economic
analysis was done on the basis of the prevailing prices of variable costs using the
Ethiopian birr. The prices of Seed, nursery, planting and weeding cost were
considered for economic analysis but it varies based on treatments. Calculations of
total variable costs (TVC), gross benefits (GB) and net benefits (NB) were
performed (Table 4) Unlike that of the physical agronomic yield, the economic
analysis of the combined result of the experiment with two years (Table 4)
revealed that transplanting of 21-days-old seedlings at transplanting exhibited the
highest net benefit, which amounted to 75, 132.00 ha-1 ET Birr (Table 4). The
lowest net benefit was obtained from the dry seed or farmer practices (Table 4).
Dominance analysis was performed after arranging the treatments in their order of
[599]
TVC (Table 5). Treatments are considered as dominated if it has higher TVC but
lower NB than a previous treatment with lower TVC and higher NB (Table 5).
Marginal rate of return (MRR) were not computed because of all the treatments
were dominated except Treatment 4 (21 days old seedling age) (Table 4).
Transplanting 21-day-old seedlings produced a 59.0 % advantage in net benefit
over direct seeding. The higher economic advantage that accrued from
transplanting than the direct seeding is in agreement with Akbar et al. (2007)
reported a 40 % increase and Baloch et al. (2007) reported a 60% economic
advantage with transplanting compared to direct seeding. The authors attributed
the economic advantages to the higher yield of rice and reduced weeding cost
from the transplanting method of rice planting Highest net benefit of (75, 132.00
ha-1 ET Birr) was observed from 21 days old seedlings age is the most profitable
treatment.
Table 4. Effects of seedling age and planting time on economic benefit at Fogera in 2018 and 2019 cropping season
Treatments Seed cost Nursery Planting Weeding Total Gross Net

ETB ha-1 cost cost cost variable benefit benefit
ETB ha-1 ETB ha-1 ETB ha-1 Cost ETB ETB ha-1 ETB ha-1
ha-1
Dry seed 1350.00 0 900.00 2500.00 4750.00 49095 44345
Pre-germinated seed 1350.00 0 1100.00 2500.00 4950.00 59856 54906
14 days seedling age 337.50 1500.00 3000.00 1750 6587.50 60225 75382
21 days seedling age 337.50 2500.00 2000.00 1000.00 5837.00 6088 75132
Table 5 Dominance analysis for Seedling age at transplanting for low land rice at Fogera
Total variable cost ETB Net benefit ETB

Treatments ha-1 ha-1 Dominance
Dry seed 4750 44345 D
Pre-germinated seed 4950 54906
14 days seedling age 6587.5 53637.5 D
21 days seedling age 6087.5 75131.5

Rice production through transplanting of seedlings at optimum age led to
significantly earlier maturity than production of the crop through direct sowing of
dry seed. All improvements in the yield components of plants established from
transplanting seedlings of the crop culminated in significantly increased grain
yield and economic benefit over direct sowing. Finally, this experiment has
revealed that significantly higher grain yields and better economic advantages in
rice production are obtained by transplanting seedlings rather than by direct
[600]
sowing of dry seed. Transplanting 21-day-old seedlings could, thus, be
recommended for enhanced yield and increased farm income in the rain-fed
lowland rice production system in the Fogera plains of northwestern Ethiopia.
References
Ahmad A., Iqbal S., Ahmad S., Khaliq T., Nasim W., Hoogenboom G. 2009.
Seasonal growth, radiation interception, its conversion efficiency and
biomass production of Oryza sativa L. Under diverse agroenvironments in
Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot., 41(3): 1241-1257.
Akbar E.N., Jabran K., Habib T. 2007. Comparison of different planting methods
for optimization of plant population of fine rice (Oryza sativa l.) in Punjab
(Pakistan). Pak. J. Agric. Sci., 44(4): 597-599.
Asch, F. and Brueck H. (2010). Rice Crop Innovations and Natural—Resource
Management: A Glimpse into the Future Presented at 2nd Africa Rice
Congress: Innovations and Partnerships to Realize Africa Rice Potential,
March 22-26. Mali: Bamako. Rice Research Conference, 16-19 September
2002, Beijing, China, pp 11-18
Azhiri S.T, Wade L.J., Mclaren C.G., Amarante S.T., Ramos C.G., Casimero
M.C., Sebastian L.S. 2004. Delayed Planting of Rainfed Lowland Rice In
Areas With Short-Season Rains. Philippine J. Crop Sci., 29(1): 51-58.
Baloch, M.S., Awan I.U., Hassan G., Zubair M. (2007). Studies on Plant
Population and Stand Establishment Techniques for Increasing Productivity
of Rice in Dera Ismail Khan, Pak. Rice Sci., 14(2): 118-124.
Carrijo, D.R., Lundy, M.E., Linquist, B.A. 2017. Rice yields and water use under
alternate wetting and drying irrigation: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res.
203, 173–180.
Ceesay, M., S.W. Reid, E.C.M. Fernandes, and N.T. Uphoff. 2006. The effect of
repeated soil wetting and drying on low land rice yield with System of Rice
Intensifcation (SRI) methods. International Journal of Agricultural
Sustainability; 4:5-14.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) 1988.From
Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training
Manual. Completely revised edition, Mexico, DF
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2017. Report on Area and Production of Major
Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season) The Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey
Volume I, 2017 /18 (2010 E.C.) April, 2018. ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency) (2018) Report on Area and Production of Major
Crops (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season) The Federal Democratic
Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey,
Volume I, 2018 /19. April, 2019. ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia.
[601]
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2019. Report on area and production of major
crops (private peasant holdings, meher season). The federal democratic
republic of Ethiopia central statistical agency agricultural sample survey
2018/19. Volume 1 Statistical bulletin 589
Farooqa M.K., Siddique H.M., Rehman H., Aziz T., Lee D.J., Wahid A. 2011.
Rice direct seeding: experiences, challenges and opportunities. Soil Till.
Res., 111:87–98
Gebey T, Berhe K, Hoekstra D, Bogale A. 2012. Rice value chain development in
Fogera woreda based on the IPMS experience. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. 23pp.
Ginigaddara S.G.A., Ranamukhaarachchi S.L. 2011. Study of Age of Seedlings at
Transplanting on Growth Dynamics and Yield of Rice Under Alternating
Flooding and Suspension of Irrigation of Water Management. Recent Res.
Sci. Technol., 3(3): 76-88.
Iqbal E., Ahmad A., Randhawa S.A. 2007. Effect of Direct Seeding and
Transplanting Methods on the Yield and Quality of Fine Rice Basmati-370.
Int. J. Agric. Biol., 3:251-252.
Kabir, H., and N. Uphoff. 2007. Results of disseminating the system of rice
intensification with farmer field school methods in Northern Myanmar.
Experimental Agriculture; 43:463-476.
Khatun, A., Mollah, M. I. U., Rashid, M. H., Islam, M. S. amd Khan, A. H. 2002.
Seasonal effect of seedling age on the yield of rice. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci.,
5(1): 40-42.
Khusrul A.K.M., Aminul M. 2009. Seedling Age Influence Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
Performance. Philippine J. Sci., 138 (2): 219-226.
Mishra, A., and V.M. Salokhe. 2008. Seedling characteristics and the early growth
of transplanted rice under different water regimes. Experimental Agriculture;
44:365-383.
MoARD. 2010. National Rice Research and Development Strategy of Ethiopia.
The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural development, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 48 pp.
Mobasser H.R., Tari D.B., Vojdani M., Abadi R.S., Eftekhari A. 2007. Effect of
seedling age and planting space on yield and yield components of rice. Asian
J. Plant Sci., 6(2):438-440
Pandey S., Velasco L. 2002. Economics of direct seeding in Asia: patterns of
adoption and research priorities. In: Pandey S, Mortimer M, Wade L, Tuong
TP, Lopez K, Hardy B, (editors). 2002. Direct seeding: research issues and
opportunities. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Direct Seeding
in Asian Rice Systems: Strategic Research Issues and Opportunities, 25-28
January 2000, Bangkok, Thailand. Los Baños(Philippines): International
Rice Research Institute. Pp 3-14.
SAS Institute. 2002. SAS Version 9. 1.2 © 2002-2003. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary,
NC
[602]
Sinha, S.K., and J. Talati. 2007. Productivity impacts of the system of rice
intensifcation (SRI): A case study in West Bengal, India. Agricultural Water
Management ; 87:55-60.
Subedi P, Shrawan KS, Santosh Ma, Dil RY. 2019. Effects of Need-Based
Nitrogen Management and Varieties on Growth and Yield of Dry Direct
Seeded Rice. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sc. 42 (2): 453 - 466.
Tari D.B. 2012. Determination of nitrogen fertilization effect at different
transplanting dates on rice yield and yield traits. Am.-Eur. J. Agric. Environ.
Sci., 12(5):678- 681.
Tilahun Gebey, Berhe, K., Hoekstra, D. and Alemu, B. 2012. Rice value chain
development in Fogera woreda based on the IPMS experience. Nairobi,
Kenya: ILRI.
Tilahun Tadesse, Minale Liben, Alemayehu Assefa and Zelalem Tadesse. 2013.
Effect of Transplanting on Rice in Northwestern Ethiopia. Eth. J. Sci &
Technol., 6 (1): 47-54. .
Tilahun Tadesse, Minale Liben, Alemayehu Assefa, Belesti Yeshalem and
Tesfaye Wossen, 2007. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers on the
yield of rice in Fogera and Metema areas. In: Ermiase A., Akalu T.,
Alemayehu A., Melaku W., Tadesse D., and Tilahun T. (eds.). Proceedings
of the 1st Annual Regional Conference on Completed Crop Research
Activities, 14 17 August 2006. Amhara Regional Agricultural Research
Institute, Bahir -Dar, Ethiopia.
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). 2012. World agricultural
production. Foreign Agricultural Service, Circular Series WAP 06-12.
[603]
Effects of Sources, Rate and Application Times
of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield and Yield
Components of Upland Rice (Oryza sativa L.)
in Northwest Ethiopia
Habtamu Assega1*, Zelalem Tadesse1, and Tilahun Tadesse1

1
Fogera National Rice Research and Training Center, Woreta, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author: habtamuassega19@gmail.com
Abstract
Nitrogen nutrient losses through ammonia volatilization, denitrification, surface
runoff, and leaching are causing low nutrient use efficiency in agricultural
systems. Split application of N and use of slow N nutrient releasing fertilizers are
among the known methods of increasing nitrogen use efficiency (NUE). A field
experiment was conducted in Fogera Plain for two years to study the productivity
response of upland rice to different sources of nitrogen fertilizer, rates and time of
application on a total of five farmers’ fields during the main cropping seasons of
2018 and 2019. The experiment was conducted using a factorial arrangement of
two sources of N fertilizer (conventional urea and slow release urea), three N rates
(69,103.5 and 138 Kg ha-1), and three times of N application (T1=1/3 at planting,
1/3 at tillering and 1/3 at panicle initiation (PI), T2=1/3 15 days after sowing
(DAS), 1/3 at PI and 1/3 at heading, T3=1/3 15 DAS, 2/3 at PI) laid out in a
randomized complete block design with three replications. Phosphorous at rate of
46 Kg P2O5 ha-1 was commonly applied at planting for all treatments. The
commonly grown Nerica-4 variety was used as a test crop. The results of the
experiment showed that the rates and time of nitrogen applications were
significantly affecting most of the parameters. However, the different nitrogen
source fertilizers as well as all interactions of the treatments did not bring
statistically significant difference in all of the growth and yield parameters
considered. Regarding the rates, highest plant height (77.35 cm), number of tillers,
fertile tillers number (70.37 m-1 row), grain yield (5.3 t ha-1) and straw yield (10.0 t
ha-1); while lowest number of infertile tillers (2.57 m -1 row) were obtained when N
was applied at the maximum rate of 138 N kg ha-1. Concerning the nitrogen
application timing, highest plant height (77.5 cm), grain yield (4.9 t ha -1), straw
yield (9.6 t ha-1) and thousand seeds weight (28.9 g) and lowest number of infertile
tillers (1.83 m-1 row) were observed when 1/3 of the nitrogen was applied 15 days
after sowing (DAS) and the remaining 2/3 at panicle initiation (PI). Based on the
economic analysis, common urea at 138 N- kg ha-1 applied 1/3 of the N applied 15
days after sowing (DAS) and the remaining 2/3 at panicle initiation could be used
for the production of NERICA-4 upland rice in Fogera plain and other similar
agro ecologies in Ethiopia.
[605]
Introduction
Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important cereal crops of the world,
grown in wide range of climatic zones, to nourish the mankind. The crop is part of
the diet of half the world population (Maria et al., 2016). Rice is mostly grown in
Asia under irrigation by flooding. However, the reduced availability of water
resources for irrigation, due to increased industrial and human consumption, has
demanded the search for alternatives that enable rice cultivation with greater water
saving. As an alternative, there is the cultivation of rice in the upland ecosystem,
which can be sprinkle irrigated or rain-fed, depending on rainwater distribution
(Maria et al., 2016). In Ethiopia, rice production was started three decades ago in
the early 1970's and the country has reasonable potential to grow various rice
types mainly in rain-fed lowland, upland and irrigated ecosystems (Mulugeta and
Heluf, 2005). Although rice is a recent introduction to the country, its importance
is well recognized as the production area coverage of about 10,000 ha in 2006 has
increased to over 63,000 ha in 2018 (CSA, 2019). Upland rice could suitably grow
in many parts of the country, and the predominant potential areas include west
central highlands of Amhara Region (Fogera, Gonder Zuria, Dembia, Takusa and
Achefer), North West lowland areas of Amhara Region (Metema) (Dawit, 2015).
The national average yield of rice is about 2.8 t ha-1 (CSA, 2018) which is lower
compared to the world average productivity of 4.6 tones ha-1 (FAOSTAT, 2018).
Poor soil fertility is among the major factors limiting rice production in Ethiopia
(Gebey et al., 2012). In the upland rice ecosystem, fertilization management,
mainly with N, can provide significant increases in rice grain yield (Maria et al.,
2016).
Nitrogen is one of the most dynamic nutrients in the soil (Maria et al., 2016). The
low efficiency of the agronomical use of this nutrient, observed in most
agricultural systems, is due to rapid N losses from ammonia volatilization,
denitrification, surface runoff, and leaching in the soil-flood water system (Huang
et al 2016; Maria et al., 2016). The efficiency of N use and loss processes in the
soil-plant system have not only economic consequences but also environmental
ones (Maria et al., 2016). Significant environmental problems (i.e., soil
acidification, air pollution, water eutrophication) occurred due to N (Huang et al
2016).
Worldwide, Urea is the most used N fertilizer for rice (Oryza sativa L.) production
(Norman et al., 2008; Maria et al., 2016).)This fertilizer has a number of
advantages, such as: lower price per unit of N; high concentration of N, which
reduces the cost of transportation and application; high solubility; lower
corrosivity; compatibility with a large number of other fertilizers and pesticides;
and high rate of foliar absorption (Maria et al., 2016). However, the main
disadvantage of urea is the high possibility of loss by volatilization of NH 3. When
[606]
applied to the soil, urea suffers rapid enzymatic hydrolysis to NH4+ can lead to
substantial NH3 volatilization losses (Norman et al., 2008; Maria et al., 2016).
Most upland rice growing farmers cannot flood their fields within a few days
following urea fertilizer application. In a situation where a farmer cannot flood in
a timely manner after the pre flood N application, it would seem prudent to use an
N source less prone than urea to NH3 volatilization loss. Various modifications
have been made in fertilizers containing urea to reduce losses by volatilization and
to increase their use efficiency. To aid N management, cropping sensor-based
technology such as soil-plant analysis development or Device (SPAD) is one of
the best strategies for efficient application of nutrients (Colaco & Bramley, 2018).
However, SPADS are mostly costly and are too technical to farmers and use of
controlled nutrient releasing fertilizers is found feasible. Among the different
sources of N fertilizers, slow-release urea and urea super granule (USG) have the
potential to increase the productivity of rice (Emran et al., 2019; Mi et al., 2019;
Jiana et al., 2017). Using appropriate N fertilizer sources is important for
improving N use efficiency of crop plants (Fageria, 2009). Such practice increases
not only yield, but also reduces cost of production and environmental pollution.
There are still few studies in the literature that demonstrate the effects of applying
slow N nutrient releasing fertilizers for upland rice crop (Maria et al., 2016;
Amare et al., 2019). Thus, the aim of this study was to determine appropriate N
nutrient sources in relation to rates and time of Nitrogen fertilizer application on
yield and yield components of upland rice (NERICA-4) production in Fogera
Plain.

The experiment was conducted for two consecutive cropping seasons in the years
2018-2019 at Fogera, Northwest Ethiopia, on four farmers’ fields. The study at
Fogera area is situated at 11 °54.4'46.3''N to 11 °57'03.0''N latitude and
37 °41'23.9''E to 37 °42'32.2'' E longitude at elevation range of 1787-1812 m.a.s.l.
The study site has minimum and maximum temperatures of 12.75°C and 27.37°C,
respectively. The area receives averages mean annual rainfall of 1219 mm. The
long-term rainfall data (1986-2019) years indicated that much of the rainfall
appear in June and September. It has a heavy clay soil with pH range of 5.87-
6.63, which is slightly acidic and it is a preferred range for most crops (Table 1).
Total nitrogen content was with range of 0.09-0.16%, which is classified as low
levels (0.02-0.5%) for tropical soils. The organic matter content of the soil was
between 2.13-3.09%, which is within a range of medium (2-4%) for Ethiopian
soils as per criteria developed by Murphy (1968). The available P content of the
experimental sites soil was 11.4-25.13 ppm, which lies in a range of deficiency (<
20-40 ppm) for most crops (Landon, 1991).
[607]
Table 1. Relevant soil physio-chemical properties of the experimental field before planting in Fogera Plain of Northwest
Ethiopia
Soil properties Units Minimum Value Maximum value

Textural class Heavy clay Heavy clay
Chemical properties
pH (H2O) 1:2.5 g soil - 5.87 6.63
Total nitrogen (TN) % 0.09 0.16
Organic carbon (OC) % 1.24 1.93
Organic matter (OM) % 2.13 3.09
Available Phosphorus Ppm 11.4 25.13
The experimental treatments were comprised of factorial combinations of two N-

source (UREA-stable and common-UREA), three level of N-rates (69, 103.5 and
138 kg ha-1), and three times of N application (T1=1/3 at planting, 1/3 at tillering
and 1/3 at PI, T2=1/3 15 DAS, 1/3 at PI and 1/3 at heading, T3=1/3 15 DAS, 2/3
at PI) tested in randomized complete block design with three replications.
Phosphorous at rate of 46 kg P2O5 ha-1 was commonly applied at planting for all
treatments. The rice was drill planted in row at a spacing of 20cm with a seed rate
of 100 kg/ha. The gross and net plot sizes were 3m x 4m and 2.2m x 3m,
respectively. The commonly grown Nerica-4 variety was used as a test crop.
Data collected include plant height, panicle length, number of total tillers/m2,
number of effective tillers/m2, number of fertile spikes/panicle, thousand seeds
weight, grain yield, straw yield, aboveground biological yield and harvest index.
The plant height was taken at physiological maturity of the crop by selecting five
random tillers. Number of tillers was counted just before harvesting by random
sampling using rulers. The total sundried biomass of the harvested rice was
recorded before threshing. The harvest index was calculated as the ratio of grain
yield to biological yield following the equation.
E onomi yield
ar ested inde 100
iologi al yield
The rice grain yield and thousand seeds weight were adjusted at 14% standard
moisture content.
Data Analysis
All collected data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SAS
software version 9.2 (SAS-Institute, 2008). Since the test of homogeneity of
variances for each parameter was non-significant, combined analysis of variance
was done over the years to determine the effects of N source and rates by year
interaction. Wherever treatment differences are be found significant, mean
separation of treatments was calculated based on results of F-test and probability
levels of 0.01 and 0.05 depending on the results of the ANOVA.
[608]
Economic analysis was carried out by following CIMMYT (1988) procedures by
taking all variable costs. The prevailing cost of inputs and out puts in year 2019
were considered for the analysis. The costs of common Urea and Urea stable
fertilizers for the stated period at the study area were ETBirr 13.1 and 26.2 per kg,
respectively, while the paddy rice grain price of ETBirr 13.5 kg-1 and straw price
1.2 ETBirr kg-1 were considered for the analysis.

The analysis of variance indicated that the rates and time of nitrogen applications
were significantly affecting most of the parameters. However; the different
nitrogen source fertilizers as well as all interactions of the treatments did not bring
statistically significant difference in all the considered growth and yield
parameters (Table 1). Though many literatures (Indira, 2005; Norman et al., 2008;
Das et al., 2015; Amare et al., 2019) stated significant effects of slow releasing N
nutrient sources on yield and yield components, Maria et al., (2016) and Jiana et
al. (2017) have reported non-significant effects in line with the present finding.
The findings of Jina et al., (2017) had reported that though there was non-
significant difference between N sources, the ranking of treatments showed that
ordinary urea fertilizer applied in splits (50% at pre plant and other 50% at the
tillering stage) produced better grain and biomass yields compared to single dose
application of controlled-release N fertilizer all at rate of 108 kg N ha-1.
Furthermore, the works of Maria et al. (2016) which was done on upland rice
concerning different nitrogen sources indicated that coated slow releasing urea did
not provide increases in rice grain yield in relation to common urea. This fact
shows that the coated urea sources behave similarly to common urea in some
situations. A possible explanation for this lack of results could be the rains that
occurred shortly after the application of the nitrogen fertilizers. This rain condition
up to three days after nitrogen fertilization with urea is considered ideal to obtain
better efficiency of N applied at topdressing, since N losses are minimal regardless
of the source or form of the nitrogen fertilizer (Maria et al., 2016). Thus, for the
conditions where rain incorporating urea, the choice of what source of N would be
used will depend on the price. In this case, common urea is advantageous over the
other nitrogenous fertilizers tested. Likewise, Fageria and Carvalho (2014) found
no differences in rice when using common urea and urea coated with polymer.
Thus, according to these authors, the use of coated urea appears feasible only in
places with risk of dry spells greater than nine days after the completion of
nitrogen topdressing (Maria et al., 2016).
[609]
Table 1: Mean square values of analysis of variance (ANOVA) for rice yield and yield components
SV DF PH (cm) PL NT/m NFT/Mrl NIT/Mrl NFG/P NUG/P GY SY TSW HI
Loc 3 280.58** 197.22** 442.94* 316.94NS 3.617NS 13175.28** 88.82** 92.98** 1690.05** 320.82** 4327.68**
NR 2 412.51** 87.50NS 341.33NS 580.21* 18.143** 252.44NS 32.32NS 22.04** 42.16** 6.52NS 19.04NS
SN 1 0.819NS 55.30NS 263.46NS 591.25* 0.254NS 1.86NS 52.72NS 0.19NS 4.66NS 4.46NS 13.53NS
Rep 2 44.41NS 35.35NS 120.60NS 230.49NS 14.889NS 364.51NS 2.01NS 0.67NS 5.16NS 9.38NS 27.41NS
TAN 2 623.59** 9.034NS 264.17NS 148.97NS 67.907** 244.62NS 19.85NS 6.28** 8.15** 44.98** 126.29*
Loc*NR 6 51.10* 30.71NS 113.37NS 101.88NS 3.636NS 159.12NS 31.37NS 0.59NS 6.15NS 2.89NS 19.88NS
Loc*SN 3 33.53NS 52.00NS 177.27NS 198.91NS 1.136NS 774.55NS 4.74NS 0.12NS 1.81NS 7.07NS 18.08NS
Loc*Rep 4 187.52** 22.36NS 33.34NS 25.59NS 2.713NS 105.32NS 11.42NS 2.66NS 3.87NS 4.36NS 16.15NS
Loc*TNA 4 38.95NS 17.77NS 128.66NS 92.90NS 5.092NS 231.32NS 28.48NS 0.78NS 2.10NS 0.48NS 30.09NS
NS*NR 2 24.21NS 42.91NS 168.17NS 296.17NS 8.366NS 167.97NS 13.10NS 0.201NS 0.21NS 3.41NS 14.73NS
NR*Rep 4 37.65NS 43.97NS 171.62NS 189.10NS 0.611NS 122.73NS 26.94NS 0.38NS 0.56NS 3.93NS 4.503NS
NR X TNA 4 26.47NS 59.52NS 334.69NS 296.75NS 0.880NS 282.56NS 23.68NS 0.233NS 1.61NS 5.45NS 11.82NS
NS*Rep 2 3.922NS 25.21NS 1173.30NS 915.57** 2.296NS 628.06NS 11.70NS 0.025NS 1.01NS 3.13NS 7.63NS
NSX TNA 2 30.98NS 40.38NS 267.95NS 115.57NS 2.018NS 151.12NS 47.48NS 0.52NS 2.19NS 14.78NS 37.12NS
TNA*Rep 4 4.451NS 50.89NS 188.85NS 201.13NS 4.852NS 657.99NS 21.96NS 0.17NS 0.55NS 1.7NS 4.27NS
Loc*SN*NR 6 68.90** 16.01NS 251.73NS 163.13NS 4.341NS 479.46NS 15.32NS 0.79NS 0.86NS 2.44NS 29.59NS
Loc*NR*Rep 8 13.09NS 48.08NS 154.23NS 205.91NS 2.685NS 211.09NS 8.28NS 0.24NS 1.52NS 3.07NS 6.01NS
Loc*NR*TNA 8 23.22NS 61.45NS 46.14NS 58.06NS 2.065NS 185.08NS 7.75NS 0.40NS 1.23NS 5.48NS 14.80NS
Loc*SN*Rep 4 21.78NS 25.50NS 404.69NS 553.12** 5.731NS 426.01NS 10.08NS 0.12NS 2.45NS 4.39NS 36.88NS
Loc*SN*TNA 4 6.19NS 21.44NS 218.92NS 362.17NS 2.592NS 125.75NS 16.63NS 0.59NS 0.83NS 4.00NS 21.16NS
Loc*TNA*Rep 8 22.03NS 59.72NS 78.99NS 147.14NS 5.1759NS 416.08NS 25.68NS 0.25NS 0.90NS 8.10NS 18.61NS
SN*NR*Rep 4 15.20NS 37.35NS 66.348NS 59.41NS 2.592NS 372.86NS 49.88NS 1.12NS 0.62NS 11.76NS 10.038NS
SN*NR*TNA 4 32.45NS 42.31NS 252.81NS 161.31NS 0.592NS 62.58NS 30.76NS 0.61NS 4.53NS 8.10NS 41.08NS
NR*TNA*Rep 8 10.48NS 43.56NS 103.89NS 99.51NS 3.379NS 420.67NS 12.74S 0.27NS 2.28NS 6.43NS 18.70NS
SN*TNA*Rep 4 31.33NS 40.53NS 81.66NS 88.26NS 0.815NS 336.42NS 3.72NS 0.45NS 1.33NS 6.76NS 7.34NS
Error 104 19.45 36.14 152.56 150.23 3.10 321.80 15.00 0.76 2.50 4.34 21.34
CV% 5.6 23.5 17.35 18.0 18.86 20.35 24.85 18.6 17.08 7.37 12.32
SE+ 4.41 6.01 12.35 12.25 1.76 17.94 3.87 0.873 1.581 2.08 4.62
*SV, source of variation; DF= Degrees of Freedom, Nr= Nitrogen rate, SN= Source of Nitrogen, TNA- Time of nitrogen application, **= Significant at 1 % probability level,
*= Significant at 5 % probability level, NS= Non significant
[610]
The variation in nitrogen rates brings highly (p< 0.01) significant difference in
plant height, number of infertile tillers, grain yield and straw yield. Moreover, the
nitrogen rate showed significant (p<0.05) difference in the number of total tillers.
The time of application was highly significantly (p<0.01) affecting plant height,
number of infertile tillers, grain yield, straw yield and thousand seeds weight,
while it was significantly (p<0.05) affecting the harvest index (Table 1). Plant
height reveals the overall vegetative growth of the crop in response to various
management practices. It was found that application of N fertilizers increased the
plant height signifi antly, but ma imum plant height (77.35 m) was obtained
when N was applied at the maximum rate of 138 kg N ha-1 (Table 2). Indira
(2005) also reported increased level of leaf N with applied N bring an increase in
plant height of rice. The increase in plant height in response to application of N
fertilizers is probably due to enhanced availability of nitrogen which enhanced
more leaf area resulting in higher photo assimilates and thereby resulted in more
dry matter accumulation. Regarding the number of tillers, highest fertile tillers
number (70.37 m-1 row); while the lowest number of infertile tillers (2.57 m-1
row) were observed with the application of the maximum N rate (Table 2).
Number of tillers per unit area is the most important component of yield. More the
number of tillers, especially fertile tillers, the more will be the yield. More number
of tillers /m2 in experiment might be due to the more availability of nitrogen that
played a vital role in cell division. The current result is in accordance to the
findings of Indira (2005) and Maria et al. (2016). A ording to Indira (2005), as
the amount of nitrogen absorbed by the crop increases, there is an increase in the
number of tillers per square meter. Concerning the yield parameters, highest grain
yield (5.3 tha-1) and straw yield (10.0 tha-1) were obtained from the highest rate
(138 N kg ha-1) (Table 2). In agreement with the current finding, Norman et al.,
(2008) had reported that rice grain yields increased as N fertilizer rate increased
for all of the N sources. Jiana et al., (2017) had also reported an increase in grain
and biomass yields with an increase in N rates irrespective of nitrogen sources.
Grain yield results for the different N rates reflect that the total N uptake is quite
well (Norman et al., 2008).
Regarding the nitrogen application timing, highest plant height (77.5 cm), grain
yield (4.9 t ha-1), straw yield (9.6 tha-1) and thousand seeds weight (28.9 g) and
lowest number of infertile tillers (1.83 m-1 row) were observed when 1/3 of the
nitrogen was applied 15 days after sowing (DAS) and the remaining 2/3 at panicle
initiation (PI) (Table 3). The highest harvest index (38.98%) was exhibited when
nitrogen was applied 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at panicle initiation
(PI) (Table 3). Similar to the current finding, Garibaldi et al., (2017) observed that
highest plant height, number of productive tillers and grain yield was obtained
when nitrogen was applied ½ of the dose at planting time, and the rest
administered after 42 days after planting than applying the N full dose at planting.
Corroborating these results, Jiana et al. (2017) also reported highest rice spikelets
[611]
per panicle, grain yield, grain weight and total biomass when the ordinary urea
fertilizer was applied as a split application at two rice developmental stages: one
(50%) at preplanting and other (50%) at the tillering stage than the one time
application of the ordinary urea and controlled-release fertilizers. Jina et al. (2017)
have further elaborated that there were no significant differences between N use
efficiency indices of the common urea split applied and the single dose application
of the controlled-release fertilizers.

Following the CIMYYT (1988) partial budget analysis method, grain and straw
yield adjustments, calculations of total variable costs (TVC), gross benefits (GB)
and net benefits (NB) were performed (Table 4). Dominance analysis was carried
after arranging the treatments in their order of TVC. A treatment will be
considered as dominated if it has higher TVC but lower NB than a previous
treatment with lower TVC and higher NB (Table 5). Non dominated treatments
were taken out and marginal rate of return (MRR) was computed (Table 6).
According to the CIMYYT (1988), partial budget analysis methodology,
treatments exhibiting the minimum or more MRR (>100%) will be considered for
the comparison of their NB. Highest NB (Birr 76,169.3 ha-1) with acceptable level
of MRR (367.55%) was observed with the use of common urea at 138 N kg ha-1
applied 1/3 of the N applied 15 days after sowing (DAS) and the remaining 2/3 at
panicle initiation (Table 6).
[612]
Table 4. Results of grain and straw yield adjustments, total variable cost, gross and net benefit analysis
N source N Rate Time of N application AGY ASY Total Gross benefit Net benefit
(kg ha-1) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) Variable cost (Birr ha-1) (Birr ha-1)
(Birr ha-1)
Urea stable 69 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 3983.22 6999.75 5330 62173.17 56843.17
Urea stable 69 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 3090.78 8221.5 5330 51591.33 46261.33
Urea stable 69 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 3812.22 7220.97 5130 60130.13 55000.13
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 4546.53 7888.5 7295 70844.36 63549.36
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 3844.53 7818.75 6495 61283.66 54788.66
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 4400.28 9021.78 6295 70229.92 63934.92
Urea stable 138 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 5042.25 9239.22 9260 79157.44 69897.44
Urea stable 138 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 4452.03 8300.97 8460 70063.57 61603.57
Urea stable 138 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 4581 9394.47 8260 73116.86 64856.86
Common urea 69 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 3791.25 7774.47 3365 60511.24 57146.24
Common urea 69 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 3681.72 7191.72 2565 58333.28 55768.28
Common urea 69 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 3588.75 8255.25 2365 58354.43 55989.43
Common urea 103.5 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 4056.75 8624.97 4347.5 65116.09 60768.59
Common urea 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 4119.75 8424 3547.5 65725.43 62177.93
Common urea 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 4421.25 8380.53 3347.5 69743.51 66396.01
Common urea 138 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 5193.72 9486.72 5330 81499.28 76169.28
Common urea 138 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 4421.97 7978.5 4530 69270.8 64740.8
Common urea 138 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 4827.78 9708.03 4330 76824.67 72494.67
[613]
Table 5. Result of dominance analysis
Total Variable cost Net benefit

N source N Rate (kg ha-1) Time of N application (Birr ha-1) (Birr ha-1)
Common urea 69 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 2365 55989.43
Common urea 69 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 2565 55768.28 D
Common urea 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 3347.5 66396.01
Common urea 69 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 3365 57146.24 D
Common urea 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 3547.5 62177.93 D
Common urea 138 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 4330 72494.67
Common urea 103.5 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 4347.5 60768.59 D
Common urea 138 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 4530 64740.8 D
Urea stable 69 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 5130 55000.13 D
Urea stable 69 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 5330 56843.17 D
Urea stable 69 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 5330 46261.33 D
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 6295 63934.92 D
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 6495 54788.66 D
Urea stable 103.5 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 7295 63549.36 D
Urea stable 138 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 8260 64856.86 D
Urea stable 138 1/3 15DAS + 1/3 at PI + 1/3 at heading 8460 61603.57 D
Urea stable 138 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 1/3 at PI 9260 69897.44 D
D, dominated
[614]
Table 6. Result of marginal rate of return (MRR) analysis
Total Variable Net benefit

N source N Rate (kg ha-1) Time of N application cost (Birr ha-1) (Birr ha-1) MRR (%)

Common urea 103.5 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 3347.5 66396.01 1059.195
Common urea 138 1/3 at planting + 1/3 at tillering + 4330 72494.67 620.7282
1/3 at PI
Common urea 138 1/3 15DAS + 2/3 at PI 5330 76169.28 367.4618

Low nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) is observed in most agricultural systems due
to rapid N losses through ammonia volatilization, denitrification, surface runoff,
and leaching. Split application of N and use of slow N nutrient releasing fertilizers
are among the known methods of increasing NUE. The current experiment was
conducted in Fogera plain to determine appropriate N nutrient sources in relation
to rates and time of Nitrogen fertilizer application on yield and yield components
of upland rice (NERICA-4) production. The results of the experiment indicated
that the split application of common urea was better than the single dose
application of slow releasing urea. It is finally recommended that the urea should
be used at the rate of 138 Kg N ha-1 with 1/3 of the N applied 15 days after sowing
and the remaining 2/3 at panicle initiation for the production of upland rice in the
study area.
References
Amare Aleminew, Getachew Alemayehu, Enyew Adgo and Tilahun Tadesse. 2019. Response
of rain-fed lowland rice varieties to different sources of N fertilizer in Fogera Plain,
Northwest Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5: 1707020
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2019.1707020. Cogent Food & Agriculture (ISSN:
2331-1932) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Chen, D. A., Suter, H. A., Islam, A. A., Edis, R. A., Freney, J. R., & Walker, C. N. .2008..
Prospe ts of impro ing effi ien y of fertilizer nitrogen in Australian agri ulture: A
re iew of enhan ed effi ien y fertilizers. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 46, 289–
301. doi:10.1071/SR07197.
Colaco, A. F., & Bramley, R. G. V. 2018. Do crop sensors promote improved nitrogen
management in grain crops? Field Crops Research, 218, 126–140.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2018.01.007.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2018. Report on Area and Production of Major Crops
(Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season) The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey Volume I, 2018 /19
(2011 E.C.). April, 2019. ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia.
CSA. (Central Statistical Agency) .2019. Report on area and production of major crops
(private peasant holdings, meher season). The federal democratic republic of Ethiopia
[615]
central statistical agency agricultural sample survey 2018/19 (2011 E.C.). Volume i.
Statistical bulletin 589.
Das S., M. R. Islam*, M. Sultana, H. Afroz and M. A. Hashem. 2015. Effect of deep
placement of nitrogen fertilizers on rice yield and n use efficiency under water regimes.
SAARC J. Agri., 13 (2): 161-172 (2015).
Dawit Alemu. 2015. Rice in Ethiopia: Progress in Production Increase and Success Factors.
6th CARD General Meeting; Ethiopian, Journal at Institute of Agricultural Research,
1-22.
Emran, S. A., Krupnik, T. J., Kumar, V., Ali, M. Y., & Pittelkow, C. M. 2019. Agronomic,
e onomi , and en ironmental performan e of nitrogen rates and sour e in angladesh’s
coastal rice agroecosystems. Field Crops Research, 241, 107567–107578.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107567.
Fageria, N. K. 2009. The use of nutrients in crop plants (pp. 430). Boca Raton, London, New
York: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group.
Fageria, N. K. and Carvalho, M.C.S. 2014. Comparison of conventional and polymer-coated
urea as nitrogen sources for lowland rice production. Journal of Plant Nutrition, New
York, v. 37, p. 1358-1371, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2014.888736
FAOSTAT (Statistics Division Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations). 2018. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data
Gebey, T., K. Berhe, D. Hoekstra and A. Bogale. 2012. Rice value chain development in
Fogera woreda based on the IPMS experience. Nairobi, Kenya: ILRI. 23pp.
Gribaldi G, N. Nurlaili, N. Dewi, E. Danial, F. Sakalena, and R.A. Suwignyo. 2017. Modified
Application of Nitrogen Fertilizer for Increasing Rice Variety Tolerance toward
Submergence Stress. International Journal of Agronomy Volume 2017, Article ID
9734036, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9734036.
Huang Shuangjie, Chunfang Zhao, Yali Zhang and Cailin Wang. 2016. Nitrogen Use
Efficiency in Rice. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69052. © 2016 The Author(s).
Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
Indira Chaturvedi. 2005. EFFECT OF NITROGEN FERTILIZERS ON GROWTH, YIELD
AND QUALITY OF HYBRID RICE (ORYZA SATIVA). Journal of Central European
Agriculture Vol 6 (2005) No 4.
Chen, J., Cao, F., Xiong, H., Huang, M., Zou, Y., & Xiong, Y. (2017). Effects of single basal
application of coated compound fertilizer on yield and nitrogen use efficiency in
double-cropped rice. The Crop Journal, 5(3), 265-270.
Maria da Conceição Santana CARVALHO, Adriano Stephan NASCENTE and Paulo César
TEIXEIRA. 2016. Fertilizers with coated urea in upland rice production and nitrogen
apparent recovery. Biosci. J., Uberlândia, v. 32, n. 5, p. 1155-1164, Sept./Oct. 2016.
Mi, W., Gao, Q., Xia, S., Zhao, ., Wu, L., Mao, W., … Liu, Y. (2019). Medium-term effects
of different types of N fertilizer on yield, apparent N recovery, and soil chemical
properties of a double rice cropping system. Field Crops Research, 234, 87 –94.
doi:10.1016/j. fcr.2019.02.012.
MulugetaSeyoum and HelufGebre-Kidan. (2014). Inherent Properties and Fertilizer Effects of
Flooded Rice Soil. Journal Agronomy 13(2): 72–78.
Norman R. J., C. E. Wilson, N. A. Slaton, B. R. Griggs and E. E. Gbur. 2008. Nitrogen
Fertilizer Sources and Timing before Flooding Dry-Seeded, Delayed-Flood Rice. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 73:2184-2190 doi:10.2136/sssaj2008.0309
[616]
Evaluating the Compatibility of High Land
Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]
Varieties for Relay-Intercropping with Chickpea
[Cicer arietinum (L.)] at High Land Areas of West
Hararghe, Ethiopia
Husen Yesuf 1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Chiro National Sorghum Research and Training Center,
P.O.Box. 190, Chiro, Ethiopia; E-mail: husenyesuf39@gmail.com
Abstract
Relay-intercropping is a method of multiple cropping which is growing of two crops
on the same land during the same production year, and double-cropping of a second
crop is seeded in to standing first crop before harvesting first crop. The field
experiment was conducted at high land areas of West Hararge, Ethiopia during 2017
to 2019 cropping season. Seven improved and one local sorghum varieties were
relay intercropped with chickpea at 1: 2 sorghum-chickpea and compared with sole
sorghum and sole chickpea giving a total of ten treatments. The experiments were
arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications.
Combined analysis of variance over the three study years showed cropping system
was very highly significantly (P≤ 0.0001) influenced the grain yield, plant height and
stand count at harvest of sorghum likewise, cropping system was also caused very
highly significant (P≤ 0.0001) effect on grain yield, pod number per plant and stand
count at harvest of chickpea. The highest mean grain yield (4.28tha -1) & (2.33tha-1)
of sorghum and chickpea respectively were recorded from relay-intercropped
sorghum at 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement and sole-cropped chickpea
respectively, and from this, extra grain yield (20.79%) & (54.08%) of sorghum and
chickpea respectively were recorded from relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea
at 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement and sole-cropped chickpea over sole-
cropped sorghum and 1:2 Chiro + Chickpea relay-intercropping row arrangement.
Therefore, relay-intercropped sorghum at 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement and
sole chickpea respectively were found the best cropping systems for sorghum and
chickpea respectively and recommended for future use. The effectiveness of the
relay-intercropping system was evaluated using LER index. The highest total land
equivalent ratio {TLER} (1.99) was obtained from sorghum-chickpea relay-
intercropping system at 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement which is implying that
there was yield advantage, since TLER was greater than unity. Generally, this result
is confirming that sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping system was found
beneficial for improvement of sorghum grain yield, however, not beneficial for
improvement of chickpea grain yield. On the other hand, sole-cropping system was
beneficial for grain yield improvement of chickpea but not beneficial for grain yield
of sorghum.
Introduction
Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) is a C4 annual grass which can produce high
forage bio-mass yields per unit of land (Fribourg 1995, Rooney et al., 2007). The most
[617]
important producers of grain sorghum are USA, India, Nigeria and China (FAO, 2009).
Within the species Sorghum bicolor which is characterized by a diploid set of
chromosomes (2n = 20) are several subspecies or races with different morphological and
physiological characteristics (Zeller, 2000). Since plant breeders found first lines with
cytoplasmatic male sterility in 1950ies years hybrid breeding technology is established in
Sorghum bicolor too. Sorghum biomass is variously used for the production of energy,
fiber or paper, as well as for syrup and animal feed in several regions (Steduto et al.,
1997).
The C4 cereals, like sorghum are originated from the tropics and can tolerate heat and
drought condition more effectively as compared with C3 plants (like wheat), which
originated from temperate regions (Blum et al., 1990, Chapman and Carter, 1976). Under
arid environmental conditions, osmotic adjustment is imperative in the drought resistance
of many C4 plants (Slatyer, 1963) and may enable sorghum to grow when leaf water
potential is low (Craufurd et al., 1993). Due to several morphological and physiological
properties, sorghum is better drought resistant in comparison with maize (Purseglove,
1972).
Chickpea {Cicer arietinum (L.)} accounts more than 17% of legumes in Ethiopia with a
production of 0.47 million tons on an area of 258,486.29 ha (CSA, 2016) with the
engagement of over one million households. Chickpea is also an important export
commodity where both export volume and export earnings of the country are increasing,
especially in the last decade (FAOSTAT, 2016). Ethiopia is the leading producer,
consumer and exporter of chickpea in Africa, and is among the top ten most important
producers in the world. However, its production is challenged by low productivity of
landraces, poor farming practices, biotic and abiotic stresses, among others. The
chickpea improvement program in Ethiopia made considerable efforts to overcome the
aforementioned constraints and developed 27 improved varieties and management
technologies coupled with their dissemination to farmers. This resulted in paradigm
shift of the Ethiopian chickpea production that progressed from landrace cultivars to
improved varieties together with enhanced adoption of production packages
recommended by research.
Multiple cropping is the practice of growing two or more crops on the same piece of land
in one year. The intensification of production through multiple cropping systems has
temporal and spatial dimensions (Chandrasekaran et al., 2010). Relay cropping refers to
planting of the succeeding crop before harvesting the preceding crop, without leaving the
land fallow between the two successive crops.Traditionally, sorghum is cultivated in
many cropping systems such as sole or mono cropping, mixed, many forms of
intercropping systems and in rotation with different crops. In Eastern part maize and
sorghum are commonly mixed or row intercropped with common bean by peasant farmers
(Getachew, et al., 2006). At high land of East and West Hararge Zones land holding is so
small that annual crop production does not wholly meet household subsistence needs.
Hence, farmers practice, relay cropping of sorghum with chickpea to maximize
productivity. However, crop production per unit land area is usually below world average
(Fininsa, 2001). Therefore, in diversified crop production systems having production
constraints, diversified options need to be assessed. So objective of this study is to
[618]
evaluate the compatibility of high land sorghum varieties for relay cropping with chickpea
and to evaluate the relative importance of relay cropping with sole.

Treatments and Experimental Design
The field experiment was conducted using eight sorghum variety (Jiru, Dibaba, Adelle,
Chiro, Chelenko, AL70, Local sorghum & ETS2752) treatments relay-intercropped with
chickpea at (1:2) sorghum + chickpea row arrangements, one sole sorghum and one sole
chickpea forming ten cropping system treatments arranged in a randomized complete
block design with three replications. Treatments were encompassed eight sorghum-
chickpea relay-intercropping at 1:2 (Jiru var. + Chickpea, Dibaba var + Chickpea, Adelle
var + Chickpea, Chiro var + Chickpea, Chelenko var + Chickpea, AL70 var + Chickpea,
Local sorghum + Chickpea and ETS2752 var + Chickpea) row arrangements, one sole
sorghum and one sole chickpea forming10 cropping systems.
Experimental Area Description

The field experiment was conducted during the rainy period of the year from 2017 to
2019 cropping seasons at high land areas of West Hararge. West Hararghe is subdivided
into three major climatic zones known to be highland locally known as dega (12.49%),
mid-land or woinadega (38%), and dry or kola (49.5%). The topography of the zone is
characterized by steep slopes in the highlands and mid-plains in the lowland areas. The
mean monthly minimum temperature ranging from 160C to 200C and maximum is 240C to
280C. Rainfall is dispersed the year into two rainy seasons, belg February-April and
meher or main season rains fall from June-September with small showers in dry months.
Annual rainfall averages range from below 700 mm for the lower kolla to nearly 1,200
mm for the higher elevations of woinadega and dega areas.
Land preparation, leveling and Sowing

The land of experimental field was tilled, leveled and divided into three blocks and thirty
(30) individual plots. The size of each plot was 6m x 4 m (24m2). Spacing between plots
was 0.50m, while between blocks was 1 m. The sowing operation was done in two
rounds. In the first round, sorghum seeds were sown on a well tilled and leveled plots in
rows at 75cm x 25cm inter and intra row spacing respectively. Likewise, chickpea seeds
were sown in to standing first crop/or sorghum in rows at 10cm interval intra row spacing
between sorghum rows at 1:2 sorghum + chickpea relay-intercropping row arrangements
and sole-cropped without sorghum while the sorghum attained physiological maturity but
before harvesting. All management practices were carried out side by side with regular
field follow up.
[619]
Data Collection and Measuring
Sorghum
Plant height (m) was measured as the height from the soil surface to the tip of five
randomly taken plants from the net plot area at physiological maturity and the average
was taken for analysis. Stand count was counted at physiological maturity before
harvesting. Hundred seed weight (g) was determined by putting 100 seeds into three
replications and weighting them separately using sensitive balance and finally their
averaged weight was taken and adjusted to 10% moisture content. Grain yield per plot
(kg/plot) was measured using sensitive balance and then adjusted to 10% seed moisture
content using a digital moisture tester and converted to hectare basis. Adjusted yield was
calculated using Hellevang (1995) formula.
Adjusted yield = X obtained yield
(100-standard moisture)
Chickpea
Plant height (cm) was determined at harvest maturity. After harvest ten randomly selected
plants from the middle six rows of each plot were taken and the height of sample plant
was measured using meter tape and total height of sample plants was divided by total
sample plants and their average values were used for analysis.
All yield and yield components were determined at harvest. Number of pods per plant,
number of seed per pod, hundred seed weight and grain yield determined after harvest.
Number of pods per plant was determined by counting total number of pods of ten
randomly selected plants from the middle rows of each plot divided by sample plants and
their average values were used for analysis. Similarly, number of seed per pod was
determined by counting total number of seed of ten sample plants from the middle rows
of each plot divided by the total number of pod of sample plants and average values per
pod were used for analysis. Except pods for economic yield determination, all pods of
plants harvested were threshed by thresher machine. Grain yield per plot was measured
using sensitive balance and then adjusted to 10 % seed moisture content using digital
moisture tester and converted to hectare basis. Adjusted yield was calculated by using the
following formula (Hellevang, 1995). Hundred (100) seed weight was determined by
weighing 2 samples of 100 seeds per plot using sensitive balance (Maphosa et al., 2015;
Taleshmikayeilm et al., 2013).
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)

Land equivalent ratio (LER) which evaluates the effectiveness of cropping system/or
relay-intercropping for using the resources (solar energy, water, air, nutrient etc.)
compared to sole cropping. The LER values were calculated as: LER = (LERS +
LERCP), where LERS = YIS/YS and LERCP= YICP/YCP, where YS and YCP are the
yields of sorghum and chickpea as sole while YIS and YICP are the yields of sorghum
and chickpea respectively. The land equivalent coefficient (LEC) was also calculated
using the following formula. LEC is: LER sorghum × LER chickpea.
[620]
Statistical Data Analysis
All collected data were analyzed using R software (R 3.4.1) and Means that differ
significantly were separated using the LSD procedure at 5% level of significance.

Sorghum component
Grain Yield
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years showed that cropping system
was very highly significantly (P≤0.001) influenced the grain yield of sorghum (Table 1).
The highest mean grain yield (4.28 t ha-1) of sorghum was obtained from Jiru + Chickpea
(1:2) row relay-intercropped arrangement; however, the lower grain yield (3.39tha-1) was
obtained from sole-cropped sorghum. It is in agreement with the finding of Merkeb et al.,
(2016) who reported that relay intercropping of sorghum-groundnut with single and
double alternate arrangement gave significantly higher grain yield of sorghum. Similarly,
Salih (2002) reported that the grain yield of sorghum was increased when intercropped
with soybean. This result showing that 20.79% extra grain yield was recorded from relay-
intercropped sorghum as compared to sole-cropped sorghum. In agreement with finding
of Nyambo et al (1980) who reported that relay cropping sorghum with soybean and
green gram gave 59% more return per acre, respectively, than mono cropping of sorghum,
the increment in grain yield coming mainly as a result of higher cereal yield. In
contrasting to this, 20.79% yield reduction was observed from sole-cropped sorghum
when compared to relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea, and this is clearly
indicating the superiority of relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea over the sole
sorghum in relation to grain yield. There were also other combinations which produced
grain yield lower than the sole chickpea/or control except Jiru + Chickpea (1:2) & Dibaba
+ Chickpea (1:2) row arrangements which produced grain yield higher than the sole-
chickpea. This situation might be due to incompatibility and presence of high interspecific
competition for resource (sun light, water, nutrient, etc.).
The highest grain yield recorded from relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea was
might be due to effectiveness of the intercropping and complementarity between
component crops. This is in agreement with find of Aliyu and Emechebe, (2006) who
reported that higher grain yield may also be attributed to the effectiveness of cropping
system. Another reason for this also could be due to efficient use of the resources and
conversion ability to the grain yield. Based on this result, relay-intercropped sorghum
variety with chickpea at Jiru + Chickpea (1:2) row arrangement was the best promising
combination for maximum grain yield of sorghum and could be recommended for future
use.
Plant Height
The combined analysis of the variance showed that cropping system was very highly
significantly (P≤0.0001) affected the plant height of sorghum (Table 1). The highest mean
plant height (3.17m), (3.13m) & (3.1m) respectively were obtained from relay-
intercropped sorghum with chickpea at Jiru + Chickpea ( 1:2 ), Adelle + Chickpea ( 1:2 )
and Chelenko + Chickpea ( 1:2 ) row arrangements respectively, while the lowest plant
height (3m) was recorded from sole-cropped sorghum(Table 1). This result is in line with
[621]
finding of Merkeb et al., (2016) who reported that the highest plant height was recorded
from sorghum-groundnut relay-intercropping in single (3.03 m) and double (3.02 m)
alternate arrangements. According to Ibrahim (1994), most mixtures showed higher plant
height than sole crops. Similarly, Enyi (1973) found that intercropping sorghum with
cowpea or pigeon pea tended to increase its height.
When comparison was made between relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea and sole
cropped sorghum, relay-intercropped sorghum was superior and caused 5.35% extra plant
height over the sole cropped sorghum. The superiority of relay-intercropped sorghum
over the sole-cropped sorghum in plant height was could be due to complementarity
between component crops and genetic potential of the crop to use resources (light, water,
mineral nutrients, plant hormones etc.). Thus, relay-intercropped sorghum at Jiru +
Chickpea (1:2) row arrangement followed by Adelle + Chickpea (1:2) & Chelenko +
Chickpea (1:2) cropping systems respectively were superior in plant height of sorghum.
Stand count at harvest

The combined analysis of the variance was showed that the stand count of sorghum was
significantly (P≤0.05) influenced by cropping system (Table 1). Relay-intercropped
sorghum was caused the highest stand count at harvest of sorghum (Table 1). The leading
first and second highest stand count (98plot-1 & 93plot-1 ) were obtained from relay-
intercropped sorghum with chickpea at 1:2 Dibaba + Chickpea &1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row
arrangement whereas the rest relay-intercropped arrangements were produced the next
highest stand count at harvest of sorghum, and the difference between these results were
not statistically significant (Table 1). However, the lowest mean stand count (62plot-1)
was obtained from relay-intercropped sorghum at 1:2 Local sorghum + Chickpea row
arrangement (Table 1).This indicates that an extra (26.19 to 36.74 %) stand count at
harvest was recorded from relay-intercropped sorghum as compared to relay-cropped
sorghum with lowest stand count. Relay-intercropped sorghum at 1:2 Dibaba + Chickpea
& 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangements respectively were first and second leading
highest combinations in stand count respectively, while the rest sorghum-chickpea relay-
intercropped combinations were produced the next highest stand count of sorghum.
Hence, relay-intercropped sorghum with chickpea at Dibaba + Chickpea (1:2) followed
by Jiru + Chickpea (1:2) row arrangement were found best and superior over the rest
combinations in stand count and could be recommended for future use.
[622]
Table 1. Combined mean grain yield, plant height, stand count at harvest and dry bio-mass of sorghum influenced by the
treatments
Cropping system treatments GY* PH SCAH DBM
(tha-1) (m) (Numberplot1) (kgplot-1)
1Jiru + Chickpea ( 1:2) 4.28a 3.17a 93.00ab 22.67
Dibaba + Chickpea( 1:2) 3.38b 3.00bc 98.00a 23.47
Adelle + Chickpea( 1:2) 3.11bc 3.13ab 85.00abc 22.17
Chiro + Chickpea( 1:2) 2.73bcd 3.00bc 84.00abcd 28.40
Chelenko + Chickpea( 1:2) 3.09bc 3.10ab 72.00bcd 22.33
AL70 + Chickpea( 1:2) 2.57cde 2.80d 86.00abc 17.70
ETS2752 + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.84e 2.83d 67.00cd 19.30
Sole sorghum 3.39 b 3.00 bc 93.00ab 28.30
Local sorghum + Chickpea( 1:2) 2.14de 2.93cd 62.00d 25.03
LSD (0.05) 0.80 0.140 22.12 6.034
CV% 15.94 2.69 15.80 15.27
Significant level *** *** * NS
*GY =Yield, PH = Plant Height, SCAH = Stand Count at Harvest & DBM = Dry Bio-Mass
Chickpea component
Grain yield
The combined analysis of the variance over three years indicated that cropping system
was showed very highly significant (P≤0.0001) effect on the grain yield of chickpea
(Table 2). Sole-cropped chickpea was produced significantly the highest grain yield
(2.33tha-1), whereas the lowest grain yield (1.07tha-1) of chickpea was obtained from
relay-intercropped chickpea at Chiro + Chickpea (1:2) row arrangement (Table 2), which
is in line with finding of Merkeb et al., (2016) who reported that both soybean and
groundnut planted as pure stands were recorded greater yield (1190.1 kg/ha and 1115.3
kg/ha respectively) than that produced from intercropped with sorghum. As compared to
relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum, sole-cropped chickpea was caused 54.08%
extra grain yield. This is indicating that sole-cropped chickpea was superior over the
relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum in grain yield. On the contrary, the grain yield
of relay-intercropped chickpea was reduced by 54.08% as compared to sole-cropped
chickpea (Table 2). It is in consistent with report of Reddy (1980) who expressed that
yield of pigeon pea in other mixed stands was greatly decreased, especially with
intercrops of sorghum and cow pea.
Production of the highest grain yield from sole-cropped chickpea was might be due to
absence of interspecific competition for resources and also might be due to efficient use
of resources and conversion ability to the grain yield. In consistent with finding of
Merkeb et al., (2016) who reported that the higher yield of sole soybean and groundnut
could be attributed to the least competition in pure standsand as compared to intercropped
with sorghum. Another reason could be due to absence of the shading effect due to taller
crop which suppresses the growth of dwarf crop. In agreement with finding of Ljoyah M.
O (2014) who reported that higher yield of soybean form sole cropping than that produced
from intercropped soybean was due to the shading effect of maize over soybean.
However, production of the lowest grain yield from relay-intercropped chickpea was
might be due to incompatibility and presence of interspecific competition for resources. In
line with report of Merkeb et al. (2016) who revealed that grain yield of groundnut was
[623]
recorded relatively lower from intercropping with sorghum due to severe competition for
growth resources. According to Muoneke et al. (2007), yield reduction in soybean
intercropped with maize and sorghum and attributed the yield depression to inter specific
competition and the depressive effect of the cereal. Shading effect of sorghum over
chickpea also could be the reason for the lowest grain yield of chickpea when inter-
cropped with sorghum, because shading effect by taller crop suppresses growth of dwarf
crop). Hence, this result clearly confirmed that relay-intercropping system was not
beneficial for grain yield improvement of chickpea, however, sole-cropping is the best
cropping system to maximize grain yield of chickpea.
Stand count at harvest

The combined analysis of the variance showed that cropping system was highly
significantly (P≤0.001) influenced the stand count of chickpea (Table 2). The analysis of
the variance indicated that sole-cropped chickpea was produced significantly the highest
mean stand count (340plot-`1) of chickpea, while, the relay-intercropped chickpea was
caused the lowest stand count (Table 2). The lowest stand count at harvest (131plot-1 and
130plot-1) respectively were obtained from relay-intercropped chickpea at 1:2 local
sorghum + Chickpea & 1:2 Chelenko + Chickpea row arrangements respectively, and the
difference between these results was insignificant (Table 2).
When this compared to relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum, sole-cropped chickpea

was increased by 61.47- 61.76% in stand count at harvest. This might be due to having
higher plant population per hectare. On the contrary, this is indicating that stand count
obtained from relay-intercropped chickpea was found to be reduced by 61.76 to 61.47%
as compared to sole-cropped chickpea. The reason behind for reduction of stand count
from relay-intercropped chickpea was might be due to having lower plant population per
hectare due to presence of shading effect caused by taller/ or sorghum crop. The highest
stand count recorded from sole-cropped chickpea was might be due to presence of the
highest plant population per hectare. On the other hand, the lowest stand count from
relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum was might be due to having the lowest plant
population number per hectare. Hence, sole cropped chickpea is superior over relay-
intercropped chickpea with sorghum for stand count of chickpea.
Number of pod per plant

The analysis of the variance indicated that cropping system was highly significantly
(P≤0.001) affected pod number per plant of chickpea (Table 2). The highest mean pod
number (243plant-1) was obtained from sole-cropped chickpea, whereas, the lowest pod
number (88plant-1, 89 plant-1, 90 plant-1 & 91plant-1) respectively were obtained from
relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum varieties at 1:2 Dibaba.+ Chickpea, 1:2 Chiro
+ Chickpea, 1:2 Local sorghum + Chickpea and 1:2 ETS2752 + Chickpea row
arrangements respectively and again, these results were not statistically different (Table
2). This is in line with finding of Lulie et al. (2016) who reported that maximum and
minimum number of pods per plant (29.93 and 16.57) was recorded from sole planting
and intercropping, respectively. Similarly, Ghosh (2004) reported that the pod number of
groundnut was lower in groundnut-cereal intercropped than in monoculture. With this
sole-cropped chickpea was caused 62.55 to 63.79% extra pod number per plant as
[624]
compared to relay-intercropped chickpea with sorghum. Production of the highest pod
number from sole-cropped chickpea was might be due to absence of interspecific
competition for resources (sun light, water, air, plant nutrient, etc.), and due to efficiently
use of resource which enhancing maximum pod production. Another reason also could be
due to absence of shading effect. In contrasting, relay-intercropped chickpea was showed
63.79 to 62.55% reduction in pod number per plant as compared to sole-cropped
chickpea. The production of lowest pod number from relay-intercropped chickpea is in
agreement with finding of Subramanian and Rao (1980) who reported that intercropping
pigeon pea with sorghum, found that the number of pods/plant in intercropped pigeon pea
was less than the sole crop.
The lowest pod number obtained from relay-intercropped chickpea was could be due to
incompatibility and presence of interspecific competition between component crops for
resource (sun light, water, air, plant nutrients etc.) utilization, and also could be due to
presence of shading effect caused by taller crop when relay-intercropped with dwarf crop.
Because taller crop suppresses growth of dwarf crop and causes lower pod production.
This is in agreement with finding of Hassan and Nader (1980) who found that
intercropping maize with pigeon pea inhibited vegetative growth of pigeon pea in
comparison with mono-cultural pigeon pea. Generally, this result is confirming that sole-
cropping is beneficial over relay-intercropping for maximum pod number of chickpea.
Hence, sole-cropped chickpea was best and superior over relay-intercropped chickpea in
pod production.
Table 2. Combined mean grain yield, hundred seed weight, plant height, stand count at harvest, number of pod per plant
and number of seed per pod of chickpea influenced by the treatments
Cropping system treatments GY* HSW PH SCAH NPPP NSPP

(tha-1) (gm100seed-1) (cm) (Numberplot-1) (Numberplant-1) (Number.pod-1)
Jiru + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.80b 29.63 49.93 187b 147b 2.00

Dibaba + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.09de 26.13 50.87 169bc 88c 2.00
Adelle + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.40c 25.10 47.33 167bc 126bc 1.67
Chiro + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.07e 28.27 43.67 149bc 89c 1.67
Chelenko + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.24cde 26.50 49.00 130c 116bc 2.00
AL70 + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.45c 27.43 53.20 171bc 109bc 2.00
ETS2752 + Chickpea( 1:2) 1.29cd 26.23 51.87 168bc 91c 1.67
Local sorghum + Chickpea 1.09de 27.67 50.07 131c 90c 2.00
( 1:2)
Sole chickpea 2.33a 26.00 57.87 340a 243a 2.00
LSD (0.05) 0.226 4.36 6.78 42.90 38.76 0.58
CV% 9.21 9.33 7.77 13.84 18.32 17.65
Significant level *** NS NS *** *** NS
*GY = Grain Yield, PH = Plant Height, SCAH = Stand Count at Harvest, NPPP = Number of Pod per Plant, NSPP = Numb
er of Seed per Pod and HSW = Hundred Seed Weight
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Relay-intercropping

The major advantage of intercropping system is to ensure maximum productivity pre unit
area from intercropping system over mono-cropping. In constituent with the report of
Sullivan (2003) who mentioned that one of the most important reasons for intercropping
is to ensure that an increased and diverse productivity per unit area is obtained compared
[625]
to sole cropping. The effectiveness of the cropping system was evaluated using land
equivalent ratio (LER) and land equivalent coefficient (LEC) indices. The land equivalent
ratio and land equivalent coefficient indices used to estimate a yield advantage caused by
relay-intercropping system over sole-cropping.

Based on the combined analysis results over the three years, the highest total land
equivalent ratio (TLER) {1.99} was obtained from sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping
system at 1:2 Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement, whereas the lowest TLER (1.09) & (1.10)
respectively were recorded from relay-intercropped sorghum-chickpea at 1:2 ETS-2752 +
Chickpea and 1:2 Local sorghum + Chickpea row arrangements respectively (Table 9).
The TLER values from 1.09 to 1.99 were greater than 1.00, which is indicating that there
was yield advantage from relay-intercropping system over sole cropping. This is in
agreement with finding of Sullivan (2001); Natarajan and Willey (1986) who reported
that TLER values above 1.00 show advantage of intercropping while below 1.00 show
disadvantage. Thus, relay-intercropped Jiru sorghum variety with Chickpea at 1:2 row
arrangements was the best cropping system to achieve the highest yield advantage over
sole-cropping.
Land Equivalent coefficient (LEC)

Similarly, based on the combined analysis results, sorghum-haricot bean relay-
intercropped arrangements were caused land equivalent coefficient (LEC) values from
0.30 to 0.94, which were greater than 0.25 (25%) indicating that there was yield
advantage (Table 3). In agreement with finding of Adetiloye et al. (1983) who reported
that for two-crop combination the minimum expected productivity coefficient is 25%;
meaning a yield advantage is obtained if LEC values greater than 0.25. Hence, this result
showed that in this study, all sorghum-haricot bean intercropped row arrangements were
caused LEC values greater than 0.25 (25%) confirming that there was yield advantage,
which is in consistent with finding of Egbe (2005) who has reported that LEC values
greater than the critical in intercropped sorghum-haricot bean at different row
arrangements.
[626]
Table 3. Grain yield, Land equivalent ratio (LER) and Land equivalent coefficient (LEC) for sole stands and mixture of sorghum with chickpea
Planting pattern Mix propo Grain yield (tha-1) Land Equivalent ratio Land Equivalent
rtion (LER) coefficient
Sorghum Chickpea Total Sorghum Chickpea TLER (LEC)
Sole Chickpea 100 0 2.33 2.33 0 1.00 1.00 0

Sole sorghum 100 3.39 0 3.39 1.00 1.00 1.00 0
Jiru + Chickpea(1:2) 1:2 4.28 1.8 5.36 1.22 0.77 1.99 0.94
Dibaba + Chickpea (1:2) 1:2 3.38 1.09 4.47 1.00 0.47 1.47 0.47
Adelle + Chickpea(1:2) 1:2 3.11 1.4 4.51 0.92 0.60 1.52 0.55
Chiro + Chickpea(1:2) 1:2 2.73 1.07 3.80 0.81 0.46 1.27 0.37
Chelenko + Chickpea(1:2) 1:2 3.09 1.24 4.33 0.91 0.53 1.44 0.48
AL-70 + Chickpea (1:2) 1:2 2.57 1.45 3.02 0.76 0.62 1.38 0.47
ETS-2752 + Chickpea(1:2) 1:2 1.84 1.29 2.13 0.54 0.55 1.09 0.30
Local sorghum + Chickpea (1:2) 1:2 2.14 1.09 3.23 0.63 0.47 1.10 0.30
[627]
Generally, the result of the study showing that the practice of cereal-legume intercropping
system by smallholder farmers was found to be the best production alternative because of
its potential to increase land use efficiency, enhances grain productivity, reduces fertilizer
consumption, nutrient accumulation, and reduces production risks (crop failure, crop
damage due to agricultural pests etc.). So, combined analysis of the variance revealed that
sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping system was caused significantly highest grain yield
of sorghum, but found to cause significantly lower grain yield of chickpea. Therefore, this
result confirming that sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping system was beneficial for
grain yield improvement program of sorghum, but, not advantageous for grain yield
improvement of chickpea. However, sole-cropping system was found to cause
significantly highest grain yield of chickpea, but caused lower grain yield of sorghum. So,
sole-cropping system was beneficial for grain yield of chickpea, but not advantageous to
maximize the grain yield of sorghum. Hence, sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping
system at 1:2 Jiru var. + Chickpea row arrangement was the best cropping system for
maximum grain yield of sorghum and recommended for future use. On the other hand,
sole-cropped chickpea was found the best cropping system for grain yield of chickpea and
could be recommended for future use.
The major advantage of intercropping system is ensuring maximum productivity pre unit
area over mono-cropping. The effectiveness of the relay-intercropping system was
evaluated using land equivalent ratio (LER) and land equivalent coefficient (LEC)
indices. Based on the analysis result of the study, the highest total land equivalent ratio
(TLER) {1.99} was recorded from sorghum-chickpea relay-intercropping system at 1:2
Jiru + Chickpea row arrangement indicating that there was yield advantage over sole-
cropping system since value of TLER was greater than unity. Thus, sorghum-chickpea
relay-intercropping system at 1:2 Jiru var. + Chickpea row arrangement was found the
best cropping system to achieve maximum yield advantage over sole-cropping.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the almighty God for helping me to start and successfully complete
this work. Next, would like to thank the Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EIAR)
and Crop Directorate for provision of research budget. Also I would like to acknowledge
Dr.Almaz Meseret for her helpful comments and suggestions in write-up of the research
manuscript.
References
Adetiloye PO, Ezedinma FOC, Okigbo BN. 1983. A land coefficient concept for
evaluation of competitive and productive interactions on simple complex
mixtures. Ecological Modelling, 19: 27-39
Aliyu B.S. and Emechebe A.M. 2006. Effect of Intra- and inter-row mixing of
sorghum with two varieties of cowpea on host crop yield in a Striga
[628]
hermonthica infested field. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol.
1(2), 024-026,
CSA. 2017. Agricultural sample survey report on area and production of major
crops. Private peasant holdings, Meher season 2016/2017 (2009 EC).
Enyi (1973). Effect of intercropping maize or sorghum with cow peas, pigeon peas
or beans. Exp. Agric., pp. 83-90.
FAOSTAT, F. 2016. URL: http://www. fao.org/faostat/en/-data/QC. Food and
agriculture organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Fribourg HA. 1995. Summer annual grasses. In: Forages, Vol. I, An Introduction
to Grassland Agriculture (Eds Barnes RF, Miller DA, Nelson CJ), Iowa State
University Press, Ames, Iowa, 463–472.
Ghosh PK. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal
fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field crop
Research 88:227-237
Hellevang Kenneth 1995. Grain Moisture Content Effects and Management. North
Dakota State Extension Publication AE-905. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/
extensionaben/documents/ae905.pdf. [Accessed Sep 2014]
Ibrahim AES. 1994. Forage yield of sorghum –cow pea mixtures under different
levels of nitrogen in the Sudan Gezira. Univ. Khartoum J. Agric. Sci., 2(1):
15-26.
Ljoyah M. O, 2014. Maize-Soybean Intercropping System: Effects on Striga
Control, Grain Yields and Economic Productivity at Tarka, Benue State,
Nigeria. International Letters of Natural Sciences, 69-75.
Lulie, B., Worku, W. and Beyene, S., 2016. Determinations of haricot bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) planting density and spatial arrangement for
staggered intercropping with maize (Zea mays L.) at Wondo Genet,
Southern Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Res, 4(6), pp.297-320.
Maphosa, T.M. and Maphosa, T.M., 2015. Growth, Nodulation and Yield
Response of Promiscuous and Non-promiscuous Soybean Cultivars to
Inoculation in Different Soil Types under Glasshouse and field Conditions.
(Doctoral dissertation, University of Limpopo). Chapter, 1-3, pp.1-59
Merkeb, F., Melkei, Z., Bogale, T. and Takele, A., 2016. Influence of
intercropping sorghum with legumes to control striga (Striga hermonthica) in
Pawe, North Western Ethiopia. World Scientific News, 53(3), pp.204-215.
Muoneke CO, Ogwuche MAO, Kalu BA (2007). Effect of maize planting density
on the performance of maize/soybean intercropping system in a Guinea
Savannah Agro- ecosystem. Afri. J. Agric. Res., 2(12):142-145
Natarejan, M. and Willey, R. W. (1986). The effect of water stress on yield
advantages of intercropping systems. Filed Crops Research, 13: 117-131
Rooney, W.L., Blumenthal, J., Bean, B., Mullet, J.E., 2007. Designing sorghum as
a dedicated bioenergy feedstock. Biofuel Bioprod. Bioref. 1, 147-157.
[629]
Salih, S. S. M. 2002. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and chicken manure fertilization
in soybean intercropping system. Ph. D. (Agric) Thesis. University of
Khartoum.
Steduto, P., Katerji, N., Puertos-Molina, H., Unlu, M., Mastrorilli, M., Rana, G.,
1997.Water use efficiency of sweet sorghum under water stress conditions:
gas exchange investigations at leaf and canopy scales. Field Crops Res. 54,
221-234.
Sullivan, R. (2001). Intercropping principles and practices. Agronmy Systems
Guide. NCAT Agricultural Specialist Illustrated by missy Gocio. ATTRA
Sullivan, P. (2003). Intercropping Principles and Production Practices.
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas Publication.
http://www.attra.ncat.org.
Taleshmikayeil, M.N., Vahedi, A. and Tagizadeh, R., 2013. Effect of seed
inoculation with Rhizobium strains of symbiotic bacteria (Rhizobium
japonicum) on biological and grain yield of two varieties of soybean (Glycin
max L.). International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production, 4(10),
pp.2742-2745.
Zeller, F.J., 2000. Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench): utilization, genetics,
breeding. Bodenkultur, 51(1), pp.71-85.
[630]
Evaluation of Crop Performance and
Determination of NP Fertilizer Rate for High Land
Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]
Intercropping with Haricot Bean [Phaseolus
vulgaris (L.)] for Increased Productivity at High
Land Areas of West Hararge, Ethiopia
Husen Yesuf 1
1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Chiro National Sorghum Research and Training Center,
P.O.Box. 190. Chiro, Ethiopia; E-mail: husenyesuf39@gmail.com
Abstract
Fertilizer NP rate was not determined for sorghum-bean intercropping system for
highland agroecologies in Ethiopia. Field experiment was conducted at high land areas
of West Hararge in Ethiopia during 2017 to 2019 cropping season. Factorial
arrangement of eighteen treatment combinations of six cropping systems with three N+P
fertilizer rates were laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replications. Combined analysis of the variance over the three years showed that
cropping system was significantly influenced the grain yield, very highly significantly (P≤
0.0001) affected the head weight, stand count and harvest index of sorghum, similarly,
N+P fertilizer rates were highly significantly (P≤ 0.001) influenced the grain yield, very
highly significantly (P≤ 0.0001) affected the pod number per plant, stand count and plant
height of haricot bean. The highest mean grain yield (3.12tha -1& 1.18tha-1) of sorghum
and haricot bean respectively were obtained from 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean
intercropped row arrangement and sole haricot bean respectively. Extra grain yield
(6.93%) & (35.6 - 49.15%) of sorghum and haricot bean respectively were recorded from
row intercropped sorghum and sole-cropped haricot bean respectively over sole cropped
sorghum and intercropped haricot bean respectively. Likewise, the highest grain yield
(3.08tha-1) & (1.05tha-1) of sorghum and haricot bean respectively were recorded from
use of 46N+46P and 0N+46P fertilizer rate respectively. From this, extra grain yield
(12.99%) & (31.43%) of sorghum and haricot bean respectively were recorded from use
of 46N+46P and 0N+46P rate respectively over control treatment. The highest net
economic benefit (34,391.12 ETBha-1) & (13,082.12ETBha-1) as well as the highest
marginal rate of return (MRR %) {235.90} & {181.81} of sorghum and haricot bean
respectively were recorded from use of 46N+46P and 0N+46P fertilizer rates
respectively. The highest total land equivalent ratio (TLER) {1.69} was recorded from
(1:1) sorghum + haricot bean intercropping row arrangement which is indicating that
there was yield advantage over sole cropping system. Generally, the result of this study
confirmed that row intercropping system was beneficial for grain yield improvement of
sorghum but not beneficial for grain yield improvement program of haricot bean.
However, sole-cropping system was advantageous for grain yield improvement of haricot
bean but not advantageous for grain yield improvement of sorghum. Again, the use of
N+P fertilizer was found beneficial to achieve the highest net economic benefit of
sorghum and haricot bean for farmers.
[631]
Introduction
Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] is originated in Africa about 5000 years
ago. The greatest genetic diversity in native sorghum is found in Ethiopia and
adjacent areas of northeast Africa (Poehlman and Sleper, 1995). Ethiopia is
probably the original home of sorghum and is the source of many wild and
cultivated forms adapted to a wide range of growing conditions. Consequently,
Ethiopia is a valuable reservoir of diverse genetic material for sorghum breeders
throughout the world (ESIP, 1978). From the area of its origin, sorghum was
carried throughout Africa, to India, and to china. Along the way many distinct
races evolved (Poehlman and Sleper, 1995). Its cultivation is distributed
throughout the world. Asia, Australia and USA, southern and eastern Africa, west
central and northern Africa, Latin America and Europe are the places in the world
where sorghum is produced (ICRISAT, 2004). Sorghum is adapted to many
different regions and can grow in a wide range of growing conditions from
temperate to tropical climates.
It is well adapted to semi-arid regions due to its drought tolerance (Jones et al.,
1991). It is called 'camel of crops' since it can withstand drought greatly. It has
been recognized as a more drought tolerant crop (Khosla et al., 1995). It has four
features which makes it one of the most drought resistant crops of all, such that (i)
it has a very large root to leaf surface area; (ii) in time of drought it will roll its
leaves to lessen water loss by transpiration; (iii) if drought continues, it will go in
to dormancy rather than drying; and (iv) its leaves are protected by a waxy cuticle
(Khosla et al., 1995). In Ethiopia, it is adapted to a wide range of environment,
and hence can be produced in the high lands, medium altitude and low land areas.
Sorghum is perennial by nature and hence, a very suitable multi-cut forage crop,
but where the end product is grain it is grown as an annual rain fed crop
(Poehlman and Sleper, 1995). The annual wild and domesticated sorghum are
tropical origin C4 crop (Dicko et al., 2006). It is generally self-pollinating, but 5-
15% of plants can out-cross, and the flowers open during the night or early
morning. Those at the top of the panicle open first and it takes approximately 6 to
9 days for the entire panicle to flower (Laidlaw and Godwin, 2009).
Haricot bean {Phaseolus vulgaris (L.)} is a diploid (2n=22) annual leguminous

plant that belongs to genus Phaseolus, family Leguminosae, subfamily
Papilionoideae, tribe Phaseoleae, sub tribe Phaseolinae. It is characterized by
pinnately compound trifoliate leaves. There are about 50 species under the genus
Phaseolus. Phaseolus vulgaris L. was follow-on from wild ancestors distributed
from Northern Mexico to Northwestern Argentina (Ibarra-Perez et al., 1997;
Debouck, 1999). Haricot bean is an annual pulse crop with considerable variation
in habit, vegetative characters, flower color and the size, shape and colour of the
[632]
pods and seeds (Onwueme and Sinha, 1991). It is well adapted to the range of an
altitude between 1200 and 2000 m above sea level (Wortmann, 1998), and in areas
with annual average rainfall 500-1500 mm. It is not drought resistant; ideally
needs moist soil throughout the growing period. However, rainfall towards the end
of growing periods is undesirable. It can be grown successfully on most soil types,
from light sands to heavy clays, but friable, deep and well-drained soils are best
preferred (Onwueme and Sinha, 1991).
In Ethiopia crop production has been based on multiple cropping involving cereals
and legume crops of diverse species, either in rotation or mixed cropping. Mixed
cropping has long been practiced in different agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. For
example, tef has been sparsely mixed cropped with sorghum in the northern parts
of the country, whereas maize has also been relay cropped with tef in the southern
parts of the country. In Eastern part maize and sorghum are commonly mixed or
row intercropped with common bean by peasant farmers (Getachew, et al., 2006).
Traditionally, sorghum is cultivated in many cropping systems such as sole or

mono cropping, mixed, many forms of intercropping systems and in rotation with
different crops. However the production and productivity of the crop has been
limited to the lower levels, which is below 2 ton per hectare (CSA, 2011). The
grain produced may not be surplus to fill local market demand. The low yields of
these crops were attributes of several biotic and a biotic factors, inappropriate crop
management practices such as; sowing time, seed rates, seeding methods, weeding
practice, and lack of farmer’s awareness on uses of cropping systems and different
soil fertilization methods are found to be the key elements that contributed to low
crop productivity in Ethiopia. In order to alleviate those low yielding factor
developing improved agronomy practice like cropping system like intercropping
and selecting fertilizer application rate are the major task. In mixed cropping
system systematically arranged intercropping increased crop productivity in rain
fed areas of the country (Kidane and Reddy, 1993). There is limited information
on intercropping of sorghum with legume in high land of Ethiopia. Therefore the
objective of the study was initiated to evaluate the productivity of highland
sorghum by intercropping with haricot bean, to identify the best planting
arrangement and different fertilizer application rates for component crop and to
assess the economic importance of component crop at high land part of the
country
The study was conducted in Daro labu districts, West
Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia.
The district is located between 08°19’15’’ and 08°42’55’’ N
and 40°10’00’’ to 40°50’00” E. The altitude of the study area
ranges between 1350 and 2450 meter above sea lev
The study was conducted in Daro labu districts, West
Hararghe Zone, Oromia National Regional State of Ethiopia.
The district is located between 08°19’15’’ and 08°42’55’’ N
[633]
and 40°10’00’’ to 40°50’00” E. The altitude of the study area
ranges between 1350 and 2450 meter above sea lev

Treatments and Experimental Procedure
Field experiment was conducted in ffactorial arrangement of (3 x 6 = 18)
treatment combinations (Table 1) of six cropping systems (1:1, 2:1 & 1:2 sorghum
+ haricot bean intercropping row arrangements, mixed intercropping of/sorghum
with haricot bean/, sole cropping sorghum and haricot bean) with three N+P
fertilize rates (0N+0P, 0N+46P & 46N+46P) were arranged in a randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications.
[634]
Table 1. Factorial arrangement of (3 x 6 = 18) treatment combinations arranged in RCBD
Factor B (N+P fertilizer rates)

Factor A (cropping systems) 0N+0P 0N+46P 46N+46P
Sole sorghum Sole sorghum X 0N+0P Sole sorghum X 0N+46P Sole sorghum X 46N+46P
Sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) Sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) X 0N+0P Sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) X 0N+46P Sorghum haricot bean (1:1)X 46N+46P
Sorghum + haricot bean (2:1 Sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) X 0N+0P Sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) X 0N+46P Sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) X 46N+46P
Sorghum + haricot bean (1:2) Sorghum + haricot bean (1:2) X 0N+0P Sorghum + haricot bean (1:2) X 0N+46P Sorghum + haricot bean (1:2) X 46N+46P
Mixed intercropping (0:0) Mixed intercropping ( 0:0 ) X 0N+0P Mixed intercropping ( 0:0) X 0N+46P Mixed intercropping ( 0:0) X 46N+46P
Sole haricot bean Sole haricot bean X 0N+0P Sole haricot bean X 0N+46P Sole haricot bean X 46N+46P
[635]
Experimental Area Description
The field experiment was conducted during 2017 to 2019 cropping seasons at high
land areas of West Hararge. West Hararghe is subdivided into three major climatic
zones known to be highland locally known as dega (12.49%), mid-land or
woinadega (38%), and dry or kola (49.5%). The topography of the zone is
characterized by steep slopes in the highlands and mid-plains in the lowland areas.
The mean monthly minimum temperature ranging from 160C to 200C and
maximum is 240C to 280C. Rainfall is dispersed the year into two rainy seasons,
belg February-April and meher or main season rains fall from June-September
with small showers in dry months. Annual rainfall averages range from below 700
mm for the lower kolla to nearly 1,200 mm for the higher elevations of woinadega
and dega areas.

Before sowing and after harvesting composite soil samples were taken at a depth
of 0-20 cm from five random spots diagonally across the experimental field by
Auger sampler using a Zigzag pattern. The collected soil samples were composite
to one sample. From the composite samples, working sample one kg soil was
taken and air dried. Dried soil sample was ground with a pestle and mortar. Before
analysis, the sample was sieved through a 2-mm sieve and analyzed to determine
certain physico-chemical properties using various methods and procedures. Then,
the pH of the soil was determined using 1:2.5 soil to water ratio using a digital pH
meter (FAO, 2009). Available phosphorus (P) was determined using BrayII
method (Bray and Kurtz, 1945). Organic carbon (%OC) content was analyzed
using Walkley Black’s method (Jackson, 1967). Total N (%TN) was determined
using Kjeldhal method (Bermner and Mulvaney, 1982). Available potassium (K)
was determined with a flame photometer (Hesse, 1971). Organic matter (%OM)
was analyzed using Walkley Black’s method (Jackson, 1967). Soil textural class
was estimated using Bouyoucons Hydrometer Method. The percent of Sand, Clay
and Silt was determined using Hydrometer method.
Land Preparation and Planting and Field Managements

Land preparation was carried out based on the conventional agronomic practices.
Then, the land was tilled, leveled and divided into three blocks and fifty-four (54)
individual plots. The size of each plot was 6m x 5 m (30m2). Spacing between
plots and blocks respectively were 0.50m and 1.25m respectively, and the total
area of experimental field was 553.5m2 = 0.0554ha. The sorghum seeds were
sown on a well tilled and leveled plots, in rows at 75cm x 25cm inter and intra row
spacing respectively. similarly, fifteen days after the sorghum seed had been sown,
the haricot bean seeds were sown in rows at 10 cm intervals intra row spacing
between sorghum rows at 1:1, 2:1 & 1:2 sorghum-haricot bean intercropping row
arrangements, mixed intercrop with sorghum and sole-cropped without sorghum.
[636]
On the other hand, 100% of TPS (phosphorus) and 1/3 of urea (nitrogen)
fertilizers were applied at sowing, while the rest (2/3) of urea (nitrogen) fertilizer
was applied at knee height stage of sorghum. All the management practices were
carried out side by side with Regular Field Follow Up.
Data Collection and Measuring

Sorghum component
Plant height (m) was measured as the height from the soil surface to the tip of five
randomly taken plants from the net plot area at physiological maturity and the
average was taken for analysis. Stand count was counted at physiological maturity
before harvesting. Hundred seed weight (g) was determined by putting 100 seeds
into three replications and weighting them separately using sensitive balance and
finally their averaged weight was taken and adjusted to 12.5% moisture content.
Grain yield per plot (kg/plot) was measured using sensitive balance and then
adjusted to 10% seed moisture content using a digital moisture tester and
converted to hectare basis. Adjusted yield was calculated using Hellevang (1995)
formula.
Adjusted yield = X obtained yield
Above ground biomass (kg/plot) was measured from the net plot area including
leaves, stems and seeds which were harvested at physiological maturity just before
cob removal and weighed after three days of sun drying. Harvest index (HI): it
refers to the ratio of grain yield (GY) at 10% grain moisture content to the above
ground biomass (AGB) (seed + straw) and it is expressed in percentage. It was
calculated according to the following formula (Nichiporovich, 1967).
HI= GY (kg/plot) x 100
AGB (kg/plot)
Where, HI= harvest index; GY=Grain yield (at 10% moisture base) and
AGB=above ground biomass (Stover +grain yield)
Haricot bean component

Plant height was measured as the height from the soil surface to the tip of five
randomly taken plants from the net plot area at physiological maturity and the
average was taken for analysis. Stand count per plot was counted at physiological
maturity before harvesting. Number of pod per plant was counted from five
selected haricot bean plants at physiological maturity and the average was
recorded for each plot. Number of seed per pod was recorded from ten randomly
sub sampled pods and the average was taken. Hundred seed weight (g) was
determined from 100 seeds randomly taken from each plot and weighed using
sensitive balance and adjusted to 10% seed moisture content. Grain yield per plot
[637]
was measured using sensitive balance and then adjusted to 10 % seed moisture
content using digital moisture tester and converted to hectare basis. Adjusted yield
was calculated by using the following formula (Hellevang (1995).
Adjusted yield= (100-actual moisture) X obtained yield
Above ground biomass (kg/ha) of haricot bean was determined after oven drying
at 70 0 C through measuring its weight after consecutive one day interval before
threshing till it maintains constant dry weight. Harvest index was estimated as the
ratio of grain yield to above ground biomass per hectare and multiplied by 100 to
express as percentage.

The partial budget analysis was also carried out according to CIMMYT (1988).
The market costs for inputs at sowing and prices of outputs at harvesting were
used. All costs and benefits were calculated on hectare basis in Ethiopian birr. The
variable costs considered in the economic analysis included the cost of fertilizer
(TSP and Urea), seed and labor costs ha-1 was calculated. The grain yield was
adjusted downward by 10% to reflect the difference between the experimental
yield and the yield farmers could expect from the same treatment. The average
open market prices of sorghum and haricot bean grain respectively were estimated
to be birr 14.5 kg-1 and 20kg-1 respectively at the nearest local market during
harvesting time. The highest net benefit (NB) was calculated as the difference
between the gross benefit and the total cost that varied (TCV). The marginal rate
of return (MRR) was calculated using the following formula.
MRR (%) = ΔNI X 100
ΔTVC
Where ΔNI = change in net income; ΔTVC= change in the total cost that varied.

Land equivalent ratio (LER) verifies the effectiveness of intercropping for using
the resources of the environment compared to sole cropping The advantages of
intercropping compared with sole cropping is commonly expressed in terms of
land equivalent ratio (LER), which is defined as the relative land area under sole
crops that is required to produce the yield achieved in intercrops (Willey, 1979
and Mead and Willey, 1980). The LER values were calculated as: LER = (LERS +
LERHB), where LERS = YIS/YS and LERHB= YIHB/YHB, where YS and YHB
are the yields of sorghum and haricot bean as sole while YIS and YIHB are the
yields of sorghum and haricot bean as intercropped respectively. The land
equivalent coefficient (LEC) was calculated using the following formula. LEC is:
LER sorghum × LER haricot bean.
[638]
Statistical Data Analysis
All collected data were analyzed using R software (R 3.4.1) and least significant
difference (LSD) test at 5% probability was used for mean separation when the
analysis of variance indicates the presence of significant differences (Gomez and
Gomez, 1984).

Soil Parameters
Pre-Sowing Soil Physicochemical Property Analysis
The combined soil analysis result indicated that the textural class of the surface
soil was clay and the proportion of the soil of the experimental field was sand
(26.25%), silt (31.25%) and clay (42.50%). The soil of the experimental field was
found moderately acidic (pH = 5.56) (Jones, 2003) with low organic carbon
(1.34%) (Berhanu, 1980) and total N content was found low (0.083%) (Tekalign,
1991) (Table 2). According to Landon (1991) the exchangeable K concentration of
the soil was low (0.44) (cmol (+) kg soil) for crop production. The available
phosphorus (P) content (5.38ppm) was very found low (Olsen et al. 1954). The
soil of the experimental field was low in content of available organic matter
(2.38%) (Tekalign, 1991). On the other hand, the electrical conductivity of the soil
was found low (61.25) (ds/m) respectively. Generally, pre-sowing soil analysis
showed that soils of the study site had low organic carbon (OC), low total N, low
exchangeable K, low organic matter and very low available phosphorus (P)
content. Hence, application of additional NP fertilizer improves productivity of
component crops.
Post-Harvesting Soil Physico- Chemical Property Analysis

The combined soil analysis result indicated that the textural class of the surface
soil was clay and the proportion of the soil of the experimental field was sand
(23.09%), silt (31.12%) and clay (45.79%). The reaction of the soil of
experimental field was found to be moderately acidic (pH = 5.564) (Jones, 2003)
with low organic carbon (1.352%) (Berhanu 1980) and low total N (0.092%)
content (Tekalign, 1991) (Table 2). The exchangeable K concentration in the soil
was low (0.461) (cmol (+) kg soil) (Landon, 1991) for crop production. Available
phosphorus (P) content (5.41ppm) was very low (Olsen et al. 1954). The content
of the available organic matter was low (2.41%) (Tekalign, 1991), likewise the
electrical conductivity of the soil was also found low (60.57) (ds/m). In general,
post-harvest soil analysis result showed that soil of the study site had low organic
carbon (OC), low total N, low exchangeable K, low organic matter and very low
available phosphorus (P). However, post-harvest soil analysis results were partly
[639]
increased in these parameters as compared to pre-sowing analysis results. This
increment was might be due to residual effect of the applied fertilizer.
Table 2. Combined pre-sowing and post-harvest soil physicochemical property analysis
Soil physico- chemical property analysis Values
Pre-sowing analysis
Textural class clay
%sand 26.25
%silt 31.25
%Clay 42.50
%AP(ppm) 5.38
K(Cmol (+) kg-1) 0.44
%TN 0.083
%OM 2.38
%OC 1.34
EC(ds/m) 61.25
pH (1:2.5) soil to water ratio 5.56
Post-harvesting analysis
Textural class clay
%sand 23.09
%silt 31.12
%Clay 45.79
%AP(ppm) 5.41
K(Cmol (+) kg-1) 0.461
%TN 0.092
%OM 2.41
%OC 1.352
EC(ds/m) 60.57
pH (1:2.5) soil to water ratio 5.564
Plant Parameters
Sorghum component
Grain Yield
The combined analysis of the variance over three years showed that the cropping
system was caused significant (P≤ 0.05) influence on the grain yield of sorghum
(Table 3). The analysis result showing that an intercropped sorghum with haricot
bean was caused the highest grain yield of sorghum while sole-cropped sorghum
caused the lowest grain yield. The highest mean grain yield (3.12tha-1) was
recorded from intercropped sorghum at sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) row
[640]
arrangement (Table 3), which is on the contrary with finding of Yesuf (2003) and
Dechasa (2005) who reported yield of sole cropped sorghum was significantly
higher than intercropped sorghum. However, the lowest grain yield (2.91tha-1) was
obtained from sole-cropped sorghum (Table 3). This result is indicating
superiority of intercropped sorghum with haricot bean over sole-cropped sorghum.
Hence, being superior, intercropped sorghum was caused 6.93% extra grain yield
when compared to sole-cropped sorghum. This result is in line with findings of
Andrews (1972) reported 70% more grain of sorghum intercropped with cowpea
compared with a sole crop of sorghum. Nyambo et al (1980) reported that cereal
intercrop yields per plant were higher than those of the same mono crops. They
also reported that intercropping sorghum with soybean and green gram gave 80%
more return per acre, respectively, than mono cropping of sorghum, the increment
in grain yield coming mainly as a result of higher cereal yield. Grain yield
advantage (6.93%) from intercropped sorghum over sole-cropped sorghum was
might be due to complementarity and absence of interspecific competition
between component crops for resource utilization. In line with finding of Finckh et
al., (2010) who reported that crop species grown in the mixture may show
complementarity and less competition among crops result in certain yield
advantage, and also could be due to efficient use plant growth resources for better
growth and development then enhancing maximum grain yield. According to
Keating and carbery ( 1993), Morris and Gravity ( 1993), Reddy and Willey (
1980), the yield advantage / or most of the benefits of intercropping come from
the way that plants complement each other in their exploitation of the environment
and efficient use of resources such as light and water. Kermah et al., (2017) also
reported that maize + legume intercropping combination intercepted higher photo
synthetically active radiation (PAR) over a pure stand of maize which is enabling
maximum grain yield production. Thus, this result showed that sorghum + haricot
bean row intercropping is very important to maximize grain productivity of
sorghum. Hence, intercropped sorghum at sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) row
arrangement was the best cropping system to maximize sorghum grain yield.
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years also showed that N+P
fertilizer rates were highly significantly (P≤ 0.001) influenced the grain yield of
sorghum (Table 3). This is in line with finding of Masebo et al, (2016) who
reported that grain yield was significantly affected by the application rates of the
inorganic N-P fertilizers at (P≤ 0.05) probability level. The highest grain yield
(3.08tha-) of sorghum was recorded from application of 46N+46P fertilizer rate.
But the lowest grain yield (2.68tha-1) was obtained from 0N+0P rate usage, and
also this lowest result was statistically similar with grain yield results obtained
from 0N+46P rate usage (Table 3). As reported by Masebo et al, (2016), the grain
yield of sorghum as influenced by the different application rates of inorganic N-P
fertilizers, and increasing the rates of N/P fertilizers from 0/0 to 92/30 kg ha-1
increased the yield of the crop from 812.5 to3895.8 kg ha--1. Again, comparison
[641]
was made on grain yield differences between uses of 46N+46P and 0N+0P rate.
Based on this, 12.99% extra grain yield was recorded from application of
46N+46P rate over 0N+0P rate usage. In contrasting to this, 12.99% = 0.4tha-1
reduction in grain yield was observed from 0N + 0P fertilizer rate usage as
compared to 46N+46P rate. According to Shrotriya (1998), balanced application
of N-P caused up to 122% increase in sorghum yield in India. In addition, Bumb
and Bannante (1996) revealed that increased plant growth with optimal N and P
application provides good vegetative cover which resulted in high grain yield of
sorghum. It is also agreed with the finding of Regessa Kumssa (2005) as well. The
highest grain yield from 46N+46P fertilizer rate was might be due to low level of
available nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in the soil of experimental field made
the crop to use the applied NP fertilize efficiently for maximum grain productivity
of sorghum. Due to application of higher and 1:1 rate of NP fertilizers and better
usage enabled the crop producing the highest grain yield. Therefore, the use of
46N+46P rate was found the best rate to improve grain yield of sorghum and
could be recommended for future use.
Head Weight (gmplant-1)

The combined analysis of the variance over the three years showed that the
cropping systems were caused very high significant (P≤ 0.0001) effect on the head
weight of sorghum (Table 3). As analysis of the variance revealed that
intercropped sorghum with haricot bean was caused significantly highest head
weight of sorghum. The highest mean head weight (295.89gmplant-1) was
obtained from intercropped sorghum at sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) row
arrangement; however, the lowest head weight (250.68gmplant-1) was recorded
from sole-cropped sorghum (Table 3). Moreover, intercropped sorghum at (1:1)
sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement was caused 15.28% extra head weight as
compared to sole sorghum and this is indication of the superiority of the
intercropped sorghum over sole cropped sorghum in head weight. Therefore,
intercropped sorghum at sorghum + haricot bean (1:1) row arrangement was best
and superior over sole-cropped sorghum and rest sorghum-haricot bean
intercropped combinations and could be recommended for future use.
Stand Count at Harvest (Numberplot-1)

The analysis of the variance showed that cropping system was very highly
significantly (P≤ 0.001) influenced the stand count of sorghum (Table 3). Mixed
intercropped sorghum with haricot bean was caused the highest stand count at
harvest (116.44plot-1) of sorghum whereas the lowest stand count at harvest
(99.44plot-1) was obtained from intercropped sorghum at 2:1 sorghum + haricot
bean row arrangement (Table 3).This result is indicating the superiority of mixed
intercropped sorghum with haricot bean over the rest intercropped sorghum with
haricot bean as well as sole sorghum in relation to stand count at harvest.
Likewise, there was a significant difference between mixed intercropped sorghum
[642]
with highest stand count and sole-cropped sorghum in stand count at harvest. This
is on the contrary with finding of Gutu et al. (2015) who reported that there was
no significant difference between the sole and intercropped maize on stand count
at harvest. On the other hand, stand count from sole-cropped sorghum was greater
than stand count of all combinations except mixed intercropped sorghum with
haricot bean which caused the highest stand count (Table 3). Again, intercropped
combinations at 1:1 & 1:2 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement were not
statistically different each other in stand count of sorghum. Significantly highest
stand count from mixed intercropped sorghum with haricot bean was might be due
to presence of the highest plant population per plot. Because mixed intercropped
sorghum with haricot bean was sown in broadcasting without rows, and then,
presence of the highest plant population density per plot caused the highest stand
count of sorghum per plot.
Harvest Index
The combined analysis result showed that the cropping system was highly
significantly (P≤ 0.001) influenced the harvest index of sorghum (Table 3).
Significantly the highest harvest index was obtained from intercropped sorghum
with haricot bean over the sole-cropped sorghum. But this is on the contrary with
finding of Lulie et al. (2016); Tamiru (2014) who found that non- significant
effect on HI of maize under maize-haricot bean intercropping system was
recorded. The highest harvest index (38%) of sorghum was recorded from
intercropped sorghum at 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement (Table 3).
This is on the contrary with finding of Zerihun (2011) who reported that higher HI
(44.7%) of maize was recorded from sole maize than intercropped maize with
soybean (41.5%).This is also in contrast with idea of Karikari et al. (1999) who
reported that Bambara groundnut + maize and Bambara groundnut + sorghum
intercropping, were gave significantly higher harvest indices for sole maize
(0.599) and sole sorghum (0.386) than those in intercrops. But the lowest harvest
index (32%) was recorded from mono-cropped sorghum (Table 3), which
indicating inferiority of sole sorghum as compared to intercropped sorghum with
haricot bean. Thus, 15.79% extra harvest index was recorded from intercropped
sorghum at1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement as compared to sole-
cropped sorghum. Increment in harvest index by 15.79% from intercropped
sorghum over sole-cropped sorghum was might be due to high competition in the
1:1 sorghum + haricot bean intercropping row arrangements resulting in increased
partitioning of dry matter to the seed and decreased the amount of biomass over
the sole crop. Ludlow and Muchow (1988) reported that higher transfer of
assimilates to the grain would maximize the harvest index and reduce the
proportion of dry matter production. This idea is also agreed with report of
Zerihun, et al. (2013). The reason for lowest harvest index obtained from sole
cropped sorghum was might be due to low assimilate portioning to the grain yield
/or production of low grain yield to dry matter ratio. Harvest index has positive
[643]
correlation with grain yield production. Thus, intercropped sorghum at 1:1
sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement was the best row intercropping system
for harvest index of sorghum.
Table 3. Combined mean grain yield, head weight, plant height, dry bio-mass, stand count and harvest index of sorghum
influenced by cropping system and N+P fertilizer rates
Treatments GY* HW PH DBM SCAH HI

(tha-1) (gmplant-1) (m) (kgplot-1) (Number plot-1) (%)
Cropping system
Sole sorghum 2.91ab 250.68b 3.37 79.636 103.89b 32b
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:1 ) 3.12a 295.89a 3.40 77.78 101.89bc 38a
Sorghum + haricot bean( 2:1 ) 2.77b 228.17b 3.41 77.45 99.44cd 30b
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:2 ) 2.69b 233.52b 3.35 77.55 102.11bc 30b
Mixed intercropping (0:0) 2.7b 230.46b 3.40 69.94 116.44a 33b
LSD(0.05) 0.26 24.88 0.113 6.571 3.93 3.6
CV% 9.53 11.12 3.51 9.02 3.96 12.04
Level of significant * *** NS NS *** ***
N+P fertilizer rates
0N + 0P 2.68b 227.9056 3.40 77.91 103.56 30
0N + 46P 2.79b 238.2083 3.31 78.56 103.44 31
46N + 46P 3.08a 234.4639 3.38 77.26 103.56 32
LSD (0.05) 0.184 17.592 0.08 6.31 2.775 2.5
CV% 9.54 11.12 3.51 11.96 3.93 12.04
Level of significant *** NS NS NS NS NS
*GY = Grain Yield, HW = Head Weight, PH = Plant Height, DBM = Dry Bio Mass, SCAH = Stand Count at Harvest and HI
= Harvest Index
Haricot bean component
Grain yield
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years revealed that cropping
system was highly significantly (P≤ 0.001) affected grain yield of haricot bean
(Table 4). In agreement with finding of Mogiso et al., (2020) who reported that
intercropping of maize with common bean significantly affected the grain yield of
common bean (P<0.05). Fisher (1979) reported that grain yield of bean was non-
significantly affected by intercropping with maize, but significantly affected by
sole-cropped bean. The highest grain yield (1.18tha-1) was obtained from sole-
cropped haricot bean, whereas, the lowest grain yield (0.60 tha-1), (0.62tha-1) &
(0.76 tha-1) respectively were obtained from mixed intercropped haricot bean and
[644]
intercropped haricot bean with sorghum at 2:1 & 1:2 sorghum + haricot bean row
arrangement respectively (Table 4). The lowest results were not statistically
different. When the highest grain yield compared with the lowest ones, 35.60 to
49.15% extra grain yield was recorded from sole-cropped haricot bean over the
intercropped haricot bean. On the contrary, 49.15 to 35.60% reductions in grain
yield were observed from intercropped haricot bean as compared to sole-cropped
haricot bean. This is in agreement with report of Bandyopadhyay and De (1986)
who explained that grain yield of legumes was reduced when intercropped with
sorghum. Edje (1982) also reported that intercropping maize with groundnut
showed that groundnut seed yield was significantly reduced when grown in
association with maize. Significantly the highest grain yield was obtained from
sole-cropped haricot bean over the intercropped haricot bean. Similar findings
were reported by many authors with this result. Mogiso et al., (2020) reported that
the highest grain yield was produced from sole cropped common bean. According
to Gutu et al. (2015), higher grain yield was obtained from sole cropped soybean
than the intercropped soybean. Similarly, Mogiso et al., (2020) reported that the
lowest grain yield obtained from maize-common bean row intercropped
arrangements. The highest grain yield from sole-cropped haricot bean was also
could be due to efficient use of sun light and other resources and conversion
ability to the grain yield. Kermah et al., (2017) reported that sole cowpea and
soybean used more photo synthetically active radiation (PAR) than intercropping
when legumes intercropped with maize at different proportions. The highest grain
yield from sole-cropped haricot bean also could be due to absence of interspecific
competition for resources and due to absence of shading effect. In addition, the
reason for the highest grain yield from sole-cropped haricot bean could be because
of presence of more number of plant populations per unit area. Tamiru (2014)
reported that similar results.
The lowest grain yield from intercropped haricot bean was could be due to
presence of high interspecific competition and having lower plant population over
the sole-cropped haricot bean. This is agreed with idea of Gutu et al. (2015) who
explained that lower grain yield of intercropped soybean was might be due to
increase inter-specific competition and lower soybean plant population in
intercropping than sole cropping. Muoneke et al. (2007) reported that yield
reduction in soybean intercropped with maize and sorghum and attributed the
yield depression to inter specific competition and the depressive effect of the
cereal. Also the presence of shading effect due to taller crop can suppress growth
of dwarf crop through blocking light interception, and then causes poor growth
and lower grain yield. This idea is in line with report of Maitra et al., (2021) who
explained that crops with shorter canopy structure, if selected and intercropped
with tall crops, dwarf species will certainly be affected by shade, but overall more
sunlight will be used by the crops together in association. Raw and Willey (1980)
reported that cowpea was drastically suppressed by intercropped sorghum.
[645]
Likewise, Lulie et al. (2o16); explained that the probable reason for difference in
grain yield of haricot bean between intercropped and sole-cropped haricot bean
was could be due to presence of higher interspecific competition for resources like
soil nutrients, sunlight, space and water in intercropped haricot bean. Based on
this result, sole-cropped haricot bean was the best cropping system to maximize
grain yield of haricot bean. Generally, this result is confirming that cereal-legume
intercropping system is not beneficial for grain yield of haricot bean.
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years, also showed that the
fertilizer rates were highly significantly (P≤ 0.0001) affected the grain yield of
haricot bean (Table 4). Among N+P fertilizer rates, the use of 0N+46P rate was
caused the highest grain yield of haricot bean. The highest mean grain yield
(1.05tha-1) of haricot bean was recorded from 0N+46P rate usage, while the lowest
grain yield (0.72tha-1) was obtained from control (0N+0P) treatment (Table 4).
This indicated that 31.43% extra grain yield was recorded from 0N+46P rate
usage when compared to control treatment (0N+0P) rate. On the contrary to this,
31.43% reduction in grain yield was observed from use of 0N+0P rate as
compared to 0N+46P rate (Table 3). The highest grain yield of haricot bean from
using zero N plus 46P (ON + 46P) rate was might be due to availability of
nitrogen in the soil of experimental field which was enough for microbial
initiation for better nitrogen fixation for pulses. Again, pulse crops fix atmospheric
nitrogen symbiotically with rhizobium bacteria then, they use fixed nitrogen
instead of using applied nitrogen, so for pulse crops, application of additional
nitrogen is unnecessary while the level of nitrogen in the soil is enough for
microbial initiation. However, if the level of soil nitrogen is not enough for
microbial initiation, lower rate of nitrogen but higher rate of P (phosphorus)
fertilizer is needed to be applied for pulses. Many authors supported this idea.
According to Pineda et al. (1994), common bean did not respond to applied N
when nodulation and fixation were good. Maitra et al., (2021) also reported that
legumes are less N-demanding crops and these can fix atmospheric N biologically.
On the other hand, leguminous crops including haricot bean have high P demand
due to the production of protein containing compounds, in which N and P are
important constituents, and P concentration in legumes is generally much higher
over in grasses. Phosphorus has direct effect on yield and yield components of
legumes. Khan B.M. et al. (2003) revealed that high seed production of legumes
primarily depends on the amount of P absorbed. Gemechu Gedeno (1990) also
reported that yield of common bean increases with P application and its nodulation
can be improved with the application of phosphorus. Hence, the use of 0N+46P
fertilizer rate was found the best to improve grain yield of haricot bean over the
other NP rates used. As reported by CIAT (1998), phosphorus is considered as the
first and nitrogen as the second limiting plant nutrient for bean yield in the tropical
zone of cultivation.
[646]
The combined analysis result was showed that the interaction effect of cropping
system with N + P fertilizer rates was very highly significantly (P≤ 0.001)
influenced grain yield of haricot bean (Table 5). Among the interaction effect of
cropping systems with N+P fertilizer rates, the interaction of sole-cropped haricot
bean with 0N+46P rate usage was caused the highest grain yield of haricot bean.
The highest mean grain yield (1.43tha-1) was obtained from interaction of sole
haricot bean with 0N+46P fertilizer rate, while the lowest grain yield (0.47tha-1) of
haricot bean was obtained from the interaction of intercropped haricot bean at
sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) row arrangement with 0N+0P fertilizer rate and
intercropped haricot bean at sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) row arrangement with
46N+46P rate (Table 5), which is indicating that 67.13 - 67.83 % extra grain yield
was recorded from interaction of sole-cropped haricot bean with 0N+46P fertilizer
rate as compared to interaction of intercropped haricot bean at 2:1 sorghum-
haricot bean row arrangement with 0N+0P and 46N+46P rate usage. On the
contrary to this, 67.83 - 67.13% reduction in grain yield was caused by the
interaction of 2:1 sorghum-haricot bean intercropped row arrangement with
0N+0P and 46N+46P rate when compared to interaction of sole haricot bean with
0N+46P fertilizer rate. Again, interaction of sorghum- haricot bean (2:1)
intercropped row arrangement with 0N+0P and 46N+46P fertilizer rates with the
lowest grain yield were not statistically different (Table 5). Therefore, the
interaction of sole haricot bean with 0N+46P rate was found the best performing
combination for grain yield of haricot bean and could be recommended for future
use.
Plant height
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years showed the plant
height of haricot bean was found to be very highly significantly (P≤ 0.0001)
affected by cropping system (Table 4). Significantly the highest plant height was
obtained from mono-cropped haricot bean, while intercropped haricot bean with
sorghum was caused the lowest plant height of haricot bean. In agreement with
finding of Lulie et al., (2016) who reported that sole cropping system was gave
significantly (P≤0.05) higher plant height of haricot bean than intercropping with
maize. This situation is might be due to the fact that maize causes nearly complete
dominance for growth resources over haricot bean in the early growth stage of
haricot bean causing poor growth. The highest plant height (70.89cm) of haricot
bean was obtained from sole-cropped haricot bean. In line with finding of Yayeh
(2014) who reported that sole lupine showed the highest plant height than under
cereal/lupin intercropping. However, the intercropped haricot bean at 1:2 sorghum
+ haricot bean row arrangement was caused the lowest plant height (54.78cm) of
haricot bean. The lowest plant height obtained from intercropped haricot bean
at1:2 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement was statistically similar with plant
height of intercropped haricot bean at 1:2 sorghum + haricot bean row
arrangement and mixed intercropped haricot bean with sorghum (Table 4). Thus,
[647]
22.73% extra plant height was recorded from sole-cropped haricot bean as
compared to intercropped haricot bean. On the contrary, 22.73% reduced plant
height was observed from intercropped haricot bean as compared to sole-cropped
haricot bean. The highest plant height from mono-cropped haricot bean was might
be due to efficient use of resources (sun light, water, air, soil nutrients etc.) and
absence of interspecific competition among component crops for resource and also
could be due to absence of shade effect by taller crop that can suppress the growth
of dwarf crop (haricot bean). On the other hand, the lowest plant height from
intercropped haricot bean was might be due to incompatibility between component
crops and the presence of interspecific competition between component crops for
resources utilization. Generally, this is indicating that intercropping haricot bean
with sorghum is not advantageous for plant height of haricot bean.
The combined analysis of the variance overt three years showed that N + P
fertilizer rates were caused very highly significant (P≤ 0.0001) effect on plant
height of haricot bean (Table 4). The highest mean plant height (62.70cm) and
(61.17cm) of haricot bean respectively were recorded from 46N+46P and 0N+46P
rate usage respectively, however, the lowest plant height (58.56cm) was obtained
from 0N+0P rate. As compared with control treatment /or 0N+0P rate, 4.27% &
6.6% increment in plant height respectively was recorded from the use 0N+46P
and 46N+46P rate respectively.
Number of pod
The combined analysis of the variance over the three years showed that cropping
system was caused very highly significant (P≤ 0.0001) effect on number of pod
per plant of haricot bean (Table 4). In line with finding of Lulie et al. (2016) who
reported that cropping system had significant (P≤0.05) effect on number of pods
per plant. The highest mean pod number per plant (27.44plant-1) of haricot bean
was obtained from sole-cropped haricot bean, while the lower pod number
(10.78plant-1) recorded from intercropped haricot bean with sorghum at 2:1
sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement. According to Lulie et al. (2016), the
maximum and the minimum number of pods per plant (29.93 and 16.57) were
recorded from sole planting and intercropping, respectively. Yayeh (2014) also
reported that the overall highest lupine pod per plant was remarkably greater in
sole lupine cropping system as compared to intercrop with cereals. As reported by
Ghosh (2004), pod yield of groundnut were lower in groundnut-cereal
intercropped than in monoculture. From this result, 60.71% increment in pod
number per plant was recorded from sole-cropped haricot bean over the
intercropped haricot bean at 2:1 Sorghum + Haricot bean row arrangement. On the
contrary, 60.71% reduction in pod number was observed from intercropped
haricot bean with sorghum at 2:1 Sorghum + Haricot bean row arrangement when
compared with sole haricot bean. It is in agreement with finding of Subramanian
and Rao (1988) who reported that intercropping sorghum with pigeon pea or mung
[648]
bean caused reduction in number of pods in both pigeon pea and mung bean.
Wahua and Miller (1978) reported that the number of soybean pods per plant was
reduced by 40% and 77% when soybeans were intercropped with two sorghum
cultivars BR44 and FS16, respectively.
The highest pod number obtained from sole haricot bean was could be due to
efficiently use of resources (solar energy, water, plant nutrients, plant growth
regulators etc.) and conversion capacity to the pod number and grain yield, and
also could be due to absence of interspecific competition. Another reason for the
highest pod number obtained from sole haricot bean was might be due to absence
of shading effect by taller crop that inhibits the growth of dwarf crop/or legume
when intercropped with cereals. On the other hand, the lowest pod number
obtained from intercropped haricot bean with sorghum was might be due to
presence of interspecific competition and shading effect may lead to low number
of effective branch that can give greater number of pods. In consistent with
finding of Wahua and Miller (1978) who reported that shading reduced pod set
and increased pod abortion in soybean, which explains the reduction in pod
number by intercropping.
Stand Count at Harvest

The combined analysis of the variance over the three years revealed that the
cropping system was very highly significantly (P≤ 0.0001) affected the stand
count of haricot bean (Table 4).The highest mean stand count at harvest
(303.67plot-1) was obtained from sole-cropped haricot bean whereas the lower
stand count (181.22plot-1 and 208.22 plot-1) respectively were recorded from
intercropped haricot bean at {sorghum + haricot bean (2:1) and sorghum + haricot
bean (1:1) row arrangement treatments respectively (Table 4). This result is
indicating that extra (31.43 to 40.32%) stand count of haricot ben was obtained
from sole cropped haricot bean over an intercropped haricot bean with sorghum.
However, reduction in stand count at harvest by 40.32 to 31.43% was observed
from intercropped haricot bean with sorghum when compared with the sole-
cropped haricot bean. Thus, Sole haricot bean is superior in stand count over the
intercropped haricot bean with sorghum.
[649]
Table 4. Combined mean grain yield, number of pod per plant, number of seed per pod, stand count and plant height of
haricot bean influenced by cropping system and (N+P) fertilizer rates
Treatments GY* NPPP NSPP SCAH PH

9tha-1) (No.plant-1) (No.pod-1) (No.plot-1) (cm)
Cropping system
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:1 ) 1.00b 21.67b 4.67 208.22bc 63.67b
Sorghum + haricot bean( 2:1 ) 0.62d 10.78d 4.56 181.22c 54.78c
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:2 ) 0.73d 26.33a 4.89 280.67a 56.67c
Mixed intercropping ( 0:0) 0.60d 18.00c 4.78 232.22b 56.67c
Sole haricot bean 1.18a 27.44a 4.67 303.67a 70.89a
LSD ( 0.05) 0.115 3.37 0.78 29.29 3.23
CV% 13.62 16.95 17.63 12.80 5.55
Level of significant ** *** NS *** ***
N+P fertilizer rates
0N + 0P 0.72c 20.61 4.67 243.39 58.56b
0N + 46P 1.05a 20.56 4.83 229.11 61.17a
46N + 46P 0.88b 21.00 4.28 243.78 62.70a
LSD (0.05) 0.082 2.38 0.55 20.71 2.29
CV% 13.62 16.95 17.63 12.80 5.55
Level of significant *** NS NS NS **
*GY = Grain yield, NPPP = Number of pods per plant, NSPP = Number of seed per pod, SCAH = Stand count at harvest
and PH = Plant height
Table 5. Combined mean grain yield (tha-1) of haricot bean affected by the interaction effect of row arrangements and
fertilizer rates
Cropping system NP fertilizer rates

0N + 0P 0N + 46P 46N + 46P
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:1 ) 0.90cde 1.07bc 1.03abc
Sorghum + haricot bean( 2:1 ) 0.47h 0.93cde 0.47h
Sorghum + haricot bean( 1:2 ) 0.53gh 1.00bcde 0.67fg
Mixed intercropping ( 0) 0.63gh 1.00bcde 1.03bcd
Sole haricot bean 0.93cde 1.43a 1.17b
LSD(0.05) 0.199
CV(%) 13.62
[650]
Sorghum
In this study the partial budget analysis was carried out by considering all variable
costs for grain yield of sorghum. The partial budget analysis revealed that the
highest net benefit of 34,491.12 ETBha-1 was recorded from application of
46N+46P fertilizer rate, while the lowest net benefit of 31,798.62ETBha-1 was
obtained from application of 0N+46P rate (Table 6). To identify the N+P fertilizer
rate with the optimum return to the farmer investment, marginal analysis was also
performed over the 0N+46P rate treatment. The highest marginal rate of return
(MRR %) {235.90} was recorded from application of 46N+46P fertilizer rate. The
marginal rate of return (235.90 %) was economical and maximum acceptable rate
of return for farmers, since it is greater than 50% to 100 % marginal rate of return
(MRR) ranges. This is in line with the description of CIMMYT (1988), a
treatment having marginal rate of return (MRR) greater than 100% and with the
highest net benefit was considered to be economically best as per the procedure,
and for a treatment to be considered as the best option to farmers, between 50%
and 100 % marginal rate of return (MRR) was the minimum acceptable rate of
return.
Haricot Bean
The partial budget analysis was done by considering all variable costs for grain
yield of haricot bean. The partial budget analysis revealed that the highest net
benefit (13,082.12ETBha-1) was recorded from application of 0N+46P fertilizer
rate, while the lowest net benefit (8,879.92 ETBha-1) was obtained from
application of 46N+46Prate (Table 6). To identify the N+P fertilizer rate with the
optimum return to the farmer investment, marginal analysis was also performed
over the 0N+46P rate treatment. The highest marginal rate of return (MRR %)
{181.81} was recorded from application of 0N+46P fertilizer rate. The marginal
rate of return (181.81%) was economical and maximum acceptable rate of return
for farmers, since it is greater than 50% to 100 % marginal rate of return (MRR)
ranges. In agreement with description of CIMMYT (1988), a treatment having
marginal rate of return (MRR) greater than 100% and with the highest net benefit
was considered to be economically best as per the procedure, and for a treatment
to be considered as the best option to farmers, between 50% and 100 % marginal
rate of return (MRR) was the minimum acceptable rate of return.
[651]
Table 6. Partial budget analysis of fertilizer rates for grain yield of sorghum and haricot bean in intercropped sorghum with haricot bean
N+P fertilizer Average Adj. Gross Cost of Cost of Cost of Cost of Total cost Net benefit Benefit MRR
rates treatment GY GY benefit Urea TSP seed labor (ETBha-1) (ETBha-1) to cost (%)
( kgha-1) ( kgha-1) (ETBha-1) (ETBha-1) (ETBha-1) (ETBha-1) (ETBha-1) ratio
Sorghum
0N+0P 2683 2414.7 35,013.2 0 0 240 2300 2540 32,473.32 12.79 -
0N+46P 2789 2510.1 36,396.5 0 1,9o7.88 240 2450 4597.88 D 6.92 -
46N+46P 3083 2774.7 40,233.2 992.2 1,907.88 240 2600 5740.08 34,493.12 6.01 235.90
Haricot bean
0N+0P 720 648 12,960 0 0 1710 2000 3.710 9,250 2:49 -
0N+46P 1050 945 18,900 0 1,9o7.88 1710 2,200 5,817.88 13,082.12 2:25 181..81
46N+46P 880 792 15,840 992.2 1,907.88 1710 2350 6960.08 D 1:28 -
D = Dominance analysis, ETB = Ethiopian birr, MRR = Marginal rate of return and TSP = Triple supper phosphate
[652]
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Intercropping System
The effectiveness of the intercropping was evaluated using land equivalent ratio
(LER) and land equivalent coefficient (LEC) indices. According to Willey (1979);
Mead and Willey (1980); Dhima et al. (2007), advantages of intercropping
compared with sole cropping is commonly expressed in terms of land equivalent
ratio (LER), which is defined as the relative land area under sole crops that is
required to produce the yield achieved in intercrops.
Based on the combined analysis results, sorghum-haricot bean row intercropped

treatments were caused higher total land equivalent ratio (TLER) than sole-cropping
system which is indicating the superiority of intercropping over sole-cropping. Therefore,
the highest total land equivalent ratio (TLER) (1.69) was recorded from sorghum-haricot
bean intercropping at 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement, while the lower total
land equivalent ratio (TLER) (1.44) was obtained from sorghum-haricot bean mixed
intercropping system (Table 7). Higher TLER from sorghum-haricot bean row
intercropping system as compared to sole cropping was could be due to efficient use of
plant growth resources. This is in line with finding of Willey (1979); Fujita and Ofosu-
Budu (1996) who reported that higher LER from intercropped treatment is attributed to
better utilization of resources. Thus, the total land equivalent ratio (1.44 to 1.69) from
sorghum-haricot bean intercropping system at 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row
arrangement was greater than 1.00, which is indicating that there was yield advantage
over sole cropping. In agreement with finding of Sullivan (2001); Natarajan and Willey
(1986) who reported that TLER values above 1.00 show an advantage of intercropping
while below 1.00 show a disadvantage. This implies that, the association of sorghum and
haricot bean is complementary to each other on growth resource utilization. Muoneke et
al. (2007); Seran and Brintha (2010) confirmed that values above unity in most systems
indicated complementarity in resource utilization between component crops. Hence, row
intercropping at 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row arrangement was the best intercropping
system over sole-cropping to maximize grain yield per hectare.
Land Equivalent Coefficient (LEC)

The effectiveness of the intercropping system was also evaluated using land equivalent
coefficient (LEC).Based on combined analysis results, sorghum-haricot bean row
intercropped arrangements were caused high land equivalent coefficient (0.50 to 0.66)
were greater than 0.25 (25%) implying that there was yield advantage over the mono-
cropping (Table 7). This is in agreement with finding of Adetiloye et al. (1983) who
reported that for a two-crop mixture the minimum expected productivity coefficient is
0.25 ( 25%;) meaning a yield advantage is obtained if land equivalent coefficient (LEC)
values greater than 0.25. Likewise, Egbe (2005) reported that LEC values greater than the
critical in intercropped sorghum-haricot bean at different row arrangements. Hence, this
result showed that all sorghum-haricot bean intercropped treatments caused LEC values
greater than 0.25 (25%) confirming that there was yield advantage.
[653]
Table 7. Grain yield, Land equivalent ratio (LER) and Land equivalent coefficient (LEC) for sole stands and mixture of sorghum with Haricot bean.
Land Equivalent
Planting pattern Mix propor Grain yield (tha-1) Land Equivalent ratio (LER) coefficient
tion Sorghum Haricot bean Total Sorghum Haricot TLER (LEC)
bean
Sole haricot bean 100 0 1.18 1.18 0 1.00 1.00 0
Sole sorghum 100 2.91 0 2.91 1.00 0 1.00 0
Sorghum+ haricot bean ( 1:1) 50:50 3.12 0.73 3.85 1.O7 0.62 1.69 0.66
Sorghum+ haricot bean ( 2:1) 75:25 2.77 .0.62 3.39 0.95 0.53 1.48 0.50
Sorghum+ haricot bean ( 1:2) 25:75 2.69 0.73 3.42 0.92 0.62 1.54 0.57
Mixed intercropping (0:0) 50:50 2.7 0.60 3.30 0.93 0.51 1.44 0.47
[654]
Now days cereal-legume intercropping is an attractive strategy practiced by
smallholder farmers to increase crop productivity and better use of land resource.
It is also important for improvement of soil fertility and reduction of production
risks. The combined analysis of the variance over three years, showed that
sorghum-haricot bean row intercropping system was found beneficial for sorghum
grain yield maximization programs but not beneficial for grain yield of haricot
bean. However, sole-cropping system was found advantageous for grain yield
improvement of haricot bean, but not advantageous for grain yield of sorghum.
Thus, sorghum-haricot bean row intercropping at {sorghum + haricot bean (1:1)
row arrangement} and sole-cropping system respectively were the best cropping
systems and recommended for future use for grain yield of sorghum and haricot
bean respectively. On the other hand, the use of different N+P fertilizer rates were
found very important to maximize grain yield of sorghum and haricot bean, thus,
N+P fertilizer rates such as 46N+46P and 0N+ 46P respectively were the best and
recommended for future use for grain yield of sorghum and haricot bean
respectively. Again, the interaction effect of sole-cropping with N+P fertilizer rate
was also found beneficial for grain yield improvement of haricot bean, but not
beneficial for grain yield of sorghum, hence, the interaction of sole-cropped
haricot bean with 0N+ 46P fertilizer rate was best combination and recommended
for future use for grain yield improvement of haricot bean.
The partial budget analysis showed that the use of N+P fertilizer rates were found
beneficial for maximizing productivity of sorghum and haricot bean and caused
the highest net economic benefit for farmers. Thus, the highest economic net
benefit as well as the highest marginal rate of return (MRR %) of sorghum and
haricot bean respectively were recorded from application of 46N+46P and
0N+46P fertilizer rates respectively. Hence, the use of 46N+46P and 0N+46P
fertilizer rates respectively were the best and economical to maximize the
productivity of sorghum and haricot bean respectively and recommended for
future use.
The effectiveness of the intercropping was evaluated using land equivalent ratio
(LER) and land equivalent coefficient (LEC) indices. Based on the combined
analysis results over the three years, the highest total land equivalent ratio (TLER)
was recorded from sorghum-haricot bean row intercropping system over the sole-
cropping system, which is confirming that the highest yield advantage was
obtained from row intercropping system over mono-cropping. Therefore,
sorghum-haricot bean intercropping at 1:1 sorghum + haricot bean row
arrangement was the best intercropping system for maximum yield advantage over
sole-cropping system.
[655]
References
Adetiloye PO, Ezedinma FOC, Okigbo BN. 1983. A land coefficient concept for
evaluation of competitive and productive interactions on simple complex
mixtures. Ecological Modelling, 19: 27-39
Bandyopadhyay, S. K. and De, R. 1986. Plant growth and seed yield of sorghum
when intercropped with legumes. J. Agriculture Sci. 107: 621-627.
Berhanu D (1980). The physical criteria and their rating proposed for land evaluation
in the highland region of Ethiopia. Land Use Planning and Regulatory
Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Bitew Y., "Influence of small cereal intercropping and additive series of seed
proportion on the yield and yield component of lupine (Lupinus Spp.) in North
Western Ethiopia," Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, vol. 3, pp. 133-141, 2014.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20140302.23
Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. 1945. Determination of total, organic and available form
of phosphorus is soils. Soil Science 59: 39-45.Bremner, J.M. and Mulvaney C.S.
(1982). Nitrogen -Total, Methods of soil analysis. Part 2-Chemical and
microbiological properties. Agronomy 9(2):595-624
Lulie, B., Worku, W. and Beyene, S., 2016. Determinations of haricot bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) planting density and spatial arrangement for staggered
intercropping with maize (Zea mays L.) at Wondo Genet, Southern
Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Res, 4(6), pp.297-320.
Bumb, B.I. and Bannante, C.A. 1996. The Use of Fertilizer in Sustaining Food
Security and Protecting the Environ- ment-2020. Proceedings of Conference on
Agriculture and Fertilizer Use by 2010, NEDC, Islamabad, 35
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) (1988) From
Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual.
Completely Revised Edition, Mexico, DF, p: 79.
Central Statistical Agency (CSA-2011), Agricultural Sample Survey 2010/2011 (2003
E.C.); Report On Area And Production of Major Crops, Volume I, Statistical
Bulletin, April 2011, Addis Ababa.
Debouck, D.G. 1999. Diversity in Phaseolus species in relation to the common bean.
In Common bean improvement in the twenty-first century (pp. 25-52). Springer,
Dordrecht.
Dechasa Hirpha. 2005. Effect of moisture conservation methods and plant density of
component crops on performance of sorghum/bean intercropping in Meiso
district, west Hararghe. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia
Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B. and Dordas, C.A. 2007.
Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio.
Field-crop Res. 100:249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008
Dicko, M.H., Gruppen, H., Traore, A.S., Voragen, A.G.J. and Van Berkel, W.J.H.
2006. Sorghum grain as human food in Africa: relevance of content of starch and
amylase activities. African Journal of Biotechnology, 5 (5): 384-395.
[656]
Donald C. M., 1962. In search of yield. Journal of Australian Institute of Agricultural
Science, 28: 171-178
Edje, O. 1982. Comparative Development and yield and other Agronomic
characteristics of maize and groundnut in monoculture and in association.
Intercropping, 17-26.
Egbe, O.M. 2005. Evaluation of agronomic potentials of some pigeonpea genotypes
for intercropping with maize and sorghum in Southern Guinea Savanna. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria.
ESIP, 1978. Sorghum Improvement (Ethiopia): An Evaluation, Phase I - 3-P-72-0095,
Phase II - 3-P-74-0023.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2009). FASTAT Database for production
of pepper http://faostat.fao.org/site/3339/default.aspx
Finckh, M., Gacek, E., Goyeau, H., Lannou, C., Merz, U., Mundt, C., Munk, L.,
Nadziak, J., Newton, A., de Vallavieille-Pope, C. and Wolfe, M., 2000. Cereal
variety and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis on disease
resistance. Agronomie, 20(7), pp.813-837.
Fishert, N. M. 1979. Studies in mixed cropping III. Further results with maize –bean
mixtures. Expl. Agric. 15: 49-58.
Fujita, K. and Ofosu-Budu, K.G. 1996. Significance of intercropping in cropping
systems. Dynamics of Roots and Nitrogen in Cropping Systems of the Semi-Arid
Tropics. Japan Int. Res. Cen. Agril. Sci. International Agricultural Series. 3: 19-40
Galwey, N. W., Gueiroz, M. A. DE and Willey, R. W. 1986. Genotypic variation in
the response of sorghum to intercropping with cowpea and the effect on the
associated legume. Field Crops Research, 14:263-290.
Gedeno, G. 1990. October. Haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) agronomic research
at Bako. In Research on Haricot Bean in Ethiopia: an Assessment of Status,
Progress, Priorities and Strategies. Proceedings of a National Workshop held in
Addis Ababa.
Ghosh P.K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal
fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field crop Research
88:227-237
Gomez A. and Gomez A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd
ed., Willey J. and Son I., New York, USA, PP: 97-107
Gutu, T., Tana, T. and Geleta, N., 2015. Effect of varieties and population of
intercropped soybean with maize on yield and yield components at Hharo Sabu,
Western Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(4), pp.31-
39.
Hellevang Kenneth 1995. Grain Moisture Content Effects and Management. North
Dakota State Extension Publication
[28] Hesse PR (1971). A textbook of soil chemical analysis. John Murry Limited,
London, Britain.
Ibarra‐ Perez, F, Schneider, K.A., Rosales‐ Serna, R., Cazares‐ Enriquez, B.,
Acosta‐ Gallegos, J.A., Ramirez‐ Vallejo, P., Wassimi, N. and
[657]
ICRISAT (International Crops Research for Semi-arid Tropics), 2004. Sorghum, a
crop of substance.(In En.) Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. pp, 97.
Jackson, M.L. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi.
Jones JB 2003. Agronomic Handbook: Management of Crops, Soils, and Their
Fertility. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Karikari, S.K., Chaba, O., Molosiwa, B. 1999. Effects of Intercropping Bambara
Groundnut on Pearl millet, Sorghum and Maize in Botswana. African Crop
Science Journal 7(2): 143-152.
Keating, B. A. and Carberry, P. S. 1993. Resources capture and use in intercropping:
solar radiation. Field Crop Research, 34: 273-301.
Kelly, J.D., 1997. Improving common bean performance under drought stress. Crop
Science, 37(1), pp.43-50.
Kermah, M., Franke, A.C., Adjei-Nsiah, S., Ahiabor, B.D., Abaidoo, R.C. and Giller,
K.E. 2017. Maize-grain legume intercropping for enhanced resource use
efficiency and crop productivity in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana. Field
crops research, 213, pp.38-50.
Khan, M.B., Asif, M., Hussain, N. and Aziz, M. 2003. Impact of different levels of
phosphorus on growth and yield of mungbean genotypes. Asian Journal of Plant
Sciences.
Khosla, R., Persaud, N., Powell, N.L. and Brann, DE. 1995. Water use of sorghum on
a marginal soil in eastern Virginia.In Appendix 1.P.11. Agronomy abstracts. ASA,
Madison, WI.
Laidlaw, H. K. C. and Godwin, I D. 2009. Sorghum Compendium of Transgenic Crop
Plants. Chichester, UK. : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Landon JR (1991). Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and
Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific
and Technical, Essex, New York 474 p.
Lulie, B., Worku, W. and Beyene, S. 2016. Determinations of haricot bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) planting density and spatial arrangement for staggered intercropping
with maize (Zea mays L.) at Wondo Genet, Southern Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J.
Agric. Sci. Res, 4(6), pp.297-320.
Maitra, S., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Skalicky, M., Ondrisik, P., Gitari, H.,
Brahmachari, K., Shankar, T., Bhadra, P., Palai, J.B. and Jena, J. 2021.
Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental
Security. Agronomy, 11(2), p.343.
Mead, R. and Willey, R. V. 1980. The concept of a land equivalent ratio and
advantages in yields from intercropping. Exp. Agric. 16:219-228.
Mogiso, M. and Nazib, N., 2020. Effect of row arrangement of common bean with
maize intercropping on yield and economic benefit of component crops under
Gimbo and Guraferda, Kaffa and Bench Maji zones, South Ethiopia. International
Journal of Agricultural Research, Innovation and Technology, 10(1), pp.22-27.
Morris, R. A. and Garrity, DP. 1993. Resource capture and utilization in
intercropping. Non-nitrogen nutrients. Field crop reseach 34: 319-334.
[658]
Muoneke CO, Ogwuche MAO, Kalu BA. 2007. Effect of maize planting density on
the performance of maize/soybean intercropping system in a Guinea Savannah
Agro- ecosystem. Afri. J. Agric. Res., 2(12):142-145
Natarejan, M. and Willey, R. W. 1986. The effect of water stress on yield advantages
of intercropping systems. Filed Crops Research, 13: 117-131.
Masebo, N. and Menamo, M., 2016. The effect of application of different rate of NP
Fertilizers rate on yield and yield components of sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor):
Case of Derashe Woreda, Snnpr, Ethiopia. Journal of Natural Sciences
Research, 6(5), pp.88-94.
Nichiporovich, A. A. 1967. Aims of research on photosynthesis of plants as factor of
production. In Photosynthesis of productive system. Transl edition. Israel frog
.Sci. Transl Jerusalem (pp. 3–36)
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Deen LA. 1954. Estimation of available P in soils
by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA. Circular 939:1-19.
Onwueme, I.C. and T.D. Sinha. 1991. “Field crop production in tropical Africa”,
Technical Center for Agriculture and Rural Co-operation.
PINEDA, P., KIPE-NOLT, J. A. & ROJAS, F. 1994. Rhizobium inoculation increases
of bean and maize yields in intercrops on farms in the Peruvian Sierra.
Experimental Agriculture 30, 311–318
Rao, M. R. and Willey, W. 1980. Preliminary studies of intercropping combinations
based on pigeon pea or sorghum. Expl. Agric. 11: 29-39.
Reddy, A. R. and Redd, M. R. 1980. Relative efficiency of multiinter crop system in
pigeon pea under rain fed conditions. Indian J. Agronomy, 25: 508-510.
Reddy, M.S. and Kidane G. 1993. Dryland farming research in Ethiopia review of the
past and thrust in the nineties. Institute of Agricultural Research.
Regessa Kumssa. 2005. Effects of Integrated Use of Decomposed Coffee Husk and
Inorganic N and P Fertilizers on Yield and Yield Related Parameters of Sorghum
on Nitisols of Jimma Area, Ethiopia, MSc thesis
Russell, J. T. and Caldwell, R. M. 1989. Effects of component densities and nitrogen
fertilization on efficiency and yield of a maize/soybean intercrop. Exp. Agric., 25:
529-540.
Seran, T.H. and Brintha, I. 2010. Review of maize based intercropping. J. Agron.
9(3): 135-145. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2010.135.145
Shrotriya, G.C. (1998) Balanced Fertilizer—India Experience. Proceedings of
Symposium on Plant Nutrition Management for Sustainable Agricultural Growth,
NFDC, 8-10 December 1997, Islamabad.
Subramanian, B. V. and Rao, G D. 1988. Intercropping effects on yield components
of dry land sorghum, pigeon pea and mug bean. Tropical Agriculture, 65:145-149.
Sullivan, R. 2001. Intercropping principles and practices. Agronmy Systems Guide.
NCAT Agricultural Specialist Illustrated by missy Gocio. ATTRA
Tamiru, H. 2014. Effect of intercrop row arrangement on maize and haricot bean
productivity and the residual soil. World J. Agril. Sci. 2(4): 069-077
Tekalign T. 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis.
Working document No.13. International Livestock Research Center for Africa,
[659]
Wahua, TAT. and Miller, DA. 1978. Yield and yield components of intercropping
sorghum and soybean. Agronomy J., 70(20): 282-291.
Willey, R., 1979. Intercropping-its importance and research needs: Part 1.
Competition and yield advantages. In Field crop abstracts (Vol. 32, pp. 1-10).
Wortmann, CS. 1998. “Atlas of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Production in
Africa”, CIAT, Cali, Colombia, pp 1-7.
Yayeh Bitew. 2014. Influence of small cereal intercropping and additive series of seed
proportion on the yield and yield component of lupine (Lupinus Spp.) in North
Western Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. 3(2):133-141
Yesuf Mohammed. 2003. Effects of Planting Arrangement and Population Densities
of Haricot Bean on Productivity of Sorghum/Haricot Bean Additive Mixture.
M.Sc. Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia
Zerihun Abebe. 2011. System Productivity as Influenced by Integrated Organic and
Inorganic Fertilizer Application in Maize (Zea mays l.) Intercropped with
Soybean (Glycine max l. Merrill) Varieties at Bako, Western Ethiopia. M.Sc.
Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Zerihun, A., Sharma, J.J., Nigussie, D. and Fred, K. 2013. The effect of integrated
organic and inorganic fertilizer rates on performances of soybean and maize
component crops of a soybean/maize mixture at Bako, Western Ethiopia. African
Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(29), pp.3921-3929.
[660]

Proceeding Pulished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceeding Pulished

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Proceeding Pulished

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Results of

Crop Improvement and

የኢትዮጵያ የግብርና ምርምር ኢንስቲትዩት

Identification of Genotypes for Improving Tef Productivity Using Farmers’

Performance of Drought Tolerant Tef Genotypes in Drought-Prone

Performance of Selected Tef Genotype for High Potential Areas of Ethiopia

Pre-extension Demonstration of Tef Varieties in East and

Registration of the Newly Released Bread Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Registration of the Newly Released Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Genotype x Environment Interaction and Stability Analysis for Grain

Performance Evaluation and Yield Stability of Advanced Bread

Evaluation of Diallel Crosses of Highland Adapted Quality

Combining Ability Analysis of Highland Maize Inbred Lines for Grain

Performance Evaluation of Introduced Advanced-Stage Hybrids Trials

Performance of Diallel Crosses and Combining Ability of Elite Highland

Adaptation and Performance Evaluation of Upland Rice (Oryza sativa L.)

Registration of ‘Pawe-2’ Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Variety Targeted for

Multi-Environment Evaluation of High-Elevation Rice Genotypes

Genetic Diversity in Upland Rice Genotypes at Pawe, Northwestern Ethiopia

Genotype by Environment Interaction on Selected Early Maturing Soybean

Genotype x Environment Interaction on Medium Maturing Soybean

Stability Analysis of Selected Medium Maturing Soybean

Performance of Newly Released Medium Maturing Soybean Variety, Melko

Screening of Soybean Genotypes in the Highland Agroecology

Performance Evaluation of Medium Maturing Soybean

Performance Evaluation of Hybrid Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)

Evaluation of Genotype by Environment Interaction of Linseed Genotypes

Evaluation of Advanced Rape Seed (Brassica napus)

Phenotyping of Black Seeded Soybean Genotypes for

Determination of Appropriate Time of Nitrogen Fertilizer Application

Evaluation of Alternative Break Crops in Rotation with Bread Wheat

Determination of Appropriate Rate and Timing of N Application to Improve the

Influence of in-situ Moisture Conservation Techniques and N Rates on

Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates and Plant Population Density on Late Maturing

Validation of NP Fertilizer Rates on Medium Maturing Maize Varieties

Validation of Soybean (Glycine max. L.) to NP Fertilizer Rates and Plant

Response of Maize Variety to Nitrogen and Plant Population Density

Response of Newly Released Late Maturing Maize Variety to Nitrogen

Validation of Maize-Common Bean Intercropping on Crop Productivity and Land Use

Validation of Plant Population Densities for Maize Varieties in East Showa

Evaluation of Sorghum-Based Sequential Double-Cropping Systems in

Response of a Sorghum Hybrid to Different Plant Densities and N

Effect of Trust-Difol on Upland Cotton Varieties (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

Effect of Seedling Age at Transplanting on Yield and Yield Components of

Effects of Sources, Rate and Application Times of Nitrogen Fertilizer on Yield

Evaluation of Crop Performance and Determination of NP Fertilizer Rate

Agriculture plays significant role in Ethiopia economy. The sector is a major

The agricultural development policies of Ethiopia aims at increasing the

The Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (EIAR) has been undertaking

Diriba Geleti (PhD)

The gap between demand and supply on agricultural products remains to be a

Materials and Methods

Table 1. Plant materials used for the study

The Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) model for individual location, Yij =µ + Gi

Results and Discussion

Mean Agronomic Performance

DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-Cr-459 RIL 109) and DZ-01-974 X GA-10-3 (DZ-

During participatory variety selection amazingly, farmers were less or not

Grain yield (kg ha-1) across environment

Crop stand Tillering Panicle Lodging Culm Pest