GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF SIGNAL GRASS (Brachiaria decumbens Staft)

APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT RATES OF NITROGEN FERTILIZE R

________________________________________
A Thesis Manuscript
Presented to the Faculty of the
Department of Agronomy
College of Agriculture and Food Science
VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Visca, Baybay City, Leyte
________________________________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Degree of
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE
(Agronomy)

GINA ARCUINO AGUINOD

May 2016

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Nature and Importance of the Study
Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf) is one of the pasture grasses with good
agronomic potential (Aminah et al, 1992). It is an aggressive fast growing grass with uprightsword shape leaves, strong stoloniferous root system and a long trailing stems. Although, it is
native of tropical Africa (Uganda), it has been introduced and distributed to other tropical
countries (Fukumoto and Lee, 2003) being high yielding and adapted to a wide range of soils in
the humid tropics (Wong et al, 1982).
Signal grass is important because of its high productivity under intensive management
hence it is mainly planted for permanent pastures. It is often used for erosion control and
revegetation in roadsides and often mixed with a legume to maintain healthy and sustainable
cover. It can be planted as grazed ground cover under open plantations and provides ground
cover on hillsides. Its dense cover makes it a valuable grass for soil erosion control as it spreads
and covers the soil rapidly.
Improvements in forage production through improved soil fertility practices have the
potential to increase income and reduce livestock production costs. Maintaining forage stands
and improving old stands with fertilizer is more effective than mechanical methods (aeration,
harrowing and light disking) and less expensive than reseeding (Rutz and Jones, 2015).
Of all the essential plant nutrients, N is the most commonly deficient nutrient in soil and
generally has the greatest impact on forage production. Nitrogen is the most dynamic because of
the amount needed by the plant and the one most often deficient. It is the nutrient most important
in cell division and growth, because nitrogen is the building block of proteins. It is critical for

the formation of chlorophyll. The more nitrogen and water available, the more growth potential
(Stichler, 2002). Perennial grasses generally need large amount of N and will respond very well
to fertilizer N. The effectiveness of N fertilizer on forage grasses is strongly influenced by rates,
sources, times and methods of N application (Malhi et al, 2004). Timing of N fertilization
depends on the N source and soil and climatic conditions which influence how quickly N
becomes available from soil organic matter (Rutz and Jones, 2015).
Urea is one of the most common sources of commercial fertilizer N. In the majority of
situations, granular fertilizers are used for forage production. Urea is now the dominant granular
N fertilizer, as it has higher N content and is therefore less bulky and costs less per unit of N than
other granular fertilizers. Urea and ammonium nitrate were equally efficient at increasing dry
matter yield of haytype grasses and urea appeared to be a better source of N for pasture-type
grasses (Malhi et al, 2004).
The response of signal grass to nitrogen fertilizer application needs to be investigated
since grass species respond differently to nitrogen fertilization. Addition of nitrogen fertilizer
also influences the chemical composition of the plants as well as the soil fertility status. The N
concentration of signal grass increased with increasing rates of nitrogen fertilizer application.
However, information on its fertilizer response is limited (Aminah, 1992).
An understanding on the rates of N application in a particular condition plays a vital role
in determining the potential yield of this forage crop. The different nitrogen rates of fertilization
on the growth and yield of signal grass under VSU condition have not been studied yet. Hence,
this study will be conducted.

Objectives
1. To evaluate the effect of different fertilization rates of nitrogen on the growth and yield of
signal grass under VSU condition.
2. To determine the appropriate fertilization rate of nitrogen for optimum production of
signal grass.
3. To assess the economic benefit of signal grass production under the different rates of
nitrogen fertilization.

Time and Place of the Study

This study was conducted at the experimental field of the Department of Agronomy,
College of Agriculture and Food Science, Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte
from____________to _____________ 2015.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Grassland plays a major role in the development of the Philippine livestock industry. It
occupies 1.8 M hectares of which only 361 thousand hectares are reported to be under the Forest
Land Grazing Lease Agreement. According to Moog, et al (1993), the countrys growing
population would exert pressure to transform livestock production in these areas from extensive
system to semi-intensive system.
Lack of nutrients, inadequate management of pastures, and inappropriate cultural
practices are responsible for pasture degradation (Monteiro, 2010). These inappropriate
management practices may result in reduced soil fertility, water use efficiency, biomass
production, soil cover, and soil biological activity. This leads also to soil compaction and soil
erosion (Syers et al, 1996).
The demand for high quality meat and dairy products is increasing throughout the world.
The food value of both meat and milk is very high for they contain most of the proteins,
vitamins, and minerals needed in the human diet. Hence, these meat and dairy animals must be
feed appropriately. Most of these feed nutrients must come from forage. Thus, the main reason
for growing forage is to sustain the production of meat and milk products for human food. The
establishment and production of large quantities of forage is relatively easy. However, producing
high quality forage and utilizing it efficiently are much more difficult (Chessmore, 1979).
Forages are generally grown on low fertility soils and their production can be increased
markedly with fertilization. The effectiveness of fertilizers on forages in increasing dry matter
yield and economic returns is dependent upon the levels of nutrients in soil, climatic conditions,
soil type and forage type (Malhi et al, 2004). Considerable efforts have been expended to

develop productive cultivars and determine fertilization strategies for optimizing forage yield
and quality (Kering et al, 2011).
Out of 17 chemical elements that are essential for plant growth, N is the nutrient that
most often limits grass growth. Nitrogen is very mobile in the soil and can become limiting in
areas with high rainfall or irrigation, in coarse or shallow soils, and in soils with low organic
matter. The key to N management for optimal forage yield and quality is to select the right
fertilizer source, rate, placement, and timing for your operation (Rutz and Jones, 2015).
Grass forages respond very well to N fertilizer and protein content in grass forage can be
improved with N application. Nitrogen application increased forage P, Mg, and Ca concentration
to levels within ranges considered optimal for grazing livestock (NRC 1996).

In

most grassland the two factors that most limit growth are moisture (rain) and N. There is not
much we can do about the weather; however, we can manage N to improve productivity on
pastures. Nitrogen deficiency in pastures is common. When considering N fertilization on grass
pastures, decisions need to made in regard to if, when, where, the source, and how much N to use

(http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc/proceedings2000/cuomo.htm).
Nitrogen fertilizer utilization efficiency for instance, is lesser due to losses due
denitrification, volatilization, leaching and soil surface run-off. Thus, appropriate nitrogen
fertilization rates are necessary and should be done in attaining much higher yields. The most
valuable effects of nitrogen fertilization are the increase in forage yield and the increases in
protein, vitamin A, net energy content, total digestible nutrients and protein digestibility. An
application of nitrogen fertilizer is therefore highly recommended in improving both quality and
yield of signal grass. Similar to the other tropical grasses, the nutritive value of signal grass

greatly depends on the fertility status of the soil. Its feeding value is likewise dependent on soil
fertility, age, and proportion of leaf and stem.
Signal grass responded markedly to nitrogen fertilizer application, with the highest yield
of 17,570 kg/ha dry matter significantly increased with increasing rates of nitrogen application of
800 kg N/ha per year (Aminah, 1992). It makes very efficient use of fertilizer nitrogen. Dry
matter production can vary greatly, depending on rainfall and fertility conditions. In particular,
the dry matter yield of signal grass can be increased markedly by fertilizer nitrogen (Harding and
Grof, 1977).
Ndikumana and Leeuw de (1996) indicated that forage from Brachiaria are highly
palatable to stock leading to high intake when fed either fresh or grazed. Its aggressive growth
habits makes signal grass withstands heavy stocking and trampling (Fukumoto and Lee, 2003).
The pasture of Brachiaria decumbens maintained high ground cover under prolonged and heavy
grazing at a stocking rate of ten (10) heads/ha compared to the pasture of Panicum maximum that
was gradually invaded by Paspalum conjugatum (Fisher et al, 1996).
Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens) and humidicola (B. humidicola) also grow well
under coconuts. Recent studies by BAI (Bureau of Animal Industry), showed that cattle grazed
on signal grass and humidicola pastures in Albay produced liveweight gains of 300 to 400
kg/ha/yr at stocking rates of 2 to 3 animals/ha. This indicated the increased benefits that can be
obtained from high yielding pasture species. Signal grass is becoming popular for integration
under coconuts because it doesnt make harvesting and picking of coconuts difficult compared to
Napier and other erect tall growing species. Signal grass is aggressive and competes well against
weeds. (Moog, 2006)
CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Land Preparation
An experimental area of 209 m2 was plowed and harrowed twice at one week interval to
provide good soil tilth and reduce weed growth.

After the last harrowing, ridges were

constructed 50 cm apart.
Soil Sampling and Analysis
Ten soil samples were randomly collected in the experimental area at a depth of 30 cm
using soil auger before planting. The composited sample was submitted to the Central Analytical
Services Laboratory (CASL) PhilRootcrops, Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte
for analysis of soil pH, % organic matter, extractable Pand total N.
Final soil sampling was done right after the final harvest by collecting five samples from
each treatment plot.

The said samples were composited per treatment, mixed thoroughly,

processed, and then analyzed for the same soil parameters mentioned above.
Experimental Design and Field Layout
The experimental area was laid-out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
with five treatments replicated three times. Each treatment plot had a dimension of 3 m x 3 m.
The replication and treatment plots were separated by 1.0m alleyways to facilitate farm
operations and management as well as data gathering. The different treatments were as follows:
T0 Control (unfertilized)
T1 30 kg N ha-1
T2 60 kg N ha-1
T3 90 kg N ha-1
T4 120 kg N ha-1

Fertilizer Application
As indicated in Table 1, half of the total amount of nitrogen for each treatment was
applied basally together with solophos (0-20-0) and muriate of potash (0-0-60) at the rate of 30
kg K2O ha-1. The remaining amounts of nitrogen were applied right after the first harvest at 60
days after planting.
Table1. Amount of inorganic fertilizer materials applied per plot

Treatments
T0 Control
(unfertilized)
T1 30 kg N ha-1

kg
ha-1
-----

Urea
(46-0-0)
grams plot-1
60
Basal DAP
---------

65.2

29.5

29.5

130.4

58.7

58.7

T4 120 kg N ha-1 195.7

88.0

88.0

260.9

117.4

117.4

Solophos
(0-20-0)
grams plot-1
kg
60
ha-1
Basal DAP
-------------

kg
ha-1
-----

MOP
(0-0-60)
grams plot-1
60
Basal
DAP
-----

-----

135

-----

50

45

-----

150

135

-----

50

45

-----

150

135

50

45

-----

50

45

-----

150

T2 60 kg N ha-1
-1

T3 90 kg N ha

150

135

---------

Preparation and Planting of Cuttings

Three to four (3-4) months old cuttings with three (3) visible nodes were prepared and
used as planting materials. These were placed in a cool shady place a day prior to planting to

maintain their freshness. Said cuttings were planted 50 cm x 50 cm apart on the ridges with one
node buried in the soil.
Pest Control
This was undertaken by spraying insecticide and pesticide when the need arises to
minimize insect pest infestation and diseases infection.

Weed Control
Hand weeding was done ten days after planting. Removal of regrowth and late emerging
weeds were performed manually as soon as these are about ten (10) cm high to minimize
competition for light, nutrients and water.

Harvesting
All the plants within the harvestable area were harvested at 60 and 105 days after
planting by cutting the tillers at ten (10) cm from the ground using a sharp sickle.

DATA GATHERED
1. Growth and Yield Parameters
a. Plant Height (cm) - this was determined by measuring the height of ten (10) sample
plants in each treatment plot from the ground level up to the tip of the tallest portion of
the plant prior to harvesting at 60 and 105 days.

b. Number of Tillers per Hill - this was determined by counting and recording the number
of tillers that developed from ten sample hills per plot before harvesting at 60 and 105
days.
c. Fresh Herbage Yield (t ha-1) - this was obtained by weighing all the harvested herbage
within the harvestable area in each treatment plot at 60 and 105 days. It was converted to
tons per ha using the formula:
Plot Yield (kg)
10,000 m2 ha-1
Herbage Yield (t ha ) = ------------------------------- x ------------------Harvestable area (4.0 m2)
1,000 kg t-1
-1

d. Dry Matter Yield (t ha-1) - this was determined by oven drying the herbage taken from
three (3) sample hills per treatment at 60 and 105 days for 72 hours at 65 oC and
calculated using the formula:
Dry Matter Yield (t ha-1) = Fresh herbage yield (t ha-1) x (100 - % MC)
Where:
Fresh weight (g) Oven dry weight (g)
% MC = -------------------------------------------------- x 100
Fresh weight (g)

Cost and Return Analysis

This was determined by recording and computing all the expenses incurred throughout
the conduct of the study from land preparation up to harvesting. These include chemicals,
materials, and labor used in the field. Income was computed by multiplying the total yield
obtained per hectare by the current price of signal grass set by the Philippine Carabao Center

(PCC). Net profit was determined by subtracting the total expenses from the gross income for
every treatment tested as indicated in the formula below.
Net return = Gross Income Total Cost
Where:
Total Cost = Fixed Cost + Variables
Meteorological Data
Data on total weekly rainfall (mm), relative humidity and temperature (minimum and
maximum, 0C) throughout the conduct of the study from ______ to ______ 2016 were taken
from the records of the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical, and Astronomical Services
Administration (PAGASA) Station Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte.

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General Observation
Appendix Table 2 shows the total weekly rainfall (mm), the maximum and minimum
temperatures (0C) and the relative humidity (%) that occurred during the entire duration of the
experiment as recorded by PAG-ASA station, VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte. The total weekly

rainfall ranged from 0 mm to 567.40 mm and the average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures ranged from 21.05oC 24.92oC and 27.73oC 33.04oC, respectively. On the other
hand, the relative humidity ranged from 67.79% 83.50%. These values closely conformed to
the temperature requirements for optimal growth of signal grass which ranged from 25 - 35 oC.
On the other hand, the total amount of rainfall of 851.40 mm was not adequate for the growth
and development of signal grass since it needs at least 1,500 mm of rain.
The weed species observed in the experimental area during the whole duration of the
study were dominated by itch grass or aguingay (Rottboelliacochinchinensis). These were
controlled by hand weeding. No serious damage due to insect pest and diseases were observed
during the conduct of the experiment.
Generally, differences on the morphological appearance of signal grass among treatments
were not distinct during the early stage of growth. Later on, however, the plants applied with
high amounts of nitrogen fertilizer showed vigorous growth as manifested by abundant tillers
and darker leaves compared to those plants treated with lower amounts of nitrogen which had
lesser number of tillers with light green leaves. The unfertilized plants (T0) were the shortest
while the tallest were those that received the highest amount of N fertilizer at 120 kg ha -1 N (T4).
After the first harvest, the plants in all treatments were shorter but with numerous tillers.
Soil Analysis
As presented in Table 2, the initial soil analysis revealed that the experimental area had a
pH of 5.870, 0.897 % organic matter, 0.150 % total nitrogen and 8.400 mg kg -1 available
phosphorous. These results indicate that the soil was moderately acidic with very low organic
matter and low total nitrogen and available phosphorus (Landon, 1991 Appendix Table 2).

Results of final analysis showed an increase in soil pH and decrease in % total nitrogen.
On the other hand, % organic matter increased only in plots applied with 30 kg ha -1 N while
available phosphorous increased in plots applied with 120 kg ha-1 N and 60 kg ha-1N. According
to Suradej Pholsen (2010), for this signal grass experiment the values of available phosphorous
given were extremely low for high crop yields. The poor mean values of available P must be due
to the previous history of crop cultivation and many other reasons such as the depletion of soil
nutrients and high leaching rate. On the other hand, Suksri (1999) stated that for a high crop
yield, this Oxic Paleustults great soil group should possess a range of soil pH values from 6 to
6.5 in which this range of soil pH values has been recommended for high crop yields where some
certain amount of soil nutrients could be adequately released.

Table 2. Chemical properties of the experimental area before planting and after harvest
of signal grass applied with different rates of nitrogen fertilizer

Initial Analysis

Soil pH
(1:2:5)
5.870

OM
(%)
0.897

Total N
(%)
0.150

Available P
(mg kg-1)
8.400

Final Analysis
T0 control

6.660

0.819

0.127

8.127

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

6.480

0.936

0.121

7.951

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

6.370

0.858

0.115

10.225

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

6.520

0.858

0.124

8.330

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

6.410

0.897

0.122

9.011

Mean

6.488

0.874

0.122

8.729

Agronomic Characteristics of Signal Grass (1st and 2nd harvests)

Table 3 shows the agronomic characteristics of signal grass as affected by different levels
of nitrogen fertilizer at first and second harvests. The results indicated significant effects of
applying various rates of nitrogen fertilizer on plant height and the number of tillers per hill.
However, after first harvest, the results on plant height were not significantly increased by the
application of N fertilizer but significantly resulted in an increased number of productive tillers
per hill.
Plants applied with 120 kg ha-1 N (T4) grew vigorously at 112.10 cm and 91.73 cm during
the first and second harvests, respectively but comparable with those plants applied with 90 kg
ha-1 N (T3). The untreated plants (T0) were the shortest during the first harvest but were
comparable to those plants applied with 30 to 60 kg ha -1 N during the second harvest.
Application of higher rates of nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased the overall growth
performance of the plants. These results conformed with the study of Aminah (1992) that signal
grass responded markedly to increasing rates of nitrogen application.

The numbers of tillers per hill at first and second harvests were significantly increased
with application of nitrogen fertilizer. Higher number of tillers were observed to those plants
applied at a rate of 90 - 120 kg ha -1 N and fewer to those unfertilized plants. The results seemed
to imply that as the rate of N fertilization increases, the number of tillers will likewise increase.
These corroborated the results of Silva et al. (2008), who reported that N fertilizer increased the
number of vegetative tillers due to the positive effect of N which affects leaf elongation and
tillering rate promoting greater capacity of formation of auxiliary buds, which may potentially
originate new tillers.
Table 3. Agronomic characteristics of signal grass as affected by different rates of nitrogen
fertilizer (1st harvest and 2nd harvest)
Plantheight (cm)
Treatment

No. of tillers per hill

1st harvest

2nd harvest

1st harvest

2nd harvest

T0 control

82.18c

65.20c

19.60c

48.43c

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

96.05b

73.10bc

37.60b

80.73b

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

99.42b

73.13bc

40.27b

80.57b

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

105.75ab

85.23ab

45.50ab

99.97a

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

112.10a

91.73a

49.73a

99.10

77.68

38.54

83.57

6.67

12.01

12.75

11.40

Mean
C.V. (%)

108.13a

Treatment means within a column followed by a common letter are not significantly
different at 5 % level of significance based on Tukeys Studentized Range (HSD) test.

Fresh Herbage Yield and Dry Matter Yield of Signal Grass (1st and 2nd harvests)
Table 4 presents the effects of the different levels of nitrogen fertilizer on fresh herbage
and dry matter yields of signal grass at first and second harvests. Application of different rates of

nitrogen had significant influence on the fresh herbage and dry matter yields of the plants. These
could be due to the increased number of tillers as presented in the previous table.
At first harvest, the plants applied with 120 kg ha -1 N (T4) had heavier total fresh herbage
yield compared to the unfertilized plants and those plants applied with 30 kg ha -1 N (T1) but
comparable to those plants applied with the rest of the treatments. Similar trends in yields were
observed in the second harvest and total fresh herbage yields. Heavier fresh herbage yield was
produced at 120 kg ha-1 N (T4) and the lightest was from the untreated plants (T 0). According to
Max

Shelton

(http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/AbAuthors/shelton.htm), frequent

applications of nitrogen, up to six times per season, keep the grass in a very nutritious condition
and improve live weight gain.
In terms of dry matter yield at first harvest, plants applied with 120 kg ha -1 N had the
heaviest dry matter yield than the rest of the plants applied with the other treatments. However,
the plants applied with 60 and 90 kg ha-1 N were of comparable yields to the former at second
harvest and in terms of total yield. The lightest dry matter yields were obtained from the
unfertilized plants (T0) and those applied with 30 kg ha-1 N. The results confirmed the study of
Harding and Grof (1977) that the dry matter yield of signal grass can be increased markedly by
nitrogen fertilization.

Table 4. Fresh herbage and dry matter yields of signal grass as affected by different rates
of nitrogen fertilizer
Fresh herbage yield (t ha-1)
Treatment

1st
harvest

2nd harvest

Total

Dry matter yield (t ha-1)

1st
harvest

2nd harvest

Total

T0 control

2.66b

6.38d

9.04b

0.75c

1.13c

1.88c

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

4.50b

8.75c

13.25b

1.11c

1.68bc

2.79c

T2 60 kg ha-1 N
T3 90 kg ha-1 N
T4 120 kg ha-1 N
Mean

5.17ab
7.88a
8.23a
5.69

9.88bc
11.54ab
12.50a
9.81

15.05ab
19.42ab
20.73a
15.50

1.88b
1.73b
2.91a
1.68

2.32ab
2.60a
2.86a
2.12

4.20ab
4.33ab
5.77a
3.80

C.V. (%)

29.84

9.99

19.92

19.66

17.42

18.54

Treatment means within a column with the same letter designation are not significantly
different at 5% level of significance based on Tukeys Studentized Range (HSD) test.

Cost and Return Analysis

Cost and return analysis of signal grass production as affected by the application of
different rates of nitrogen fertilizer is presented in Table 5 and Appendix Table 15. Combining
the two harvests, a total fresh herbage yield of 20.73 t ha -1 was attained by the application of 120
kg ha-1 N which was significantly greater than plants applied with 30, 90, 60 kg ha -1 N and the
untreated one. However, the net incomes were not significantly increased by the different rates of
N fertilizer application. The total fresh herbage yield did not compensate the production cost
involved on the whole duration of the experiment.
Application of 120 kg ha-1 N resulted in the highest total fresh herbage yield but also the
highest amount of production cost due to the higher rates of N fertilization applied and the
production required. These resulted to lower net income for those plants applied with 120 kg ha -1
N than with those unfertilized plants. On the other hand, those plants applied with 60 kg ha -1N
obtained the lowest net income at PhP-11,158.00 among the different rates of N application and
the untreated ones evaluated.

Table 5. Cost and return analysis of signal grass production as affected by different rates of
nitrogen application
Treatments

Total Fresh
Herbage Yield
(t ha-1)

Gross Incomea
(Php ha-1)

9.04b
T0 control
-1
13.25b
T1 30 kg N ha
15.05ab
T2 60 kg N ha-1
-1
19.42ab
T3 90 kg N ha
20.73a
T4 120 kg N ha-1
a
Calculated by multiplying the fresh
PCC of Php 1.25 kg-1.

Production Cost
(Php ha-1)

Net Income
(Php ha-1)

11,300.00
18,750.00
-7,450.00
16,562.50
26,504.00
-9,941.50
18,812.50
29,971.20
-11,158.00
24,275.00
33,180.56
-8,905.56
25,912.50
36,372.00
-10,459.50
herbage yield with the optimum pick up price set by

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was conducted at the experimental field of the Department of Agronomy,
College of Agriculture and Food Science, VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte from January 4 to
April 8, 2016 with the following objectives: 1) to evaluate the effect of different nitrogen
fertilization rates on the growth and yield of signal grass under VSU condition; 2) to determine
the appropriate fertilization rate of nitrogen for optimum production of signal grass; and 3) to

assess the economic benefit of signal grass production under the different rates of nitrogen
fertilization.
An experimental area of 209 m2 was laid-out in a randomized complete block design
(RCBD) with five treatments replicated three times. Each treatment plot had a dimension of 3 m
x 3 m. The replication and treatment plots were separated by 1.0m alleyways to facilitate farm
operations and management as well as data gathering. The different treatments were as follows:
T0 Control (unfertilized), T1 30 kg N ha-1; T2 60 kg N ha-1; T3 90 kg N ha-1; T4 120 kg
N ha-1.
Ten soil samples were randomly collected in the experimental area at a depth of 0-30 cm
using soil auger before planting. A composited sample was submitted to the Central Analytical
Services Laboratory (CASL),PhilRootcrops, VisayasState University, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte
for analysis of soil pH, organic matter, extractable P and total N.
Final soil sampling was done right after the final harvest by collecting five samples from
each treatment plot.

The said samples were composited per treatment, mixed thoroughly,

processed, and then analyzed for the same soil parameters mentioned above.
The initial soil analysis revealed that the experimental area had a soil pH of 5.870, 0.897
% organic matter, 0.150 % total nitrogen and 8.400 mg kg-1 available phosphorous. Results of
final soil analysis showed an increase in soil pH but a decrease in total N. On the other hand, the
O.M. content increased only in plots applied with 30 kg N ha-1 while the P increased only in plots
applied with 60 and 120 kg N ha-1.
Half of the total amounts of nitrogen for each treatment were applied basally at planting
together with the whole amounts of P and K at the rate of 30 kg P 2O5 and K2O ha-1. The

remaining amounts of nitrogen were applied right after the first harvest at 60 days after planting.
Urea, solophos and muriate of potash were the fertilizer materials used.
Three to four (3-4) months old cuttings with three (3) visible nodes were prepared and
used as planting materials. These were placed in a cool shady place a day prior to planting to
maintain their freshness. Said cuttings were planted 50 cm x 50 cm apart on the ridges with one
node buried in the soil.
Among the evaluated agronomic characteristics of signal grass, plant height, number of
tillers, fresh herbage and dry matter yields were significantly affected by the different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer. Plants applied with 120 kg ha-1 N (T4) produced higher number of tillers with
heavier fresh herbage and dry matter yields among the treatments. The unfertilized plants (T 0)
were the shortest and obtained the lowest fresh herbage and dry matter yields.
Conclusions
Based on the results obtained, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. Application of nitrogen fertilizer significantly increased the plant height, number of
tillers, fresh herbage yield and dry matter yield of signal grass.
2. The optimum rate of N application for signal grass production was 60 kg ha-1.
3. The net income was not significantly increased by the different rates of N fertilizer
application.
Recommendations
1. The application of 60 kg ha-1 N is recommended for optimum signal grass production
under similar soil and climatic conditions of the experiment.
2. The positive linear responses shown by the growth of tillers and overall yield of the grass
at N rates up to 120 kg ha-1 N suggest that further work, using N rates above 120 kg ha-1
N, is recommended to ascertain the yield potential of this grass.

CHAPTER IV
LITERATURE CITED
AMINAH A. N., M. W. OTHMAN and Z. SHAMSUDDIN. 1992. Productivity response of
Signal grass (Brachiaria decumbens) to N fertilization. MARDI Res. J. 20 (1) 1992:
45-51
CHESSMORE, R. A. 1979. Profitable pasture management. (The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc.: Danville, Illinois).
FISHER M. J. and P. C. KERRIDGE. 1996. The Agronomy and Physiology of Brachiaria
Species. Brachiaria: Biology, Agronomy, and Improvement. (CIAT &Embrapa). P.4352
FUKUMOTO G. K. and C. N. LEE. 2003. Signal grass for forage, Livestock Management.
Department of Human Nutrition, Food and Animal Sciences.Livestock
Management
June 2002 (revised Apr. 2003) LM-3 (rev.)
HARDING, W. A. T. and B. GROF. 1977. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen on yield, nitrogen
content and animal productivity of Brachiaria decumbens cv. Basilisk on the wet
tropical coast of north Queensland. Queensland Journal of Agricultural and Animal
Sciences 34 (in press).
KERING M. K., J. A. GURETZKY, E. FUNDERBURG and J. MOSALI. 2011. "Effect of
Nitrogen Fertilizer Rate and Harvest Season on Forage Yield, Quality, and

Macronutrient
Concentrations in Midland Bermuda grass". Agronomy &
Horticulture -- Faculty
Publications. Paper 555.
LANDON, J. R. 1991. Booker Tropical Soil Manual. Longman Scientific and Technical Essex
England. 474 pp.
MALHI, S.S., K.S. GILL, D.H. MCCARTNEY and R. MALMGREN. 2004. Fertilizer
management of forage crops in the Canadian Great Plains. Recent Research
Developments in Crop Science. 1:237-271.
MONTEIRO F. A., C. P. SILVEIRA, E. M. SILVA and D. A. OLIVEIRA. 2010. Nitrogen
and sulfur fertilization for a Signal grass pasture: forage yield, nutritional status and
some soil fertility attributes in a rainy season. ESALQ, University of So Paulo,
Avenida Pdua Dias 11, P.O. Box 9, 13418-900, Piracicaba-SP, Brazil.
MOOG F. A. 2006. Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profiles; Philippines. Chief, Publishing
Policy and Support Branch, Office of Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension,
FAO, Vialedelle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy.

MOOG, F.A., A. G. DEOCAREZA and H. E. DIESTA.

improved pastures under coconuts in Bicol Region.
(eds.)Strategies for Suitable Forage-Based Livestock
Proceedings of 3rd meeting of Regional Working
resources of Southeast Asia.43-48.

1993. Demonstration trials on

In: Chen C.P., Satjipanon C.,
Production in Southeast Asia.
Group on grazing and feed

NDIKUMANA J. and P. N. LEEUW DE. 1996.Regional Expertise with Brachiaria: SubSaharan Africa. Brachiaria: Biology, Agronomy, and Improvement. (CIAT &
Embrapa).P.247-257.
NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirement of beef cattle, 7th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academy
Press.
RUTZ K. O. and C. JONES. 2015. Soil nutrient management for forages; nitrogen. Department
of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences, Montana State University Bozeman
EB0216.
STICHLER. C. 2002. Grass growth and development. Texas Cooperative Extension Texas
A&M University. SCS-2002-22
SUKSRI. A. 1999. Some Agronomic and Physiological Aspects in Growing Crops in Northeast
Thailand. 1st Edn., Khon Kaen University Press, Khon Kaen, Thailand.
SURADEJ. P. 2010. Soil Nutrients and Liming on Dry Weight Yields and Forage Quality of
Signal Grass (Brachiaria decumbens Stapf), Grown on Korat Soil Series (Oxic
Paleustults) in Northeast Thailand. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 13: 613-620.

SYERS J. K., J. LINGARD, C. PIERI, E. EZCURRA, G. FAURE. 1996. Sustainable land

management for the semiarid and sub-humid tropics. Ambio25, 484-491.
http://www.uwex.edu/ces/forage/wfc/proceedings2000/cuomo.htm (Last updated: Febuary1,
2016)
http://www.fao.org/ag/agp/AGPC/doc/AbAuthors/shelton.htm (Last updated: May 11, 2016,)

APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1. Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures (C) and average relative humidity (%) during the conduct of
the experiment from January 4 April 8, 2016
Temperature (C)

Weeks

Rainfall
(mm)

Minimum

Maximum

Jan. 4 - 10
Jan.11 - 17
Jan. 18 - 24
Jan. 25 - 31
Feb. 1 - 7
Feb. 8 - 14
Feb. 15 - 21
Feb. 22 - 28
Feb. 29 - March 6
March 7 - 12
March 13 - 19
March 20 - 26
March 27 - April 2
April 3 - 8
Total

14.20
18.30
18.40
567.40
82.40
37.80
40.90
56.40
1.40
1.20
0.00
0.80
11.20
1.00
851.40

24.16
24.52
24.25
23.36
23.94
23.10
23.34
24.07
24.22
21.05
24.73
24.74
24.73
24.92
335.13

31.38
32.24
33.04
30.60
31.28
31.29
30.56
31.49
31.90
27.73
32.54
32.16
32.48
32.25
440.94

Relative
Humidity
(%)
80.36
80.00
79.43
83.50
81.15
80.43
83.36
81.15
79.71
67.79
77.86
77.57
77.29
78.63
1108.23

Mean

60.81

23.94

31.50

79.16

Appendix Table 2. Summary of soil chemical data interpretation (Landon, 1991)

pH

Nitrogen %
<0.1
very low
0.1 - 0.2
low

Organic Matter (%
OM)
<2.0
very low
2-4
low

Available P
( mg kg-1)
<5
very low
5-9
low

< 4.5
extremely acidic
4.5 - 5.0
very strongly acidic
5.1 - 5.5
strongly acidic

0.2 - 0.5
medium

4 - 10
medium

10 - 50
high

5.6 - 6.0
moderately acidic

0.5 - 1.0
high

10 - 20
High

>50
very high

6.1 - 6.5
slightly acidic

> 1.0
very high

> 20
very high

6.6 - 7.3
neutral
7.4 - 7.8
mildly alkaline
7.9 - 8.4
moderate alkaline
8.5 - 9.0
strongly alkaline
9.0
very strongly alkaline
Note: Values were obtained by the following method of analyses:
pH 1:2.5 soil:water ratio
Organic Matter (%) Walkley-Black Method
N (%) Kjeldahl Method
Available P Bray 2 Method
Exchangeable K NH4 OAc pH 7.0 Method

Appendix Table 3. Plant height (cm) of signal grass as affected by different rates of nitrogen
fertilizer (1st harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II
85.45

III
70.35

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
90.75

246.55

82.18

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

107.10

108.10

72.95

288.15

96.05

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

104.60

103.30

90.35

298.25

99.42

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

112.30

113.70

91.25

317.25

105.75

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

131.80

112.30

92.20

336.30

112.10

Block Total

546.55

522.85

417.10

Grand Total

1486.50

Grand Mean

99.10

Appendix Table 3a. Analysis of variance on plant height (cm) of signal grass as affected by
different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

1900.14

950.07

21.75

0.0006

Treatment

1526.40

381.60

8.73**

0.0051

Error

349.52

43.69

Total

14

3776.05

CV = 6.67 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 4. Plant height (cm) of signal grass as affected by different rates of nitrogen
fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II
73.10

III
67.10

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
55.40

195.60

65.20

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

76.10

73.80

69.40

219.30

73.10

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

63.50

78.10

77.80

219.40

73.13

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

96.60

85.40

73.70

255.70

85.23

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

102.40

91.80

81.00

275.20

91.73

Block Total

394.00

402.20

369.00

Grand Total

1165.20

Grand Mean

77.68

Appendix Table 4a. Analysis of variance on plant height of signal grass as affected by different
rates of nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

119.63

59.82

0.69

0.5303

Treatment

1355.84

338.96

3.90*

0.0482

Error

696.09

87.01

Total

14

2171.56

CV = 12.01 %

* = significant

Appendix Table 5. Number of tillers of signal grass as affected by different rates of nitrogen
fertilizer (1st harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II
19.10

III
14.60

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
25.10

58.80

19.60

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

36.40

49.20

27.20

112.80

37.60

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

42.20

48.90

29.70

120.80

40.27

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

43.80

58.60

34.10

136.50

45.50

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

55.00

57.10

37.10

149.20

49.73

Block Total

202.50

232.90

142.70

Grand Total

578.10

Grand Mean

38.54

Appendix Table 5a. Analysis of variance on the number of tillers of signal grass as affected by
different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

842.42

421.21

17.44

0.0012

Treatment

1608.96

402.24

16.65**

0.0006

Error

193.24

24.15

Total

14

2644.62

CV = 12.75 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 6. Number of tillers of signal grass as affected by different rates of nitrogen
fertilizer (2nd harvest)

Replication
Treatment

II
63.30

III
46.10

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
35.90

145.30

48.43

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

87.50

87.90

66.80

242.20

80.73

T2 60 kg ha-1N

73.40

88.90

79.40

241.70

80.57

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

106.70

115.80

77.40

299.90

99.97

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

112.20

112.60

99.60

324.40

108.13

Block Total

415.70

468.50

369.30

Grand Total

1253.50

Grand Mean

83.57

Appendix Table 6a. Analysis of variance on the number of tillers of signal grass as affected by
different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)

Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

985.43

492.71

5.43

0.0324

Treatment

6371.58

1592.89

17.55**

0.0005

Error

726.16

90.77

Total

14

8083.17

CV= 11.40 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 9. Fresh herbage yield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II

III

Total

Mean

T0 control

4.00

1.76

2.21

7.97

2.66

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

5.38

5.56

2.56

13.50

4.50

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

7.38

5.04

3.10

15.52

5.17

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

9.38

10.78

3.49

23.65

7.88

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

10.94

9.95

3.79

24.68

8.23

Block Total

37.08

33.09

15.15

Grand Total

85.32

Grand Mean

5.69

Appendix Table 9a. Analysis of variance on fresh herbage yield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected
by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

54.50

27.25

9.46

0.0078

Treatment

66.30

16.58

5.75*

0.0176

Error

23.04

2.88

Total

14

143.85

CV = 29.84 %

* = significant

Appendix Table 10. Fresh herbage yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Replication
Treatment
Total
Mean
I
II
III
T0 control

6.65

7.50

5.00

19.15

6.38

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

9.50

10.25

6.50

26.25

8.75

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

9.63

10.50

9.50

29.63

9.88

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

10.75

14.13

9.75

34.63

11.54

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

11.13

14.38

12.00

37.51

12.50

Block Total

47.66

56.76

42.75

Grand Total

147.17

Grand Mean

9.81

Appendix Table 10a. Analysis of variance on fresh herbage yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as
affected by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

20.19

10.09

10.52

0.0058

Treatment

69.31

17.33

18.05**

0.0005

Error

7.68

0.96

Total

14

97.18

CV = 9.99 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 11. Total fresh herbage yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected by different rates
of nitrogen fertilizer
Replication
Treatment

II
9.26

III
7.21

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
10.65

27.12

9.04

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

14.88

15.81

9.06

39.75

13.25

T2 60 kg ha-1N

17.00

15.54

12.60

45.14

15.05

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

20.13

24.90

13.24

58.27

19.42

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

22.06

24.33

15.79

62.18

20.73

Block Total

84.72

89.84

57.90

Grand Total

232.46

Grand Mean

15.50

Appendix Table 11a. Analysis of variance on total fresh herbage yield (t ha -1) of signal grass as
affected by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

117.66

58.83

14.27

0.0023

Treatment

268.99

67.25

16.32**

0.0006

Error

32.97

4.12

Total

14

419.62

CV = 6.67 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 12. Dry Matter Yield (t ha -1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II
0.68

III
0.46

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
1.10

2.24

0.75

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

1.14

1.42

0.77

3.33

1.11

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

2.41

1.92

1.30

5.63

1.88

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

2.34

1.57

1.28

5.19

1.73

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

3.74

3.11

1.88

8.73

2.91

Block Total

10.73

8.70

5.69

Grand Total

25.12

Grand Mean

1.68

Appendix Table 12a. Analysis of variance on dry matter yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected
by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (1st harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

2.56

1.28

11.85

0.0041

Treatment

8.24

2.06

19.02**

0.0004

Error

0.87

0.11

Total

14

11.67

CV = 19.66 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 13. Dry matter yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Replication
Treatment

II
1.40

III
0.78

Total

Mean

T0 control

I
1.20

3.38

1.13

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

1.88

1.92

1.23

5.03

1.68

T2 60 kg ha-1 N

2.19

2.09

2.70

6.98

2.33

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

2.40

2.48

2.92

7.80

2.60

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

2.61

2.71

3.27

8.59

2.86

Block Total

10.28

10.60

10.90

Grand Total

31.78

Grand Mean

2.12

Appendix Table 13a. Analysis of variance on dry matter yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected
by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer (2nd harvest)
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

0.04

0.02

0.14

0.8689

Treatment

6.02

1.51

11.06**

0.0024

Error

1.09

0.14

Total

14

7.15

CV = 17.42 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 14. Total dry matter yield (t ha-1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer
Replication
Treatment

II
2.08

III
1.24

Total

T0 control

I
2.29

Mean

5.61

1.87

T1 30 kg ha-1 N

3.02

3.34

1.20

7.56

2.52

T2 60 kg ha-1N

4.60

4.01

3.99

12.60

4.20

T3 90 kg ha-1 N

4.74

4.05

4.20

12.99

4.33

T4 120 kg ha-1 N

6.34

5.81

5.15

Block Total

20.99

19.29

15.78

Grand Total

17.30

5.77

56.06

Grand Mean

3.74

Appendix Table 14a. Analysis of variance on total dry matter yield (t ha -1) of signal grass as
affected by different rates of nitrogen fertilizer
Source of
Variation
Replication

df

SS

MS

F value

Pr>F

1.98

0.99

9.46

0.0078

Treatment

27.19

6.80

65.01**

0.0000

Error

0.84

0.10

Total

14

30.00

CV = 8.53 %

** = highly significant

Appendix Table 15. Production cost (PhP ha -1) of signal grass as affected by different rates of
nitrogen fertilizer
Items
A. T0 control (unfertilized)
1. Labor
a. Land preparation
1st plowing
2nd plowing
Harrowing
b. Planting
c. Weeding
d. Harvesting

Qty

10
6
5
9
9
9
2

Unit

man-animal day
man-animal day
man-animal day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day

Unit Cost
(Php)

500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00

Total Cost
(Php)

5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,250.00
2,250.00
2,250.00
500.00

e. Hauling

Total
2. Materials
a. Cuttings
Total

17,750.00
10,000

pc.

0.10

Grand Total
B. T1 30 kg ha-1 N
1. Labor
a. Land preparation
1st plowing
2nd plowing
Harrowing
b. Planting
c. Fertilizer application
d. Weeding
e. Harvesting
f. Hauling
Total
2. Materials
a. Cuttings
b. Urea (46-0-0)
c. Solophos (0-20-0)
d. Muriate of potash (0-0-60)
Total
Grand Total

C. T2 60 kg ha-1N

1,000.00
1,000.00
18,750.00

10
6
5
9
2
9
12
5

man-animal day
man-animal day
man-animal day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day

10,000
1.3
3
1

pc.
bag
bag
bag

500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00

5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,250.00
500.00
2,250.00
3,000.00
1,250.00
19,750.00

0.10
1,120.00
1,000.00
1,298.00

1,000.00
1,456.00
3,000.00
1,298.00
6,754.00
26,504.00

1. Labor
a.Land preparation
1st plowing
2nd plowing
Harrowing
b. Planting
c. Fertilizer application
d. Weeding
e. Harvesting
f. Hauling
Total
2. Materials
a. Cuttings
b. Urea (46-0-0)
c. Solophos (0-20-0)
d. Muriate of potash (0-0-60)

10
6
5
9
3
9
16
8

man-animal day
man-animal day
man-animal day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day

10,000
2.6
3
1

pc.
bag
bag
bag

500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00

5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,250.00
750.00
2,250.00
4,000.00
2,000.00
21,750.00

0.10
1,120.00
1,000.00
1,298.00

1,000.00
2,923.20
3,000.00
1,298.00

Total
Grand Total

D. T3 90 kg ha-1 N
1. Labor
a.Land preparation
1st plowing
2nd plowing
Harrowing
b. Planting
c. Fertilizer application
d. Weeding
e. Harvesting
f. Hauling
Total
2. Materials
a. Cuttings
b. Urea (46-0-0)
c. Solophos (0-20-0)
d. Muriate of potash (0-0-60)
Total
Grand Total

8,221.20
29,971.20

10
6
5
9
4
9
19
11

man-animal day
man-animal day
man-animal day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day

10,000
3.9
3
1

pc.
bag
bag
bag

500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00

5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,250.00
1,000.00
2,250.00
4,750.00
2,750.00
23,500.00

0.10
1,120.00
1,000.00
1,298.00

1,000.00
4,382.56
3,000.00
1,298.00
9,680.56
33,180.56

E. T4 120 kg ha-1 N
1. Labor
a.Land preparation
1st plowing
2nd plowing
Harrowing
b. Planting
c. Fertilizer application
d. Weeding
e. Harvesting
f. Hauling
Total
2. Materials
a. Cuttings
b. Urea (46-0-0)
c. Solophos (0-20-0)
d. Muriate of potash (0-0-60)
Total
Grand Total

10
6
5
9
5
9
22
14

man-animal day
man-animal day
man-animal day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day
man-day

10,000
5.2
3
1

pc.
bag
bag
bag

500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00
250.00

5,000.00
3,000.00
2,500.00
2,250.00
1,250.00
2,250.00
5,500.00
3,500.00
25,250.00

0.10
1,120.00
1,000.00
1,298.00

1,000.00
5,824.00
3,000.00
1,298.00
11,122.00
36,372.00

Figure 1. Experimental Field Layout

Area = L x W
= 11 m x 19 m
= 209 m2

Figure 2. Diagram of the Harvestable Area

Plot Area = L x W
= 3.0 m x 3.0m
= 9 m2
Planting Distance = 50cm x 50cm

Harvestable area = L x W
= 2.0 m x 2.0m
= 4.0 m2