Response of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.

) Varieties with Different

Growth Habit and Maturity Duration to Plant Density at Kucha, Southern
Ethiopia

MSc Thesis

BIRHANU HAILU

November 2013
Haramaya Universiy
 Response of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Varieties with
Different Growth Habit and Maturity Duration to Plant Density at
Kucha, Southern Ethiopia

Thesis Submitted to the School of Plant Sciences

School of Graduate Studies
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (AGRONOMY)

By
BIRHANU HAILU

November 2013
Haramaya University

ii
 APPROVAL SHEET
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

As thesis research advisors, we hereby certify that we have read and evaluated the
thesis prepared by Birhanu Hailu under our guidance, which is entitled “Response of
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Varieties with Different Growth Habit and
Maturity Duration to Plant density at Kucha, Southern Ethiopia’’, We
recommend that the thesis be submitted as it it fulfils the thesis requirements for the
Degree of Master of Science.

Tamado Tana (PhD) __________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Elias Urage (PhD) __________________ _______________

Co-advisor Signature Date

As members of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc Thesis Open Defense

Examination, we certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by
Birhanu Hailu and examined the candidate. We recommend that the thesis be
accepted as it it fulfils the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in
Agriculture (Agronomy).

____________________ ___________________ ______________________

Name of Chairperson Signature Date

____________________ ____________________ ____________________

Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date

____________________ ____________________ _____________________

Name of External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of a
finalized copy of the thesis to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the
Department of Plant Sciences’ Graduate Committee (DGC).

iii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this Thesis to my wife Tarikalem Daniel for nursing me with affection and
love, and for her dedicated help and encouragement in the success of my life.

iv
 STATEMENT OF AUTHOR

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

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

Name: Birhanu Hailu

Signature: _______________________

Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya

Date of submission: _____________________

v
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author, Birhanu Hailu, was born on September 11, 1970 in Addis Ababa City
from his father Hailu Jema and his mother Elifinesh Tadesse. When he reached a
school age, he attended his elementary school from grade 1-6 in Hizibawi Serawit
Elementary School from 1977 to 1983 and his Junior Secondary School from grade
7- 8 in Miyaziya 23 Junior Secondary school from 1985-1986 and from grade 9-10 in
Senior Secondary School at Entoto Higher Academic and Vocational School from
1987-1988 and from grade 11-12 in higher 12 secondary school from 1989-1990. He
joined the then Jimma Agricultural College (now Jimma University) in 1991 and
graduated with diploma in General Agriculture in 1993. Then, he joined Debub
University (now Hawassa University in September 2003 and graduated with a B.Sc.
degree in Plant Production and Dry Land Farming in July 2005.

After graduation with diploma, he was employed in the Southern Nation Nationality
and Peoples Regional State (SNNRP) South Omo Zone Natural Resource Office and
Agricultural Development department as officer of natural resource and wild animal
management and agricultural extension leading head from 1994-2001. After that he
was transferred to Areka Agricultural Research Center in 2001 and worked up to
2005 in the Soil and Water Conservation Section as soil research technical assistant.
As of 2006, he is working in Ethiopian Kale Heywet Church Development Program
in Kucha Woreda as project coordinator. In July 2007, he joined Haramaya
University to pursue his M.Sc. degree in Agronomy.

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere and deepest appreciation to my major advisor, Dr

Tamado Tana and co-advisor Dr Elias Urage for their consistent guidance, valuable
comments, encouragement, tireless support and constructive criticisms which
provided me with the motivation needed to successfully complete this work. Words
are not enough to express my gratitude!

I am greatly indebted to the Ethiopian Kale Heywet Kucha District Church for giving
me the opportunity to be part of this program and providing the half of financial
support for the study and full support of research budget without which it would
have been difficult to complete this study. I am also grateful to the whole Kucha
Kale Heywet staff and Mr Asmera Birhanu, Mr Temesgen Paulos, Mr Andinet
Paulos and Mr Edlu Esrael for helping in many ways during my data collection, let
God richly bless them all.

The assistance of the technical staff of Areka Agricultural Research Center, and the
researchers especially Mr Fiseha Negash and Mr Zerihun Yamata in providing me
with the required technical assistance in field, laboratory work and providing
statistical software is highly appreciated.

The contribution of my family to this accomplishment was enormous. I wish to thank

my wife Ms Tarikalem Daniel for her patience, encouragement and support during
my studies. I do not have the right words to thank my brothers and sisters and sister
in-laws for their support and encouragement. I would like to express my heartfelt
thanks to friends whose sincere and all rounded support has contributed much to my
success. Besides, the encouragements given to me by Mr Kassahun Abere and Mr
Yihayis Rezene, are not forgettable.

In a long journey like this one, you meet many people who were supportive and very
helpful in making your dreams come true. Although it is practically impossible to
name them all, I sincerely appreciate their effort. May the Almighty God richly bless
them!

vii
 ABBREVIATIONS

ANOVA Analysis of variance

CV Coefficient of Variation
CSA Central Statistical Agency
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation
EARO Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization
EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
GLM General Linear Model
ICARDA International Centre for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas
KFEDO Kucha Finance and Economic Development Office
KWADO Kucha Woreda Agriculture Development Office
LSD Least Significance Difference
RCB Randomized Complete Block
SAS Statistical Analysis System
WARC Werer Agricultural Research Center

viii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL SHEET iii

DEDICATION iv
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
ABBREVIATIONS viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xi
AppENDICES xii
ABSTRACT xiii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1. Botany of Groundnut 4
2.2. Importance of the Groundnut Crop 5
2.3. Effect of Plant Density and Growth Habit on Resources Utilization 7
2.4. Plant Density Effect on the Growth and Yield of Groundnut 9
2.5. Responses of Groundnut Genotypes to Plant Density 11
2.6. Plant Density and Variety Interaction, Yield Component and Growth Habit 12
2.7. Effect of variety on Growth Characteristics of Groundnut 12
2.8. Effect of Variety on Yield and Yield Component of Groundnut 13
2.9. Effect of Plant Density on Disease and Pest Development 13
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 15
3.1. Description of Experimental Site 15
3.2. Treatments and Experimental Design 15
3.4. Soil Sampling and Analysis 17
3.5. Data Collection 17
3.5.1. Phenological and Growth Parameters 17
3.5.2. Yield and Yield Components 18
3.6. Statistical Data Analysis 19
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 20
4.1. Soil Characteristics 20
4.2. Phenologic and Growth Parameters 21
4.2.1. Days to seedling emergence 21
4.2.2. Days of flower initiation 22
4.2.3. Day of maturity 23

ix
 4.2.4. Number of leaves 24
4.2.5. Number of branches 24
4.2.6. Nodulation 25
4.2.7. Canopy spread 26
4.2.8. Above ground dry biomass 27
4.3. Yield and Yield Components 28
4.3.1. Stand count 28
4.3.2 Number of pods per plant 29
4.3.3. Number of seeds per pod 30
4.3.4. Dry pod yield 32
4.3.5. Shelling percent 33
4.3.5. Hundred Seed weight 34
4.3.6. Seed Yield 35
4.3.7. Harvest index 36
5. SUMMARY and Conclusions 38
6. REFEReNCEs 41
7. APPENDICES 51

x
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Results of selected physico-chemical characteristics of soils of the

experimental site 21
Table 2. Mean days to emergence of groundnut as affected by the interaction of
variety and plant density 21
Table 3. Mean days to flower initiation, mean number of leaves per plant and number
of branches per plant of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 22
Table 4. Mean days to physiological maturity of groundnut as affected by the
interaction of variety and plant density 23
Table 5. Means of number of effective, non-effective and total nodules per plant of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 26
Table 6. Mean canopy spread, above ground dry biomass yield and stand count
percentage of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 27
Table 7. Mean number of matured, immatured and total pods per plant of groundnut
as affected by variety and plant density 30
Table 8. Mean on number of seeds per pod, hundred seed weight (g) and harvest
index (%) of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 31
Table 9. Mean on dry pod yield (kg ha-1), shelling percentage and seed yield (kg ha-1)
of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 34

xi
 APPENDICES

1. Appendix 1. Mean square values from the ANOVA for days to emergence (DE),
day to flowering (DF), day of maturity (DM), canopy spread (CP), number of
leaves (NL) and number of branches (NB) of groundnut as affected by variety and
plant density 52
2. Appendix 2. Mean square values of ANOVA for number of effective nodules
(EN), non-effective nodules (NEN), total nodules (TN) and dry biomass yield
(DBMY) of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 52
3. Appendix 3. Mean square values of ANOVA for final stand count percentage
(SCP), number of seed per pod (NSPP), hundred seed weight (HSW), and shelling
percentage (SHP) of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 53
4. Appendix 4. Mean square values of ANOVA for number of mature (MP),
immature (IMP) and total pods (TP), dry pod yield (DPY), seed yield (SY) and
harvest index (HI) of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density 53
5. Appendix 5. Temperature, and rainfall at Kucha Woreda Fango Kebele for the
months April to September 2012 54

xii
 Response of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Varieties with Different Growth
Habit and Maturity Duration to Plant Density at Kucha, Southern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT
Groundnut is one of the main cash crops in Kucha district. One of the agronomic
practices to increase its productivity is use of optimum plant density. However, there
has been no recommended plant density for varieties with different growth habits in
the areas. The field experiment was conducted to determine the response of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Varieties with Different Maturity Duration to Plant
Density at Kucha Southern Ethiopia from April to September 2012. The factors
studied were four varieties of groundnut namely, ‘Roba,’ ‘Werrer 961’ , ‘Lote’ and
Local and five densities, i.e. 222222 plants ha-1(30x15cm) , 166667 plants ha-1
(60x10cm), 133333 plants ha-1 (50x15cm), 125000 plants ha-1(40x20cm) and 100000
plants ha-1(50x20cm) . The experimental design used was RCB in factorial
arrangement with three replications. There was highly significant (P<0.01) main
effects of variety on days to 50% flowering, number of leaves , number of effective
nodules, above ground dry biomass, stand count percentage, number of seeds per
pod, dry pod yield, seed yield, shelling percentage, hundred seed weight and
harvesting index. Variety ‘Roba’ gave the highest number of leaves (362 per plant),
number of matured pod per plant (50.97), seed yield (2893.3 kg ha-1) and 100 seed
weight (63.02g). Likewise, the main effects of the plant density was highly significant
(P<0.01) on days to 50% flowering, canopy spread, stand count %, number of
matured and total pod per plant and seed yield. Plant density of 100000 plants/ha
recorded the highest day of 50% flowering (69.1day), canopy spread (95.33 cm),
stand count percentage (98.03), and number of matured pod/plant (49.5) and number
of total pod per plant (66.53). While the population density of 166667 plants per ha
were recorded the highest dry pod yield (4176 kg ha-1) and seed yield (3023.7 kg ha-
1
). The interaction effects of variety and plant density were significant on days to 50
% emergence and on days to 50% maturity. The highest days to maturity (149.3) was
recorded for variety ‘Roba’ with plant density of 100000 plant/ha. From this study it
can be conclude that for Kucha area variety ‘Roba’ at plant density of 166667
plants/ha can be tentatively recommended.
Keywords: Groundnut variety, growth habit, maturity duration, plant density

xiii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Groundnut or peanut (Arachis hypogaea L) is an annual herbaceous plant in the Fabaceae

(legume or bean family). It was originated and domesticated in South and Central America
3,500 years ago, and is now grown in tropical and warm-temperate regions worldwide for its
seeds and oil. Although appearing as and referred to as a nut, it is actually the underground
pod of a legume, rather than a true nut. Groundnut is grown on nearly 23.95 million ha
worldwide with the total production of 36.45 million tons, and an average yield of 1520 kg ha-
1
in 2009 (FAO, 2011). China, India, Nigeria, USA and Myanmar are the major groundnut
growing countries. Developing countries in Asia, Africa and South America account for over
97% of world groundnut area and 95% of the total production. Production is concentrated in
Asia (50% of global area and 64% of global production) and Africa (46% of global area and
28% of global production), where the crop is grown mostly by smallholder farmers under rain
fed conditions with limited inputs. Between 2000 and 2009, the annual global production
increased marginally by 0.4%, the area by 0.3% and the yield by 0.1% (FAO, 2011).

Groundnut was probably introduced to northern Ethiopia by the Portuguese in the 17th century,
and somewhat later through the Arab influence to south eastern part of the country (Brereton,
1980). Groundnut is an important food and cash crop in the semi-arid areas of the eastern,
western and north western parts of Ethiopia (Adugna, 1991). Cultivated groundnut belongs to
the genus Arachis in subtribe Stylosanthinae of the tribe Aeschynomenea of the Fabaceae
family. Groundnut kernels contain 42 - 50 % oil, 26% protein, 18% carbohydrates, and are
also rich source of riboflavin, thiamine, nicotinic acid and vitamin E. Groundnuts, for edible
purpose, require considerable processing and sorting to ensure high quality (Kathirvelan and
Kalaiselvan, 2007).

Groundnut is the only nut that grows underground. It is one of the leguminous crops that can
produce root nodules and can fix atmospheric nitrogen by symbiotic relationship with cowpea-
type rhizobium which predominates in tropical soils (Toomsan et al., 1999).
The total area under groundnut production in Ethiopia was estimated to be 49,603 ha from which
about 71,607 tons was harvested in 2011 (FAO, 2012). Ethiopia is number 36 in the world
ranking and has a world share of 0.2% production (FAO, 2012). However, this yield is far less
than the potential and highly variable among years mainly due to many production constraints.
Groundnut dry pod yields as high as 7 ton/ ha have been reported under irrigation (Adugna,
1991). Besides development of appropriate varieties, use of proper agronomic practices such as
optimum plant density is a major agronomic goal to produce maximum yields (Raseckh et al.,
2010).

Plant density and arrangement of plants in a unit area greatly determine (i) resource utilization
such as light, nutrients and water; (ii) the rate and extent of vegetative growth and
development of crops particularly that of leaf area index, plant height, root length and density;
(iii) yield and yield components; (iv) development of important diseases and pests; and (v) the
seed cost (Squire, 1993; Jettner et al., 1998a,b; Matthews et al., 2001). Plant density affects
early ground cover, competitive ability of crops with weed, soil surface evaporation, light
interception, lodging and development of an optimum number of fruiting sites in a crop
canopy. It also affects canopy development, plant architecture and distribution of pods
(Matthews et al., 2008).

Optimum plant density in groundnut varies with environments, cultivars and plant
arrangements. Row width varying from 40 to 90 cm for single row, twin rows on large ridges,
or four rows spaced 25 cm on moisture beds are used in different countries and there is no
standard spacing suitable for all conditions. Optimum plant density will obviously be
determined by soil type, expected rainfall and the likes, but plant density of approximately
100,000-120,000 plants/ha for bunch types (80-100 kg seed/ha) and half of this for spreading
varieties were recommended in areas of adequate rainfall (750-1000 mm) (Yayock, 2004;
Tarimo, 2006). For instance for annual precipitation of 600 mm, a plant density of 50000-
60000 plants/ha would be more appropriate while plant density should be reduced as the
expected rainfall decreases. Thus, determination of the optimum plant density is more critical
especially in semi-arid areas where there is shortage of soil moisture (Yayock, 2004; Tarimo,
2006). The wide variation in yield response to planting densities suggests a need to establish

2
optimum plant density under different agro-climatic conditions in order to enhance groundnut
production.

Groundnut is becoming an important cash crop in Kucha district. In the district about 700
hectares of land was covered with groundnut in the year 2009/10 season and there is a
potential to increase its production (personal communication with Woreda agricultural office)
as the soil and climatic conditions of the area are suitable for groundnut.

However, there is a lack of recommendations on optimum planting density and varieties

suitable for the area. Moreover, farmers do not take into consideration the different growth
habits, seed sizes, and maturity groups of groundnut during planting. On the other hand, the
plant density of 166,667 (60 cm × 10 cm) currently being used for research purpose in
Ethiopia is often considered to be not appropriate by the farmers as the intra-row spacing of 10
cm is too narrow to use the local spade for cultivation.

Therefore, the objectives of this study were:

 to assess the effects of plant density and variety of different growth duration and
maturity duration and the interaction of plant density and variety on growth
parameters, yield components and yield of groundnut; and
 to determine the optimum plant density for various types of groundnut for maximum
productivity.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Botany of Groundnut

The cultivated groundnut is an ancient crop of the New World. It originated in South America
(southern Bolivia) where it was cultivated as early as 1000 B.C. Dissemination of the crop to
Africa, Asia, and the Pacific Islands occurred presumably in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries with the discovery voyages of the Spanish, Portuguese, British and Dutch. Over 100
countries worldwide grow groundnut (Khidir, 1997). Developing countries constitute 97% of
the global area and 94% of the global production of this crop. The production of groundnut is
concentrated in Asia and Africa which accounting for 56% and 40% of the global area and
68% and 25% of the global production, respectively (Kathirvelan and Kalaiselvan, 2007).
.
Groundnut is a member of sub-family, Papilionaceae of the family Fabaceae. Groundnut has a
well-developed tap root with numerous lateral branches. Some adventitious roots emanating from
the hypocotyl and aerial branches are also found (Ishag, 2000). It is an annual herbaceous plant
growing from 30 to 50 cm (1 to 1.5 ft) tall. The leaves are opposite, pinnate, with four leaflets
(two opposite pairs; no terminal leaflet). Each leaflet is 1 to 7 cm (3/8 to 2¾ inch) long and 1
to 3 cm (3/8 to 1 inch) broad. The flowers are a typical pea flower in shape, 2 to 4 cm (¾ to
1½ inch) across, and yellow with reddish veining. After pollination, the fruit develops into a
legume 3 to 7 cm (1 to 2 inch) long, containing 1 to 4 seeds. The smaller roots are mostly
produced between depths of 10 and 25 cm in the upper soil layer, though the primary root grows
to a depth of 90-120 cm in loose soils (Annadurai et al., 2009). The flowers are small, grow
singly or in clusters of 2-4 close to the ground and occasionally even underground. They are
complete and self-pollinated. After pollination and fertilization, the region immediately behind
the ovary begins to elongate and grows downwards. This region, called the gynophore or peg,
pushes the ovary at its tip into the soil, where the groundnut fruit grows and matures. Groundnut
flowers profusely but the proportion of ovaries that develop into mature fruits is usually small,
around 1-20%. Only two-thirds of the total number of pods produced reaches full maturity. The
late-formed pods, which do not reach maturity by the time of harvest, are the so-called 'pops' that
have to be removed before the pods are stored (Hui, 1996).

4
The groundnut plant has a central, upright stem and many lateral branches. In runner types, the
laterals are prostrate, and in bunch types they are more or less erect in the young plants but tend
to become prostrate at a later stage. The plant has pinnately compound leaves, which are usually
composed of two pairs of leaflets. Groundnut is reproductively day-neutral plant. It begins to
flower 4-6 weeks after sowing, with a peak of flower production in 10-12 weeks after sowing
(Annadurai et al., 2009).

The fruit is a pod and consists of a shell containing 1-3 seeds (occasionally up to 6). The shell
constitutes about 30-40% of the total weight of the fruit. There are two sub-species of groundnut.
One of these is sub-species hypogaea- var. virginia and var. Hirsute. These are long duration and
take 130-150 days to maturity. They are mostly with runner and spreading bunch growth habit,
and alternately branched; and have got large seeds often with dormancy and low oil content. The
second type is sub-species fastigata - var. fastigata (valencia type) and var. vulgaris (spanish
type). These are of short duration, and sequentially branching. They have upright or erect growth
habit; smaller seed size with no seed dormancy, and higher oil content, but low yield (Ishag,
2000).

Thousands of groundnut cultivars are grown, with four major cultivar groups being the most
popular: Spanish, Runner, Virginia, and Valencia. There are also Tennessee Red and
Tennessee White groups. Certain cultivar groups are preferred for particular uses because of
differences in flavor, oil content, size, shape, and disease resistance. For many uses, the
different cultivars are interchangeable. The various types are distinguished by branching habit
and branch length. There are numerous varieties of each type of peanut. There are two main
growth forms, bunch and runner. Bunch types grow upright, while runner types grow near the
ground (Annadurai, 2009).

2.2. Importance of the Groundnut Crop

Groundnut is grown on nearly 23.95 million ha worldwide with the total production of 36.45
million tons and an average yield of 1520 kg/ha in 2009 (FAO, 2011). Groundnut is an

5
important cash crop across much of Africa, especially throughout West and Central Africa
where the arid, warm climate and sandy, loose soils suit the groundnut plant. In the areas
where groundnut is grown, this annual legume is an important source of oil and protein. Two
thirds of the global crop is crushed for oil while the remaining third is consumed as food
(ICARDA, 2012). In 2010, 11.6 million hectares of land in Africa was dedicated to groundnut
production, approximately 48% of the worldwide production area (FAO, 2012). Ghana
produced 530,887 metric tons and Uganda produced 172,000 metric tons in 2010, sizable
harvests where the relatively small size of both countries is taken into consideration (FAO,
2012). In the same year, groundnut was the largest pulse crop grown in Ghana by both volume
and value, and the seventh most produced crop overall in the country (FAO, 2012). In Uganda
in 2010, the groundnut was the second most produced pulse crop behind beans (FAO, 2012).

Despite its importance, groundnut yields per unit area are relatively low across Africa. While
Africa contains nearly half of the global land area under groundnut cultivation, only 28% of
the global production comes from the continent (FAO, 2012). This is mainly because African
groundnut producers tend to be smallholder farmers that use limited inputs and face
undependable rainfall. Ghana's average yield was approximately 1.5 tons per hectare in 2010,
which is slightly below the global average. Uganda's average yield for that year was only 0.73
tons per hectare, which is even below the average African yield of 0.89 tons per hectare (FAO,
2012). Ethiopia average yield for 2010 was only 1.03 tons per hectare, which is below the
global average of 1.52 tons per hectare (RIU, 2012).

The oil content of the seed varies from 44 to 50%, depending on the varieties and agronomic
conditions. Groundnut oil is edible oil. It is also used in soap making, and manufacturing
cosmetics and lubricants, oleic steering and their salts. Seed are also eaten raw, roasted or
sweetened. They are rich in protein and vitamins A, B and some members of B2 group (Jasani,
2009). Their calorific value is 349 per 100 grams. The residual oilcake contains 7 to 8%
nitrogen, 1.5% P2O5 and 1.2% K2O and is used as a fertilizer. It is an important protein
supplement in cattle and poultry rations. It is also consumed as confectionary product. The
cake can be used for manufacturing artificial fibre. The haulms (plant stalks) are fed (green,
dried or silage) to livestock. Groundnut shell is used as fuel for manufacturing coarse boards,

6
cork substitutes etc. Groundnut is also of value as rotation crop. Being a legume with root
nodules, it can synthesise atmospheric nitrogen and therefore improve soil fertility (Yadava
and Kurnar, 1981).

Most groundnuts marketed in the shell are of the Virginia type, along with some Valencias
selected for large size and the attractive appearance of the shell. Spanish peanuts are used
mostly for peanut candy, salted nuts, and peanut butter. Most runners are used to make peanut
butter (Annadurai, 2009).

Groundnut is particularly valued for its protein content (26%). On equal weight basis (kg for
kg), groundnuts contain more protein than meat and about two and a half times more than
eggs. Being an oil seed crop, it contains 40 to 49% oil. In addition to protein, groundnuts are a
good source of calcium, phosphorus, iron, zinc and boron. The groundnut also contains
vitamin E and small amounts of vitamin B complex. High in calories, 5.6 calories nut -1
(calorific value of 567). Groundnut is rich in calcium, phosphorus and iron and constitutes an
excellent source of the vitamins, thiamine, riboflavin and niacin, but not of vitamin A or C. The
haulms and shells are valuable and nutritious animal feed and used as fuel in Ethiopia (Elias,
1992; Agropedia, 2009).

2.3. Effect of Plant Density and Growth Habit on Resources Utilization

Plants show extreme plasticity, responding remarkably in size and form to environmental
conditions. One of the most potent of these external forces is the presence of competing
neighbours, which may reduce a plant to diminutive size. The factors for which competition
may occur among plants are water, nutrient, light, and carbon dioxide and in the reproductive
phase, agents of pollination and dispersal. Water, nutrients and light are the factors most
commonly deficient. When the immediate supply of a single necessary factor falls below the
combined demand of the plants, competition begins (Norman, 1963).

For a low density of plants of a single species, increasing the density increases yield per unit
area and intra-specific competition becomes more intense, because greater numbers of
individuals compete for the same common limiting resources. In pure stands, increase in the

7
intensity of competition manifests itself by the reduction of the performance of the individual,
such as biomass of single plant and/or reduction of grain weight per plant (Sobkowicz and
Podgorska, 2007). Reddy (2000) described that both too narrow and too wide spacing do
affect grain yields through competition and less efficient use of growth resources, respectively.

Singh and Singh (2002) reported that establishment of optimum density per unit area is
essential to get maximum yield. Under conditions of sufficient soil moisture and nutrients,
higher density is necessary to utilize all the growth factors efficiently. Each growth factor for
which the plant competes has limitation to support a crop beyond the optimum plant density
level per unit area. The level of plant density should be such that maximum solar radiation is
utilized. The full yield potential of an individual plant is fully exploited when sown at wider
spacing.

Closely spaced and quick growing crops like soybean which can intercept more light within a
short period give higher yield as compared to wider spaced crops. As such for the proper light
interception at various growth stages, optimum plant density is necessary. The greater
interception increases photosynthesis and reduces evaporation of water from the soil
(Robinson et al., 2002). Plant density must be adjusted to available soil moisture levels, either
with in rows or between rows (Gobeze, 1999). Planting arrangement alters both spatial and
temporal pattern of interception or retrieval of the limiting resource, especially in dryland
cropping where the soil water is rarely adequate throughout the growing season. In such cases,
inter - and intra - row spacings, are normally a matter of compromise (Bora et al., 2001).
Closely spaced plants had increased root elongation, and hence, continued to extract available
soil moisture between the rows later in the season for grain production.

Planting arrangement in the field is very important, and plays a significant role in determining
plant growth and development. Arrangement of a plant population density is altered by
changing row spacing, by planting seeds singly or in groups, or by changing row direction
(Robinson et al., 2002). Plant spacing should be thought of as existing in two directions,
within row spacing; and between row spacing. At a given plant density, as row spacing
decreases, the plant spacing within the row increases and results in a more equidistant plant

8
spacing. At a fixed row width, as plant density increases the plant spacing within the row
decreases and interplant competition increases. Obviously, both factors can be adjusted to
provide optimal plant spacing, and typically plant density increases as row spacing decreases
(Pedersen et al., 2008).

2.4. Plant Density Effect on the Growth and Yield of Groundnut

Determination of the optimum plant population density necessary for optimal yield is a major
agronomic goal. Sowing at optimum seed rate results in optimal plant population density
reduced seed costs, lodging and also ameliorate disease problems (Hosseini et al., 2001). The
optimum plant density and planting pattern at one site may not apply at other locations
because regional variations in weather and soil, and this cells for the neede to conduct
experiments at each site to validate general recommendations (Harris and Azam-Alis, 1993).

An important aspect of crop management is spacing and its relationship to yield. The essence
of this relation is that in any environment, there is an optimum density for crop yields beyond
which no significant increase occurs with further increase in plant density.

Several researchers have attempted to establish quantitative relationships between plant

population density and crop yield. The wide variation in yield response to planting densities
suggests the need to establish optimum plant density under different agro-climatic conditions
in order to enhance groundnut production. The source sink dynamics regulates crop yield,
which generally in influenced by the genetic makeup and the crop environment (spacing).
Row and plant spacing significantly influence leaf area per plant and biomass yield (Abdullah
et al., 2007).

Their investigation on the response of peanut growth to that of density and spatial ratio
revealed that the biological yield was unresponsive to the spatial ratio, but increased markedly
with increase in density up to 580,000 plants per hectare. More dense crop of peanut extracted
water from lower depth sooner than less denser crops. This leads to more rapid leaf area
development prior to early pod filling stage (Amaregouda and Kamannavar, 2004). In

9
contrast, Virender and Kandhola (2007) reported that shoot dry weight of peanut at early
stages did not vary much due to different spacing, but at later stages, 25 cm x 12 cm spacing
recorded significantly higher shoot dry weight, nodule number and nodule dry weight
compared to 50 cm x 6 cm spacing. Subrahmaniyan et al. (2004) studied spacing requirement
for confectionery peanut varieties and reported that wider spacing of 65 cm x 15 cm registered
maximum plant height of 49.80 cm than that of closer spacing of 30 cm x 15 cm and 45 cm x
15 cm (46.72 and 47.50 cm, respectively). Research conducted on groundnut variety TAG 24
with three different spacing (viz., 30 cm x 10 cm, 25 cm x 10 cm and 20 cm x 10 cm) in sandy
clay soils revealed that wider spacing of 30 cm x 10 cm significantly increased plant height
(12.44 cm), number of branches per plant (9.39) and spread (27.40 cm) over the rest of the
spacings (Ramesh and Sabale, 2001).

The variations in pod yield of groundnut varieties both within and between seasons from 0.76-
1.77 t/ha were probably attributable to genetic differences between varieties and how they
responded to environmental changes (Konlan et al., 2013).

Kaushik and Chaubey (2000) observed that pod yield of peanut was significantly affected by
row spacing. The pod yield of 30 cm inter - row spacing was significantly higher than that of
45 cm inter row spacing (1.864 and 1.471 t/ ha, respectively). Subrahmaniyan et al. (2000)
found that lower plant, population density of 111,111 plants ha-1 (60 x 15 cm) registered
higher number of matured pods per plant , 100 kernel weight (65.04 g), shelling percentage
(66.73) and sound matured kernels (SMK) percentage (84.91) over rest of the spacings.
However, the highest dry pod yield of 3,165 kg ha-1 was recorded under the spacing of 30 cm
x 15 cm by virtue of more number of plants ha-1 (222,222 plants ha-1). Chaniyara et al. (2001)
studied the response of summer peanut to spacing and plant population and found that pod and
haulm yields were significantly higher when the crop was sown with inter - row spacing of
22.5 cm. Ramesh and Sabale (2001) observed that the plant population of 0.44 million plants
ha-1 (30 cm x 7.5 cm) significantly increased number of pods (14.1), and nodules plant/ha
(70.6), dry pod yield (2.491 t/ ha) and haulm yield (2.319 t/ ha) than that of 0.40 and 0.50
million plants ha-1 (25 cm x 10 cm and 20 cm x 10 cm spacings, respectively).

10
Harvest index (HI), a measure of crop yield is the weight of harvested product as a percentage
of the total plant weight of a crop. The concept has been used in crop improvement and
physiology. Ahmad et al. (2007b) observed that low crop harvest index is the major cause of
less crop yield.

2.5. Responses of Groundnut Genotypes to Plant Density

Experiments on groundnut have shown marked responses to plant density in terms of dry mass
accumulation, economic yield and yield components (Tarimo, 2006). Dry mass partitioning to
plant components usually changes only slightly with change in plant population density.
Usually the effect of plant population density on growth are more evident during the
vegetative and early reproductive growth stages, implying that any variation in plant numbers
after anthesis would have similar effects to the plant density established at sowing. Total
vegetative mass and its partitioning also have a strong inference on two other attributes of a
genotype: the plant density at which there are most yields in reproductive or storage organ;
and the stability of the harvest index in the face of change in plant population (Squire, 1993).
The change in harvest index in relation to change in total dry matter per plant probably takes
the same form in most species; the index rises from zero as total dry matter rises above
vegetative mass eventually reaching a more or less stable value. Stability is achieved at much
smaller plant mass, and therefore, is maintained over a wider range of plant population
(Squire, 1993).

A genotype with a very plastic vegetative dry mass has the advantage that some reproductive
yield is produced in favourable environment (Ishag, 2000). In contrast, a genotype with a fixed
vegetative dry mass has the disadvantage that it might yield nothing in adverse environments,
but the advantage that any dry matter produced in addition that required for the vegetative
structures will mostly be allocated to yield. The optimum plant population density of a
genotype is determined by many environmental and physiological factors. However, those
attributes governing the vegetative characteristics should most strongly determine the response
of crop genotypes to plant population density among the species and climates of the tropics
(Squire, 1993).

11
2.6. Plant Density and Variety Interaction, Yield Component and Growth Habit

In row crops, the space between rows as well as within rows depends upon factors such as
moisture, type of crop, the climate and the variety of a particular crop. Competition in
cultivated crops is commonly between plants of like or similar genotype, all sown at the same
time and each with similar environmental conditions. Where the immediate objective in
planning studies on plant densities has been to determine the optimum sowing rate, the data
rarely include a sufficiently wide range of densities to permit the definition of the relationship
of density to yield. But a few studies have varied density from low to very high values
(Mekonnen, 1999). A major factor influencing optimum seed rate for any particular crop is the
genotype (Mekonnen, 1999). Genotype by plant density interaction was found to be evident in
field pea (Rezene, 1994), chickpea and lentil (Million, 1994). The plant population and growth
habit interaction affected seed yield in soybean and the interaction was also large for plant
height (Ouattara and Weaver, 1994). However, growth habit differences were consistent
across plant populations for days to maturity and number of main stem nodes (Ouattara and
Weaver, 1994).

2.7. Effect of variety on Growth Characteristics of Groundnut

Amaregouda and Kamannavar (2004) evaluated fifteen early-maturing peanut varieties and the
results showed that height and days to flowering varied significantly among the varieties. The
varieties TMV 2 and KRG 1 recorded significantly higher plant height of 28.3 and 28.7 cm,
respectively and both the varieties reached 50 per cent flowering on 30 days after sowing
compared to the rest of the varieties. Peanut genotypes evaluated by Rajeswari (1999) showed
that the genotypes K 1128 and K 153 gave significantly higher plant height, leaf dry mass and
stem dry mass as compared to varieties TMV 2, JL 24 and Kadiri 3. Similarly, Antony et al.
(2000) recorded the maximum leaf area duration (LAD) with Spanish bunch variety Mardur
local and Virginia type ICGS 76 and the higher value of leaf area index was observed in
varieties JL 24 and ICGS 76 while the Net Assimilation Rate was maximum with the
genotypes belonging to Spanish bunch (S 206 and JL 24) at early stage of crop growth.

12
2.8. Effect of Variety on Yield and Yield Component of Groundnut

Amaregouda and Kamannavar (2004) , four peanut genotypes were evaluated and the results
revealed that the genotypes Sel 7-9-5 gave significantly higher pod yield of 2163 kg ha-1
compared to ICGV 86309 (2101 kg ha-1) and J 19 (1858 kg ha-1). Amaregouda and
Kamannavar (2004) compared the performance of six early maturing peanut varieties and
found that pod yield (2.63 t ha-1), 100 seed mass (37.4 g), shelling percentage (71.5) and
number of pods per plant (15.8) of the confectionery peanut (ICGV 92206) were significantly
higher as compared to TMV 2. Studies conducted by Mohiuddin and Ghosh (2006)
highlighted that yield and yield components varied greatly among the six peanut varieties.
Cultivar JL 24 recorded significantly higher number of pods plant-1 (13), kernels plant-1 (20)
and higher pod yield of 2612 kg ha-1 as compared to other varieties. Peanut cultivar TMV 2
recorded significantly higher pod yield of 3618 kg ha-1 as compared to JL 24 and ICGV
86564. In another experiment, the confectionery variety GG 20 had significantly higher pod
yield which was 21.7 per cent higher than ICGV 86564 (AICORPO, 2000).

2.9. Effect of Plant Density on Disease and Pest Development

Several diseases and insect pests causing large losses in both yield and quality of seeds affect
the groundnut crop. Weather indirectly influences the yield and quality by occurrences and
development of diseases and pests. Disease incidence and severity tended to increase with
increased plant density in susceptible cultivars (Maasa et al., 2006).

Apart from weed control, narrow rows have been shown to significantly reduce the occurrence
and spread of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) in groundnut crop (Branch et al., 2004). This
is because decreasing row spacing increases the number of plants per acre and this dilutes the
thrips (Scirtothrips spp., Frankliniella spp.) vector such that there is a lower probability of
individual plant infection (Brown et al., 2005). Also, narrow rows have been used elsewhere
as cultural control methods to effectively reduce the incidence and spread of groundnut rosette
virus (GRV) since it slows down reproduction by the vector , Aphis craccivora (Jadhav,
2006).

13
It is prone to attack by many fungal foliar and soil borne diseases. The most important fungal
foliar diseases of groundnut worldwide are late leaf spot (LLS) caused by Phaeoisariopsis
personata [(Berk. and Curt.) v. Arx], Cercosporidium personatum [(Berk. & Curt.) Deighton]
and rust caused by Puccinia arachidis Speg. These two diseases together can cause yield loss
of more than 50%, if the crop is not protected with chemicals. Results of Pande and Rao study
suggest that the severities of LLS and rust diseases were significantly higher in higher plant
densities than in lower plant densities in all the cultivars. This is primarily because higher
plant densities influence the micro-climate in favourable of LLS and rust disease development.
Wider spacing between rows and plants facilitate more aeration in the crop canopy, which
results in the quick drying of the leaves making the condition less favourable for disease
development. (Pande and Rao, 2002).

Talal and Shalaldeh (2006) reported that lowering plant density reduced the risk and pressure
of diseases such as Chocolate spot (Botrytis fabae) and Ascochyta blight (Ascochyta fabae) in
faba bean. Similarly, Sharaan et al. (2003) reported that Chocolate-spot infection increased by
decreasing intra plant distance. In other word, level of infection has been increased by
enhancing plant density. The effect of plant density on insect pest abundance has been variable
and complex. Dense planting changes crop growth, development, and microclimate, which in
turn exert an effect on pests and their natural enemies. Moreover, the influence of plant
densities on the incidence of pod borer on chickpea increased with increased plant density,
whereas cut worm incidence was more prevalent at low plant density (AdARC, 2002). Besides
diseases and pests, sparse planting encourages weeds.

14
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of Experimental Site

Kucha is one of the 77 districts in the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples' Region of
Ethiopia. It is one of the districts of Gamo Gofa Zone and bordered on the south by Dita
Dermalo district, on the southwest by Zala Ubamale district, on the west by Gofa Zuria
district, on the northwest by the Dawro Zone, on the north by Wolaita Zone, on the east by
Boreda Abaya, and on the southeast by Chencha district. Kucha district is located 460
kilometres South West of Addis Ababa on Shashemene - Soddo - Sawla road, and 184
kilometres South West of Hawassa, the capital city of the regional state. The district is sub-
divided in to 32 peasant associations. According to the estimates Central Statistical Agency
(CSA, 2008), the total population of the district was about 149,835 out of which 50.3% were
female.

The experiment was carried out during the 2012, crop season from April to September 2013 at
Kucha district on farmer’s field in Fango Kebele which is located from the district town
selamber 5 km to East West side. The site is located at latitude of 656’N, longitude of
3761’E and an altitude of 1400 meters above sea level. The rain distribution of the area is
bimodal with an average annual rainfall of 1150 mm. The mean annual minimum and
maximum temperatures are 20.1 °C and 25 °C, respectively. The mean relative humidity is
50%, varying from 20% to 81%. The mean seasonal (April-September 2012) minimum and
maximum temperatures were 12.1 °C and 25 °C, respectively with rainfall amount of 670.7
mm (Appendix 5). The major soil type of the district is sandy clay (KFEDO, 2006).

3.2. Treatments and Experimental Design

Four groundnut varieties with different growth habit and duration of maturity periods were
used for the study. The varieties used were ‘Roba’, ‘Werrer 961’, ‘Lote’ and local check.
’Roba' is runner type and a late maturating variety (150 days) and can give dry pod yield of up
to 3.3 tons per hectare under good rainfall and it has got an oil content of up to 49%; realized
by Werer agricultural research center (EIAR) ‘Lote’ is bunch type growth habit and an
15
intermediate maturity group (130 days), and it can yield up to 2.4 tons per hectare under
optimum rainfall with oil content of up to 52%. On the other hand, ‘Werrer 961’ is bunch type
growth habit and an early maturing (110 days) with a dry pod yield of up to 2.3 tons per
hectare under good rainfall and oil content of up to 46% Werer agricultural research center
2004 (EIAR, 2007)

Each variety was planted at spacing of (30 cm  15 cm, 222222 plants per hectare); (60 cm 
10 cm, 166,667 plants per hectare); (50 cm  15 cm, 133,333 plants per hectare); (40 cm  20
cm, 125,000 plants per hectare) and (50 cm  20 cm, 100,000 plants per hectare). The seeds of
all improved varieties (i.e. ‘Roba’, ‘Werrer 961’ and ‘Lote’ were obtained from ‘Werrer 961’)
Agricultural Research Centre (WARC) but the Local variety was purchased from Selamber
town of Kucha Woreda.

The 20 factorial treatment combinations of four varieties and five plant densities were
arranged in randomized complete block design involving the four varieties and five plant
densities. The varieties were sown on a gross plot size of (3m  3.6 m =10.8m2). The numbers
of rows were 12 for inter-row spacing of 30 cm; 9 for the inter-row spacing of 40 cm; 7 in the
inter-row spacing of 50 cm; and 6 for the inter-row spacing of 60 cm. The data were collected
from the central rows, by leaving one border rows from each sides of a plot. That war for plant
density 222,222 plants per ha-1 10 rows, for 166,667 plants ha-1 4 rows, for 133,333 plants ha-1
5 rows, for 125,000 plant ha-1 7 rows and for 100,000 plants ha-1 5 rows were taken.

3.3. Land Preparation, Planting and Field Management

The experimental field was ploughed and pulverized using oxen and plots were levelled
manually. Healthy seeds were planted manually by placing two seeds per hill at the specified
intra-row spacing on 2/08/2012 for four varieties and thinning was done after 15 days after
planting. Weeding and cultivation were done two times. No fertilizer was applied as per the
practice of the local farmers. Before the experiment was done the experimental field was
grown maize crops .

16
3.4. Soil Sampling and Analysis

From the experimental site, pre-planting soil samples were randomly collected from five spots
diagonally from a depth of 0- 30 cm. The samples were composited, bagged, labeled and about
1 kg of the sample was given to Wolaita Sodo Soil Testing Laboratory. Soil texture was
determined using Bouyoucos hydrometer method (Day, 1965) and the soil pH was determined
at 1:2.5 soils to water ratio using a glass electrode attached to pH digital meter (Page, 1982).
Soil organic matter was determined using Walkley and Black (1954) wet digestion method
and total N was determined using Kjeldhal method as described by Jackson (1973). Available
soil phosphorus was determined using Olsen’s method (Olsen et al., 1954) and the Cation
Exchange Capacity (CEC) was measured using 1M-neutral ammonium acetate (Jackson,
1973).

3.5. Data Collection

3.5.1. Phenological and Growth Parameters

The following phonological and growth parameters were assessed.

Days to seedling emergence: It was recorded as the numbers of days from sowing to the date
when 50% of the plants emerged in each net plot.

Days to flowering: It was recorded as the number of days after planting to the date when 50%
of the plants in each net plot had at least the first flower produced.

Days to physiological maturity: It was recorded as the number of days from planting to the
data when 90% the crops in a plot reached physiological maturity. The physiological maturity
was determined by hardness of the pods, appearance of darkened veins of the inner portion of
the shell, vascular stands on the shell became more distinct and plump pinkish full grown
kernels, gradually withered and the inside of wall pod became shiny and dark to brown.
17
Canopy spread: It was measured at 50% flowering by putting four sticks at the four crossed
side of three plants from each central net plot area and then perimeter of the canopy was
measured by using meter tape.

Number of leaves per plant: The total number of leaves was counted at 50% flowering stage
from five randomly selected plants per net plot area and averaged to get number of leaves per
plant.

Number of effective, non-effective and total nodules per plant: This was determined by
carefully uprooting of five plants per plot at 50% flowering and washing the roots. The
effective and non-effective nodules were separated by their colours where a cross section of an
effective nodule made with a pocket knife showed a pink to dark-red colour, whereas a green
colour indicated non-effective nodules.

Above-ground biomass: Total above-ground dry biomass was determined by taking 200
grams from the net plot and then dried for 48 hours at 70 ºC in oven, dry and then converted to
the total plot.

3.5.2. Yield and Yield Components

Observations were taken on the following yield and yield component.

Stand counts after thinning and at harvest: These were taken by counting the number of
plants from net plot area and the final stand count was expressed as percent of the stand count
after thinning.

Number of pods per plant: This was recorded as the total number of pods per plant from 10
randomly selected plants from the net plot area at harvesting time. The plants were carefully
uprooted and all pods were counted and grouped as matured pods and immature pods. Then
the count was averaged to get the number of pod per plant.

18
Number of seeds per pod: It was determined by selecting 10 pods from the net plot, and
carefully counted and averaged to get number of seeds per pod.

Hundred seed weight: It was recorded by counting hundred seeds from a bulk of shelled seed
and weighed using a sensitive digital balance.

Dry pod yield: This was recorded after harvesting the whole pod from the net plot and
converted to kilograms per hectare.

Shelling percentage: This was recorded by taking samples of about 200 g mature pods per net
SY
plot and was determined as: SP =  100; where SP is shelling percentage; SY is seed
PY
yield; and PY is pod yield.

Seed yield (kg/ha): It was determined as shelling percentage multiplied by dry pod yield.

Harvest index: This was calculated as the ratio of seed yield to above-ground dry biomass per
plot and multiplied by 100.

3.6. Statistical Data Analysis

The data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) according to the
Generalized Linear Model (GLM) of SAS version 9.1 (SAS, 2004) and following the
procedure described by of Gomez and Gomez (1984) for RCBD. For significant effects
means were separated using Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at 5% level of significance.

19
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Soil Characteristics

The result of soil analysis of the experimental site is indicated in Table 1. Texturally the soil of
the experimental site is classified as sandy clay which is ideal for groundnut production. The
soil pH was 6.3 which could be rated as medium and ideal for groundnut production. Landon
(1996) rated soils with pH value of >8.5 as very high, 7.0 - 8.5 as high, 5.5 - 7.0 as medium
and 5.5 as low. Tekalign et al. (1991) classified soil total N availability of <0.05% as very
low, 0.05-0.12% as poor, 0.12-0.25% as moderate and >0.25% as high. Thus, the soil of the
experimental site has moderate soil total N content (0.189%). The Netherlands commissioned
study by Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (1995) also classified soils for organic carbon
contents (%) as >3.50, 2.51-3.5, 1.26-2.50, 0.60-1.25 and <0.60 as very high, high, medium,
low and very low, respectively. Accordingly, the soil of the experimental site had low organic
carbon (0.78%). The low organic carbon could be attributed to lack of addition of organic
materials in the form of crop residues and farm yard manure as there is complete removal of
crop residues for various uses by the smallholder farmers.

Normally, the soil cation exchange capacity 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 contents are considered as agriculturally fertile.
According to Landon (1996), top soils having CEC greater than 40 cmol/kg are rated as very
high and 25-40 cmol/kg as high, and CEC of 15-25, 5-15 and <5 cmol/kg of soil are classified
as medium, low and very low, respectively in CEC. According to this classification, the soil of
the experimental site has high CEC (39.2 cmol/kg). The analysis revealed that the soil has
available P of 7.00 ppm (Table 1). Tekalign et al. (1991) described soils with available P of
<10, 11-31, 32-56, >56 ppm as low, medium, high and very high, respectively. Thus, the soil
of the experimental site is low in available P content.

20
Table 1. Results of selected physico-chemical characteristics of soils of the experimental site

Parameter Values
Soil particle size
 Sand (%) 41.60
 Silt (%) 24.56
 Clay (%) 33.84
Textural class Sandy clay
Soil color Weak red
Available P (ppm) 7.0
CEC (cmol/kg) 39.2
Organic carbon (%) 0.78
pH 1:2.5 (H2O) 6.3
Total N (%) 0.189

4.2. Phenologic and Growth Parameters

4.2.1. Days to seedling emergence

The main effects of both variety and plant density, and also the interaction of those two factor
were highly significant (P<0.01) on days to emergence (Appendix 1). Variety ‘Roba’ and the
local variety at plant density of 100000 plants ha-1 gave the highest days to emergence (15
days) (Table 2) while variety ‘Werrer 961’ at plant density of 166667 plants ha-1 and variety
Lote at plant density of 222,222 plants ha-1 gave the lowest days to emergence (8.67 days)
(Table 2).

Table 2. Mean days to emergence of groundnut as affected by the interaction of variety and
plant density

Plant density per ha mean

222222 166667 133333 125000 100000
Variety
Roba 11.30f 13.00d 13.30cd 13.70bc 15.00a 13.27
Werrer 961 9.00h 8.67h 10.00g 10.00g 10.00g 9.53
Lote 8.67h 9.70g 9.00h 10.00g 10.00 g 9.47
Local 11.00f 12.00e 14.00b 14.00b 15.00a 13.20
Mean 10.00 10.83 11.55 11.91 12.50
LSD (0.05) V x D = 0.64; CV (%) =3.4
Means followed by different letters are significantly different at as Judged by LSD at P< 0.05

21
4.2.2. Days of flower initiation

The main effects of variety and plant density were highly significant (P<0.01) on days to 50%
flower initiation while the interaction effect was not significant (Appendix 1). The local
variety and ‘Roba’ took the highest days to flowering of 72.26 and 70.40 days, respectively,
while variety ‘Werrer 961’ was the earliest (55.00 days) (Table 3). The difference in days to
flowering of the four varieties might be the inherent variation among the varieties in the
thermal duration requirement as observed in days to emergence. In general, varieties which
were early in emergence were also early in flowering. In agreement with the results of this
study, Akpalu (2010) reported that days to 50% flowering were related to the pattern of
emergence in Bambara groundnut. Differences among cultivars in days to flowering and
maturity were also reported by EL-Naim (2003) for sesame, and Wogayehu (2005) for
common bean.

Table 3. Mean days to flower initiation, mean number of leaves per plant and number of
branches per plant of groundnut as affected by variety and plant density

Days to 50% Number of Number of

Treatment flower initiation leaves branches
Varieties
Roba 70.40b 362.63a 4.60
Werrer 961 55.00d 197.69c 4.38
Lote 62.66c 270.73b 4.16
Local 72.26a 329.61a 4.40
LSD (0.05) 0.63 46.08 NS
Plant density per ha
222222 (30cm x 15cm) 60.25e 285.33 4.01
166667 (60cm x 10) 63.08d 291.00 4.28
133333 (50 cm  15 cm) 65.92c 290.80 4.74
125000 (40 cm  20 cm) 67.00b 286.08 4.29
100000(50 cm  20 cm) 69.17 a 297.60 4.61
LSD (0.05) 0.7048 NS NS
CV (%) 1.31 21.48 28.9
NS= non-significant.
Means in the same column and the same treatment category followed by the different letters are significantly
different as judged by LSD at P< 0.05

With regard to plant density, shows in Table 3, the highest plant density (222,222 plants ha-1)
was the earliest (60.25 days) and then days to flowering increased as plant density decreased.

22
This might be due to the fact that high plant density might have severe competition for growth
resources especially for nutrients and water which might have resulted to early flowering as
stress escaping mechanism. In contrast to this result, Abubaker (2008) and Kueneman et al.,
(2008) reported that days to flowering were not significantly affected by increasing or
decreasing plant density of common beans.

4.2.3. Day of maturity

The main effects of variety and plant density as well as the interaction effect of these two
factors were highly significant (P<0.01) on days to physiological of maturity of groundnut.
(Appendix 1).

Table 4. Mean days to physiological maturity of groundnut as affected by the interaction of

variety and plant density

Plant density per ha Mean

Variety 222222 166667 133333 125000 100000
Roba 146.00d 147.70bc 145.70 d
148.70ab 149.30a 147.47
Werrer 961 112.00l 115.00k 120.00j 121.00j 120.00j 117.60
Lote 128.00i 128.00i 130.00h 132.00g 132.00g 130.00
Local 142.70f 144.00ef 146.30cd 146.00d 145.00de 144.80
Means 132.17 133.67 135.50 136.91 136.58
LSD (0.05) V x D = 1.41; CV (%) = 0.63
Means in column and row followed by different letter are significantly different as judged by LSD at P< 0.05

Variety ‘Roba’ at plant density of 100,000 plants/ ha gave significantly the highest days to
maturity (149.3 days) while the lowest days to maturity was recorded for variety ‘Werrer 961’
at the highest plant density of 222,222 plants ha-1 (Table 4). In general, Roba and the local
varieties were late while varieties Werer-961 and Lote matured early (Table 4). Moreover, for
all the variety of groundnut days to maturity generally increased with decrease in plant density
possibly due to the availability of more growth recourses at lower density, which might have
prolonged vegetative growth. In contrast to this result, Oad et al. (2002) reported that the
closer row and plant spacing increased maturity days of safflower. On the other hand,
Holshouser and Joshua (2002) found no significant effect of row spacing on days to maturity
of soybean.

23
4.2.4. Number of leaves

Number of leaves per plant was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected only by varieties while
the effects of planting density and the interaction of variety and plant density were non-
significant (Appendix 1).

‘Roba’ and the ‘Local’ variety had significantly higher number of leaves per plant of 362.63
and 329.61, respectively than varieties ‘Lote’ and ‘Werrer 961’ (270.73, 197.69, respectively)
(Table 3). Variety ‘Roba’ had the highest number of leaves per plant (362.63) and variety
‘Werrer 961’ had the lowest number of leaves per plant (197.69) (Table 3). The possible
reason for this difference is genetic since variety ‘Roba’ is late maturing with more vegetative
growth whereas variety ‘Werrer 961’ is early maturing with less vegetative growth.

4.2.5. Number of branches

In this study, varieties, planting density and the interaction of these two had no significant
effect on mean number of branches per plant (Appendix 1). Though statistically not significant
variety Roba had the highest number of primary branches (4.6) while the variety Lote had the
lowest number of primary branches (4.16) (Table 3). The variation in number of branches per
plant among varieties of cowpea was reported by El Naim et al. (2010 a). Garba et al. (2002)
stated that the number of branches developed by the plants might be genetically influenced by
the groundnut cultivar used. Similarly, the number of branches per plant showed an increasing
trend from 4.01 to 4.74 as the plant density decreased from 222222 plants per ha to 133333
plants per ha. In line with this, Kang et al. (1998) reported that the vegetative parameters
increased with increasing row spacing and reduced plant density in soybean. In contrast to the
result of this study, Andrade et al. (2002) reported profuse branching in narrow-row groundnut
crop compared to wide-row groundnuts.

Similarly, Shiyam (2010) reported that the number of branches per plant of groundnut was not
improved by phosphorus fertilization or plant density. In contrast, Kandasamy et al. (1991)
reported that the number of branches per plant in sesame was negatively related with plant
population in sesame. Likewise, Mehmet (2008) obtained increased number of branches at the

24
wider plant spacing for soybean and attributed this to more interception of sunlight for
photosynthesis, which might have resulted in the production of more assimilates for
partitioning towards the development of more branches.

4.2.6. Nodulation

The effect of variety was significant on numbers of effective, non effective and total nodules
per plant (Appendix 2). Varieties ‘Werrer 961’ and ‘Lote’ gave higher number of effective,
non-effective and total nodules (Table 5). Variety ‘Werrer 961’ gave the highest number of
effective nodules (50.93), non-effective (14.44) and total nodules (65.37) while the lowest
number of effective nodules (28.92), non-effective (10.32) and total nodules (39.24) were
recorded for the local variety (Table 5). Variety ‘Werrer 961’ gave significantly higher values
from varieties ‘Roba’ and ‘Local’ in total number of nodules. However there was no
significant difference between varieties ‘Werrer 961’ and Lote in total number of nodules per
plant.

In this study, numbers of effective, non-effective, and total nodules were not significantly
affected by plant density (Appendix 2). Even though there were no statistically significant
difference, as plant density decreased from 166,667 plants per ha (60 cm x 10 cm) to 125,000
plants per ha (40 cm x 20 cm) the number of effective, non-effective, and total nodules
decreased (Table 5). Increase in the number of effective nodules in response to the narrower
plant spacing might be attributed to the competition occurring among densely spaced plants
for soil nutrient. Thus, the requirement for uptake of more nutrients might have prompted the
plants to produce increased numbers of effective nodules consequently the plants might be
able to take adequate nutrient for metabolism and optimum growth. But, at the lowest density
plants use the available N source rather than fixation of nitrogen. This result was in line with
Al-Abduselam and Abdai (1995) who reported statistically significant increase on faba bean
nodulation with increased plant density. Similarly, Lemlem (2011) reported decreased
numbers of effective nodules under wide inter-and intra-row spacing of soybean.

25
Table 5. Means of number of effective, non-effective and total nodules per plant of groundnut
as affected by variety and plant density

No. of effective No. of non- Total number

Treatment nodules effective nodules of nodule
Varieties
Roba 42.08a 11.40b 53.48a
Werrer 961 50.93a 14.44a 65.37a
Lote 44.89a 12.12b 57.01ab
Local 28.92b 10.32b 39.24c
LSD (0.05) 10.49 1.42 10.53
Plant density per ha
222222 (30cm x 15cm 41.3 12.05 49.10
166667 (60cm x 10) 44.0 12.33 56.33
133333 (50 cm  15 cm) 41.3 12.26 53.56
125000 (40 cm  20 cm) 40.0 11.71 51.71
100000(50 cm  20 cm) 42.0 11.98 53.98
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS
CV (%) 20.6 15.43 26.91
NS= non-significant
Means in column written the treatment category followed by different letters are significantly different as judged
by LSD at P< 0.05

4.2.7. Canopy spread

The analysis of variance revealed that the canopy spread was significantly (P<0.05) affected
by plant density, while the main effects of varieties and the interaction effect of varieties and
plant densities were not significant (Appendix 1).

In general, the canopy spread increased as the plant density decreased and the lowest canopy
spread (77.9 cm) was recorded for the plant density of 166,667 plant /ha (60 cm x 10 cm) and
the highest canopy spread per plant (95.3 cm) was recorded at plant density of 100,000 plant
/ha (50 cm x 20 cm) (Table 6). This might be due to the fact that when the plant density is low
there is a possibility of getting sufficient nutrient, water and solar radiation than at high plant
density. In agreement with this result, Farnham (2001) reported that close spacing significantly
reduced canopy width in maize as plants were compelled to grow vertically to compete for
space and light. Similarly, Konlan et al. (2013) reported that wide spacing arrangement
supported wider canopy sizes probably as a result of more available space for horizontal
growth compared to the space available to closely spaced crops. On the other hand, close

26
spacing resulted in complete and early canopy closure (Brown et al., 2005; Tillman et al.,
2006).

Table 6. Mean canopy spread, above ground dry biomass yield and stand count percentage of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant density

Treatment Canopy spread per Dry biomass Stand count

plant (cm) (kg ha-1) percentage
Varieties
Roba 89.51 5030a 95.68b
Werrer 961 87.28 3864b 95.07b
Lote 86.75 5494a 95.68b
Local 82.82 3890b 96.72a
LSD (0.05) NS 694.3 0.86
Plant density per ha
222222 (30cm x 15cm) 79.80c 4717 94.17d
166667 (60cm x 10) 77.88bc 5265 94.77cd
133333 (50 cm  15 cm) 88.97a 4339 95.68bc
125000 (40 cm  20 cm) 90.97abc 4297 96.25b
100000(50 cm  20 cm) 95.33a 4229 98.03a
LSD (0.05) 12.245 NS 0.968
CV (%) 17.11 20.6 1.23
NS= non-significant
Means in column written the treatment category followed by different letters are significantly different as judged
by LSD at P< 0.05

4.2.8. Above ground dry biomass

The result of analysis of variance showed that above ground dry biomass was highly
significantly (P<0.01) affected by varieties (Appendix 2). Varieties ‘Lote’ and ‘Roba’ showed
significant difference from the varieties ‘local’ varieties, and the variety ‘Werrer 961’ (Table
6). Variety ’Lote’ produced the highest dry biomass weight (5494 kg ha-1) followed by variety
‘Roba’ (5030 kg ha-1) while the lowest dry biomass weight (3864 kg ha-1) was recorded for
variety ‘Werrer 961’ (Table 6). The lowest dry biomass produced by the variety ‘Werrer 961’
might be due to its early maturity as early maturing varieties usually produce less biomass.
Similarly, Champion et al. (1998) reported that earlier developing cultivars produced greater
biomass through stem extension and increased shading at ground level. The differential
response of the varieties was attributed to variation in their genetic makeup. Such variations in
dry biomass production in relation to maturity were reported by Mukhtar et al. (2013).

27
In this study, there was no significant different among the plant densities on the above ground
dry biomass. In agreement with this result, Wogayehu (2005) reported no significant effects of
both inter- and intra-row spacing on the above ground dry biomass weight in common bean.

In agreement with the results of this study, Getachew et al. (2006) reported an increase in dry
biomass of faba bean with increased plant density. Crops sown at high density are able to
attain faster canopy cover than those at low density by harnessing solar radiation, nutrients and
moisture. The increased dry matter accumulation is related to the lesser time required for
plants in high density plant spacing to achieve a higher solar radiation interception than plants
in the lower plant population. Thus, total dry matter increases until a point is reached where
increases in plant numbers have no positive impact on the total dry matter achievable.
Similarly, John (2010) reported that increasing plant density from 71,428 to 95,238 plants per
ha produced more biomass in groundnut. Likewise, Meseret (2006) reported increment of
biomass of mung bean with increasing plant density and attributed this to the increasing
number of plants per unit area which was more than compensated for the decrease in biomass
produced per plant.

4.3. Yield and Yield Components

4.3.1. Stand count

The main effects of variety and plant density were highly significantly (P<0.01) on stand
count percentage at harvest compared to stand count after thinning while the interaction effect
was not significant (Appendix 3). The highest mortality rate (4.93%) was recorded for variety
‘Werrer 961’ while the least mortality (3.28%) was recorded for the local variety (Table 6).
This result could be due to the inherent variation among the varieties in their response to biotic
and abiotic stresses.

As compared to initial plant stand percent, mortality was increased with increase in plant
density. At the lowest plant density of 100,000 plants/ ha (50 cm × 20 cm) the least percent of
plants (1.97%) died, while at the highest plant density of 222,222 plant ha1 (30cm × 15 cm)

28
the highest number of plants died (5.83%) (Table 6). In general as the plant density increased,
the percent mortality also increased. This might be due to the reason that at lower plant density
the availability of more space might have resulted in less competition for resources (nutrients,
moisture and light) where as at high density due to more intra-specific competition the weaker
plants might have died by the time the crop approached maturity. This result was in line with
Njoka (2001) who reported increased plant mortality rate as density of plant increased in
common bean. Similarly, Abdel (2008) reported reduced plant competition and plant mortality
at lower plant density of faba bean.

4.3.2 Number of pods per plant

The analysis of variance indicated that both varieties and plant density had significant effect
on number of matured, immature and total pods per plant (Appendix 4).

The late maturing variety Roba produced the highest number of matured (50.973) and total
pods (61.66) per plant followed by the early maturing variety ‘Werrer 961’ which gave
number of matured and total pods of 43.61 and 61.56, respectively (Table 7). On the other
hand, variety ‘Lote’ produced the lowest number of matured (40.9) and total pods (52.02) per
plant. The variation in number of pods per plant might be due to the genetic variability of the
groundnut varieties. This result was in line with the findings of El-Naim (2010) who indicated
that groundnut varieties showed significant differences in number of pods per plant. Similarly,
Tarimo and Blamey (1999) and Konlan et al. (2013) reported such genotypic differences in
number of pod per plant in groundnut.

With regard to plant density, as the plant density decreased the number of matured and total
pods was increased (Table 7). The highest mean numbers of matured pods (49.50) and total
pods (66.53) were obtained from the lowest plant density of 100000 (50 cm  20 cm) per
hectare while the lowest mean numbers of matured pods (38.97) and total pods (46.57) were
obtained from the highest density of 222222 (30 cm  15 cm) plants per hectare (Table 7).
This result could be associated with the vigorous plant growth as a result of availability of
adequate plant growth resources in the widely spaced plants and due to efficient interception
of light and utilization of available resources. In conformity with the result of this study,
29
Mozingo and Steele, (1989) also confirmed that an increase in number of pods per plant with
increasing row width as a result of more availability of growth resources in wide-row
compared to narrow-row groundnut crop. Board and Harville (1996) also indicated a decrease
in number of pods per plant of soybean as plant density increased. Biswas et al. (2002)
reported higher number of pods per plant from the low plant density in groundnut. Likewise,
Nadeem et al. (2004) reported more number of pods per plant from 60 cm apart double row
than 40 cm apart single row strips in grain legume crops.

Table 7. Mean number of matured, immatured and total pods per plant of groundnut as
affected by variety and plant density

Treatment No. of matured No. of immatured No. of total pods

pods per plant pods per plant per plant
Varieties
Roba 50.973a 10.68bc 61.66a
Werrer 961 43.61b 17.94a 61.56a
Lote 40.9b 11.13b 52.02b
Local 43.14b 8.95c 52.10b
LSD (0.05) 5.48 2.007 6.29
Plant density per ha
222,222 (30cm x 15cm) 38.97c 7.60c 46.57d
166,667 (60cm x 10) 40.85bc 11.917b 52.76cd
133,333 (50 cm  15 cm) 46.76ab 11.44b 58.20bc
125,000 (40 cm  20 cm) 47.20a 12.90b 60.10ab
100,000(50 cm  20 cm) 49.50a 17.02a 66.53a
LSD (0.05) 6.13 2.244 7.041
CV (%) 16.7 22.48 15.10
Means in column written the treatment category followed by different letters are significantly different as judged
by LSD at P< 0.05

4.3.3. Number of seeds per pod

The analysis of variance indicated highly significant (P<0.01) differences among the varieties
on the number of seeds per pod (Appendix 3). The highest mean numbers of seeds per pod
(2.52) was recorded for the variety ‘Werrer 961’ followed by the variety ‘Roba’ (2.24), while
the lowest (2.07) was recorded for the variety ‘Lote’ (Table 8). Number of seed per pod is a
varietal characteristics which is largely controlled by plant genetic factors than agronomic
practices. Ahmad and Mohammed (2004) also confirmed such inherent varietal differences in
seed number per pod in pigeon pea.

30
Table 8. Mean on number of seeds per pod, hundred seed weight (g) and harvest index (%) of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant density
Number of seeds Hundred seed Harvest index
Treatment per pod weight (g) (%)

Varieties
Roba 2.25b 63.02a 59.23bc
Werrer 961 2.52a 46.05c 67.68a
Lote 2.07b 54.71b 51.45c
Local 2.13b 59.59a 60.86ab
LSD (0.05) 0.23 4.57 9.16
Plant density per ha
222222 (30cm x 15cm) 2.18 54.50 57.00
166667 (60cm x 10) 2.24 57.54 59.03
133333 (50 cm  15 cm) 2.23 54.89 60.44
125000 (40 cm  20 cm) 2.14 56.66 61.87
100000(50 cm  20 cm) 2.41 55.63 59.00
LSD (0.05) NS NS NS
CV (%) 13.72 11.06 18.94
NS= non-significant
Means in column written the treatment category followed by different letters are significantly different as judged
by LSD at P< 0.05

In this experiment, plant density had not significant effect on number of seeds per pod
(Appendix 3). Similar results were reported by Nadeem et.al (2004) who found that planting
pattern had not-significant effect on the number of seeds per pod in grain legumes. Such non-
significant effect of row spacing on the number of seeds per plant of mung bean has also been
reported by Ali et al. (2001). Even if there was no significant difference, the lowest plant
density of 100,000 plant ha-1 (50 cm  20 cm) produced the highest number of seeds per pod
(2.4) as compared to the other plant densities (Table 8). Similarly, Leitch and Sahi (1999)
reported that the number of pods per plant increased as plant density increased while the
number of seeds per pod was influenced to a lesser extent by spacing. These findings are in
agreement with studies which also indicated a decrease in number of pods per plant of
soybean as plant density increased (Board and Harville, 1996).

The same as plant density, interaction effects plant densities and varieties in number of seed
per pod were not significant (Appendix 3).

31
4.3.4. Dry pod yield

The analysis of variance for dry pod yield (kg ha-1) showed a highly significant difference
among the varieties (Appendix 4). Variety ’Lote’, the intermediate maturing improved variety,
was found to perform best and gave a mean dry pod yield of 3985 kg /ha when averaged over
the five plant densities followed by variety ‘Roba’ which gave mean dry pod yield of 3954 kg
/ha (Table 9). On the other hand, the late maturing local variety with a runner type of growth
habit performed least and produced a mean dry yield of 3309 kg /ha when averaged over all
the plant density (Table 9). The least dry pod yield recorded for the local variety could be due
to the lowest number of seeds per pod and mature pods. In line with the results of this study,
Abdi (2004) reported significant differences in mean dry pod yield among the three groundnut
varieties averaged over inter-row spacing and intra-row spacing and found that ‘Roba’ the
intermediate maturing improved variety with a bunch type of growth habit was the best.
Similarly, Chandrasekaran et al. (2007) reported significant differences among the varieties of
groundnut for dry pod yield and attributed the difference to number of pods per plant, pod
weight and shelling percentage recorded by the varieties.

The analysis of variance for dry pod yield showed significant (P<0.05) differences among the
five plant densities (Appendix 4). In response to plant density, pod yield was highest at
the plant density of 166,667 plant (60 cm  10 cm) per hectare (4177 kg ha-1) (Table 9) and
declined both below and above this density possibly indicating that this plant density might be
the optimum.

In general, increasing plant density had positive effect on pod yield produced per hectare. This
means that increasing the plant density led to increase in dry pod yield until an optimum was
reached and beyond which further increases in number of plants did not produce significant
changes in dry pod yields. In agreement to this result, Agasimani (1989) indicated that in
groundnut 20 x 15 cm spacing recorded the highest pod yield of 4.09 tons ha-1, which was at
par with 20 x 10 cm spacing and significantly superior over wider spacing of 40 x 20 cm (3.14
tons ha-1). Mkadawire and Sibuga (2002) also reported high pod yield of bambara groundnut
at plant densities of 22 plants m-2 than 9 plants m-2. Similarly, closer spacing of peanut at 25 x

32
10 cm significantly gave higher pod and haulm yield of 2694 and 4397 kg ha-1, respectively as
compared to 30 x 10 cm, 20 x10 cm and 15 x 10 cm spacing (Annadurai et al., 2009). Thus,
spacing arrangement that resulted in high plant density was more efficient in the use of solar
energy and other resources for pod production (Virk et al., 2005). Similarly, Chandrasekaran
et al. (2007) reported that among the different plant spacing closer spacing of 30 x 10 cm
recorded higher pod yield as compared to wider spacing of 45 x 10 cm in confectionery
groundnut. This was due to the optimum plant density per unit area and maintenance of
optimum plant density might have resulted in higher pod yield.

There was no significant interaction effect between plant densities and varieties on dry pod
yield in the current study (Appendix 4)

4.3.5. Shelling percent

Shelling percent is an indication of pod filling efficiency, and high shelling percent values
indicate effective pod filling. In this experiment, shelling percentage was highly significantly
(P<0.01) different for varieties (Appendix 3). Among the varieties, ‘Werrer 961’ recorded
significantly the highest shelling percent of 71.2 followed by the variety ‘Roba’ (70.9%) while
variety ‘Lote’ had the lowest shelling percent (69.4) (Table 9). Normally, early maturing
varieties have higher shelling percent. Similarly, Chandrasekaran et al. (2007) reported
significant differences among the groundnut varieties with shelling ranging from 69.0 to
72.7%.

However, there was no significant difference among plant densities and the interaction effect
between the two factors was also not significant (Appendix 3). In conformity with the results
of this study, Chandrasekaran et al. (2007) reported no significant effects of plant geometry on
shelling percent in groundnut. Likewise, El Naim et al., (2010) reported that plant density had
no significant effect on shelling percent in cowpea.

33
4.3.5. Hundred Seed weight

Hundred seed weight was highly significantly affected by varieties but it was not significantly
affected by plant density and the interaction effect (Appendix 4).

Table 9.Mean on dry pod yield (kg ha-1), shelling percentage and seed yield (kg ha-1) of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant density

Dry pod yield Shelling Seed yield

Treatment (kg ha-1) percentage (kg ha-1)
Varieties
Roba 3954.2a 70.91ab 2804.11a
Werrer 961 3616.6ab 71.27a 2577.60b
Lote 3985.4a 69.43c 2767.15ab
Local 3308.9b 69.81bc 2309.84
c

LSD (0.05) 395.86 1.17 233.36

Plant density per ha
222,222 (30cm x 15cm) 3774.7ab 69.70a 2631.03b
166,667 (60cm x 10) 4176.5a 70.88a 2960.31a
133,333 (50 cm  15 cm) 3622.8b 70.27a 2545.67bc
125,000 (40 cm  20 cm) 3628.3b 70.44a 2555.63bc
100,000(50 cm  20 cm) 3379.0b 70.50a 2382.06c
LSD (0.05) 407.67 NS 260.91
CV (%) 14.25 2.26 12.57
Means in column written the treatment category followed by different letters are significantly different as judged
by LSD at P< 0.05

The highest hundred-seed weight of 63.02 g was recorded for the variety ‘Roba’ followed by
the local variety (59.59 g), while the lowest hundred seed weight of 46.05 g was recorded for
the early maturing variety ‘Werrer 961’ (Table 9). The variation in seed weight of groundnut
could be due to genetic differences as the hundred seed weight is more influenced by the
genetic than crop management practices. In agreement with this result, Turk et al. (2007)
reported that individual seed weight was highly affected by genetic factors except in case of
severe water stress and hot desiccating winds causing forced maturity. Accordingly,
Amaregouda and Kamannavar (2004) where they compared the performance of six Groundnut
varieties found lower 100 seed weight of 37.4 g for early maturing varieties than a
confectionery peanut variety that gave significantly higher (66.7g) hundred seed weight.

34
Hundred seed weight did not significantly vary among the various plant densities and there
was no significant interaction effect between varieties and plant densities (Appendix Table 4).
This result was in agreement with the research findings of Ossom et al. (2009) who reported
no significant variation among different plant densities in hundred seed weight of groundnut.
Likewise, Ozer (2003) with rape seed reported no significant differences for 1000-seed weight
with increase in row spacing. In contrast, Worku (2011) reported the highest 100 seed weight
of soybean from the 10 cm plant spacing and he described that under higher plant densities the
existence of increased competition for resources resulting in low dry matter assimilation in
seeds leading to less seed weight.

4.3.6. Seed Yield

Seed yield of groundnut was highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced by variety and plant
density (Appendix 4). With regard to the varieties, variety ‘Roba’ gave the highest seed yield
(2804 kg /ha) followed by the variety ‘Lote’ (2767 kg/ ha) ,while the lowest seed yield was
recorded for the ‘Local’ variety (2310 kg/ ha) (Table 9).

In this study, all the three improved varieties gave higher seed yield as compared to the ‘local’
variety. The highest seed yield for the variety ‘Roba’ could be due to the highest number of
leaves per plant, highest number of branches, high number pods per plant and highest hundred
seed weight. High economic yields are pre- determined by dry matter production and
partitioning into various sinks of which the grain is the most important. Therefore, any attempt
to manipulate plant density to maximize yield and cultivar assessment for higher yield are
considered successful if subsequent growth characteristics support dry matter partitioning into
the grain. Similarly differences in seed yield among varieties grown under the same condition
have been reported to be largely from genotypic effects (Ahmad et al., 2007a). Similar result
was reported by Abdi (2004) where the intermediate maturing groundnut variety ’Roba’ gave
the highest seed yield than the other two varieties.

With respect to the plant density, the highest seed yield (2960 kg/ ha) was obtained from the
plant density of 166,666 plants/ha (60cm x 10cm) followed by the plant density of 222,222

35
plant/ha (30cm x 15cm) which had seed yield of 2629 kg/ ha while the lowest seed yield (2382
kg/ha) was recorded at the lowest plant density of 100,000 (50 cm x 20 cm) (Table 9). The
highest seed yield for the plant density of 166667 plant/ha was probably because of efficiently
utilized nutrient and water and solar radiation compared to the other high and low plant
density treatments. This result was in agreement with Raseckh et al. (2010) who reported the
highest seed yield was recorded from 8.3 plants per m2 than either of 5.3 or 14.8 plants per m2.
Singh et al. (1991) and Board (1996) also reported that narrow spacing resulted in higher grain
yield in food legumes. Ball et al. (2000) reported that an increase in plant density in soybean
can only influence yield to a certain point, reaching a maximum beyond which an increase in
plant density will not result in increased yield, but can lead to a decline in yield, which was
also in line with the results of this study.

4.3.7. Harvest index

Harvest index (HI) was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by varieties but it was not
significantly affected by plant density and the interaction of the two factors (Appendix table
4). Variety ‘Werrer 961’ achieved the higher harvest index of 67.68% followed by the local
variety (60.86%) while variety ‘Lote’ had the lowest harvest index (51.45%) (Table 8). The
highest harvest index recorded for the early maturing variety ‘Werer 961’ might be due to
production of lower above ground dry biomass by the variety which might indicate the
inherent ability of ‘Werer 961’ to partition most of the dry matter produce into the grain. In
conformity with the results of this study, Akpalu (2010) reported significantly higher harvest
index for Mottled cream than the other landraces on Bambara groundnut. Similarly, El Naim
(2010a) reported highly significant differences in harvest index among cowpea cultivars. In
general, Ayaz et al. (2001) stated that harvest index was variable over species, populations and
depths and reported that the highest harvest index (0.61) was recorded in lentils and the lowest
(0.54) in lupins.

However, harvest index was not significantly affected by plant density as well as the
interaction of plant density and groundnut varieties (Appendix 4). Similarly, Thangwana and
Ogola (2012) reported that planting density did not significantly affect harvest index in
chickpea and reported harvest index that ranged from 0.48 to 0.72 in chickpea. Although the

36
difference was not statistically different, harvest index as shown in Table 8 showed an
increasing trend as plant density decreased from 222,222 (30cm x 15cm) (57.00%) to 125,000
plant per hectare (40 cm x 20 cm) (61.87%). The highest harvest index at the lower plant
density might be due to lower interplant competition for resources such as nutrients, water and
solar radiation low as compared to high plant density. This result was in line with Solomon
(2003) who found that harvest index in haricot bean was reduced with increase in plant
density.

37
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Groundnut is the second largest source of vegetable oil following soybeans. It is used in the
manufacture of margarine and inferior quality oil for soap, and as a lubricant. High quality oil
is used in the pharmaceutical industry. The cake after extraction of the oil is a high- protein
livestock feed. The best quality cake may be ground into flour for human consumption.

Plant density and arrangement of plants in a unit area greatly determine (i) resource utilization
such as light, nutrients and water; (ii) the rate and extent of vegetative growth and
development of crops particularly that of plant height, root length and density; (iii) yield and
yield components; (iv) development of important diseases and pests; and (v) the seed cost.

In view of this, an experiment was conducted to assess the response of groundnut varieties
with different maturity duration to plant density. A factorial experiment was conducted in
RCBD in three replication with four varieties,( i.e. ‘Roba’, ‘Werrer 961’ , ‘Lote’ and ‘Local)’
and five plant densities ha-1 of 222,222 (30 cm  15 cm), 166,667 (60 cm  10 cm), 133,333
(50 cm  15 cm), 125000 (40 cm  20 cm) and 100000 (50 cm  20 cm).

Day to seedling emergence was affected by the interaction of varieties and plant density. The
highest days to emergence (15 days) was recorded for variety ‘Roba’ at plant density of
100,000 plants ha-1 (50 cm × 20 cm). Days to flowering was highly significantly affected by
the main effect of variety where varieties ‘Local’ and ‘Roba’ took higher days to flowering of
72.26 and 70.40 days, respectively. The interaction effect of variety and plant density was
highly significant (P<0.01) on days to maturity. The highest days to maturity (149.3) was
obtained for variety ‘Roba’ with determinate runner growth habit at plant density of 100,000
plants ha-1 (50 cm × 20 cm). The number of leaves per plant at flowering was showed
significant differences among varieties and variety ’Roba’ recorded the highest number of
leaves per plant (362.63). Similarly, 166667 (60 cm  10 cm) gave the highest number of leaves
(290.98). The canopy spread was also significantly affected by plant density and the highest
canopy spread (95.33 cm) was recorded for plant density of 100000 plants/ha. Besides, variety
‘Roba’ had the highest canopy spreads (89.5 cm). The above ground dry biomass was also

38
affected by varieties, and varieties ‘Lote’ and ‘Roba' gave higher biomass of 5494 and 5030
kg/ ha, respectively.

In this study, plant density significantly affected number of matured and total pods per plant.
Increase in plant density showed reduced number of matured and total pod per plant. The
highest number of matured and total pods per plant of 49.50 and 66.53 respectively were
obtained from the lowest plant density of 100,000 plants per hectare, and the lowest number of
matured and total pods per plant of 38.96 and 46.57, respectively were obtained from the
highest density of 222,222 plants per hectare. Variety ‘Roba’ produced more number of
matured and total pods per plant than the other varieties. The early maturing variety ‘Werrer
961’ had significantly higher number of seeds per pod than the other three varieties.

Variety ‘Lote’ the intermediate maturing improved variety gave the highest mean dry pod
yield of 3985 kg/ ha when averaged over the five plant densities. The second highest mean dry
pod yield of 3954 kg/ ha was obtained for the improver variety ‘Roba’. In addition, plant
density had significant effect on dry pod yield. The highest dry pod yield (4177 kg/ ha) was
obtained at the plant density of 166,667 plants per hectare, but it declined to the lowest level
(3379 kg/ ha) at plant density of 100,000 plants / ha.

In this experiment, shelling percent was significantly different among the varieties, and variety
‘Werrer 961’ recorded significantly the highest shelling percent of 71.2. In addition to shelling
percent, hundred seed weight was significantly affected by varieties but not by plant density.
Variety ‘Roba’ gave the highest hundred-seed weight (63.02 g) while variety ‘Werrer 961’
had the lowest hundred seed weight (46.047 g).

Seed yield of groundnut was significantly affected by plant density and varieties. The highest
seed yield (2893 kg/ ha) was obtained for variety ‘Roba’ followed by variety ‘Lote’ (2766 kg
/ha-1) while the lowest seed yield (2276 kg/ ha) was recorded for the local variety.

In conclusion, the results from the study indicated that variety and plant density had
significant influences on the phenology, growth, yield and yield components of groundnut.

39
Variety ’Roba’, the late maturing improved variety with a bunch growth habit performed the
best as compared to the other three varieties. Also, plant density of 166,667 plants per hectare
(60 cm x 10 cm) was better than the other plant densities. Thus, groundnut variety ‘Roba’ and
plant density of 166,667 plants/ha can be a preliminary recommendation for Kucha area of
southern Ethiopia. However, to give a conclusive recommendation an optimum plant density
appropriate for different varieties of groundnut, the experiments should be replicated over
seasons and locations.

40
 6. REFERENCES

Abdel, L.Y.I. 2008. Effect of seed size and plant spacing on yield and yield components of
faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Research Journal of Agricultural. Biological. Science. 4(2):
146-148.

Abdi, A. 2004. Effect of planting density and variety on yield and yield components of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) at Babile, Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Presented
to Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Abubaker, S. 2008. Effect of plant density on flowering date, yield and quality attribute of
bush beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under center pivot irrigation system. American
Agricultural and Bio-technology Science Journal 3(4): 666-668.

Abdullah T, Rahmianna AA, Hardaningsih S, Rozi F .2007. Increasing groundnut yield on dry
land Alfisols in Indonesia. J. SAT Agric. Res.5(1).

AdARC. 2002. (Adet Agricultural Research Center), 2002.Progress Report for the Period
2000/01. Adet Agricultural Research Center, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.

Adugna, Wakijira. 1991. Groundnut breeding in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of First National

Workshop in Oil Seed Research and Development in Ethiopia. 3-5 December 1991,
Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Agasimani, C.A. 1989. Response of Groundnut cultivars to different spacing’s . Indian J.

Agronomy ., 34; 135-137.

Agropedia,. 2009. Nutriation feacher for groundnut. Submitted by msrivani on Thu,

05/02/2009 - 18:11. ( http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/nutritional-features-groundnut)
Accessed on August 8, 2013

Ahmad, N., R. Mohammad, and K. Ulas. 2007a. Evaluation of different varieties, seed rates
and row spacing of groundnut, planted under agro- ecological conditions of Malakand
Division. Journal of Inter academia 9(4): 178-183.

Ahmad, R., B. Hassan, & K. Jabran, 2007b. Improving crop harvest index. Retrieved from
http:// DAWN.com Anonymous (2002). The Tropical Agriculturist. London and
Oxford: Macmillan Education Ltd. Accessed on July 13, 2013

Ahmad, N., and R., Mohammad. 2004. Evaluation of promising groundnut (Arachis hypogaea
L) varieties for yield and other characters. Crop and Soil Science, p.251.

AICORPO (All India Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds), 2000 Agronomic

Investigations on Confectionery /HPS Varieties of Groundnut. ICAR, New Delhi. 30-
36p.

41
Akpalu, M.M., 2010. Growth, yield and nutritional quality of five Bambara Groundnut (Vigno
subterranean(L) verdc.) landraces to different plant population densities . M.Sc.
Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University. Kumasi, Ghana.

Al-Abduselam, M.A. and K.S. Abdai. 1995. Effect of plant density and certain pesticides on
growth, yield and rhizobial nodulation of faba bean. King Saudi University,
Agricultural Science Journal, 7: 249-257.

Ali, A., A. Tanveer, M.A. choudhry, R. sohail, and M.M. Akram, 2001.Growth and yield
response of rice bean (Vigna umbellate) to different seeding rates and planting
patterns. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 4(40): 460- 461:

Amaregouda, A., and P. Y. Kamannavar, 2004: Performance of introduced early-maturing

groundnut varieties in the Upper Krishna Project, India. International Arachis
Newsletter ( 16): 21

Amato, G., R. Cibella, D. Giambalvo and L. Gristina, 1992. Observations of the reproductive
development in faba bean (Vicia faba L. var. equina) in relation to plant density pp.
245–246. In: Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on Grain Legumes 1–3 June,
Angers, France.

Andrade, F. H., P. Calvino, A. Cirilo, and P. Barbieri .2002. Yield response to narrow rows
depend on increased radiation interception. Agronomy Journal. 94: 975- 998.

Annadurai ,K. , N. Puppala , S. Angadi , and P . Masilamani .2009. Agronomic management

technologies for peanut production: a review. India. Agric. Rev., 30 (4) : 235 - 261

Ayaz, S., D.L. McNeil, B.A. McKenzie and G.D. Hill, 2001. Density and sowing depth effects
on yield components of grain legumes. Procceding. Agronomy. Society New Zealand.
29: 9-15.

Ball, R.A., L.C. Purcell and E.D. Vories. 2000. Optimising soyabean plant population for a
short-season production system in the Southern USA. Crop Science., 40: 757-764.

Biswas, D.K., M.M. Haque, A. Hamid, J.U. Ahmed, and M.A. Rahman. 2002. Influence of
plant population density on growth and yield of two black gram varieties. Pakistaun
Journal of Agronomy 1(2-3):83- 85.

Board, J.E. and B.G. Harville. 1996. Growth dynamics during the vegetative period affects
yield of narrow-row, late-planted soybean. Agronomy Journal 88: 567-572.

Bora, K.K., K. Singh and A. Kumar. 2001. Stress and Environmental Physiology. Pointer
Publishers, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India.

Branch W.D, J.A.Baldwin, A.K. Culbreath. 2004. Peanut genotype × seeding rate interaction
among TSWV-Resistant, runner-type peanut cultivars. Peanut Science 30:108-111.

42
Brereton, R.G. 1980. Groundnuts: Ethiopian Grain Review. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Brown, S.L, A.K, Culbreath, J.W. Todd, D.W .Gorbet, J.A. Baldwin, R.M. Coolman, G.D.
Hoyt. 2005. Increasing sustainability by intercropping. Horticultural Technology
3(3):309-311.

Champion, G.T., R. J. Froud-Williams and J.M Holland .1998. Interactions between wheat
cultivar , row spacing and density and the effect on weed suppression and crop yield
.Department of Agricultural Botany, School of Plant Science. The University of
,Reading,2Early Gate, White Knights, Reading RG66AU, UK.

Chandrasekaran, E. M. M. Somasundaram, K. Amanullah, K. Thirukumaran and K.

Sathyamoorthi. 2007. Influence of varieties and plant spacing on the growth and yield
of confectionery groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). India. Research Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences, 3(5): 525-528.

Chaniyara, N.J., R.M. Solanki, and V.B. Bhalu. 2001. Response of summer groundnut to
spacing and plant population. Legume Research 24: 252-255.

CSA, 2008.Central statistical Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and
Hosing Census. Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Day, P. R. 1965. Hydrometer method of particle size analysis. In: Back, C.A. (eds.), Method
of Soil Analysis. American Society of Agronomy. Madison Wisconsin Agron. N . 9,
Part 2. pp. 562 - 563.

Elias, Urage. 1992. Correlation and performance study of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
varieties in Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia.

EIAR. 2007. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research . Registry of crop Technologies.

Retrieved from http://www.eiar. Gove.et/ Accessed on August 8, 2011.

EL- Naim, A. M. 2003. Effect of different irrigation water quantities and cultivars on growth
and yield of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). Ph.D thesis. Faculty of Agriculture.
University of Kartoum, Sudan

El Naim , A.M., A. M. Hagelsheep, M. S .Abdelmuhsin , A. E. Abdalla . 2010a. Effect of

intra-row spacing on growth and yield of three cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.)
Varieties under Rainfed. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences.
6(5): 623-629, 2010

El Naim, A. M. , M, A. Eldouma, A. E. Abdalla. 2010b. Effect of weeding frequencies and

plant population on vegetative growth characteristic in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea
L.) in North Kordofan of Sudan. International Journal of Applied Biology and
Pharmaceutical Technology, 1(3): 1188-1193

43
FAO. 2011. Crop Production Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/corp/statistics/en Accessed on
August 15, 2013.

FAO. 2012. Crop Production Statistics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, Rome, Italy. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/corp/statistics/en Accessed on
August 15, 2013.

Farnham D.E. 2001. Row spacing, plant density, and hybrid effects on corn grain yield and
moisture. Agronomy Journal 93:1049-1053.

Garba, A., B.M. Anwalu and S.D. Abdul 2002. Effect of variety and intra-row spacing on
flower production in groundnut under the prevailing weather conditions of the
Northern Guinea Savanna, Nigerian Journal Agricultural. Technology 10 2002.

Getachew Agegnehu , Asnake Fikre. and Ayalew T. 2006. Cropping systems, soil fertility, and
crop management research on cool season food legumes in the central highlands of
Ethiopia: A review. pp. 155-168. In: Food and Forage Legumes of Ethiopia: Progress
and Prospects. ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria.

Gobeze, L. 1999. Effect of special arrangement and nitrogen fertilizer application on sorghum
and groundnut intercrop system in Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Presented to
Haramaya University. Haramaya ,Ethiopia.

Gomez, K.T. and A. Gomez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agriculturel Research. Second
ed.John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Harris, D. and S.N. Azam – Ali. 1993. Implication of day length sensitivity in bambara ground
nut ( Vigna subterranean) for production in Botswana. Journal of Agriculture Sciences
120:75-78.

Holshouser, D.L and P.W. Joshua, 2002. Plant population and row spacing effects on early
soybean production systems in Mid Atlantic, USA Agronomy Journal, 94: 603-611.

Hosseini, N.M., R.H. Ellis and B. Yazdi-Samadi. 2001. Effects of plant population density on
yield and yield components of eight isolines of cv. Clark (Glicine max L.). Journal
Agricultural Science Technology 3: 131-139.

Hui, Y.H. 1996. Peanut Oil. Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Product 2: 337-392.

ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research for Dry Areas), 2012. Semi arid
tropics Faba bean information service. Nile Valley Project, Syria. 27p.

Ishag, H.M. 2000. Phenotypic and yield responses of irrigation groundnut cultivars in a hot
environment, Experimental Agriculture 36, 303-312.

44
Jackson, M. L.1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall Grice. Englewood Cliffs, USA.
pp.284.
Jadhav R.B.2006. Assessment of Integrated pest Management Modules in Groundnut on
farmers’ fields. International Arachis Newslett, 26:31-33.

Jasani, H. 2009. Ecomomical importance of groundnut oilseed crop. Oilseed Crop Groundnut
,India . Meghmani Organics Limited, Ahmedabad 14:12

Jettner, R., S.P. Loss, K.H. Siddique and L.D. Martin . 1998a. Responses of faba bean (Vicia
faba L.) to sowing rate in south-western Australia. I. Seed yield and economic
optimum plant density. Australian Journal Agricaltural Research 49: 989-998.

Jettner, R., S.P. Loss, K.H. Siddique and L.D. Martin. 1998b. Responses of faba bean (Vicia
faba L.) to sowing rate in south-western Australia. II. Canopy development, radiation
absorption and dry matter partitioning. Australian Journal Agricultural Research, 49:
999-1008.

John, O. S. 2010. Growth and yield response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to plant
densities and phosphorus on an Ultisol in south-eastern Nigeria. Libyan Agriculture
Research Center Journal International 1 (4): 211-214.

Kandasamy, G., M.N.T. Balasubara and S. Thangavelu. 1991. Study on the varietal and
spacing interaction in sesame. Sesame and Safflower News Letter 6:41-43

Kang Y.K, K. N. Cho. And Y.M. park. 1998. Effects of planting date and plant density on
growth and yield of soybean in Cheju Island. Korean Journal of Crop Science 43
(1):44-48

Kathirvelan K, and P. Kalaiselvan. 2007. Studies on agro-management techniques for

confectionary groundnut under irrigated condition. Research Journal Agricultur.
Biological Science 3: 52-58.

Kaushik, M.K. and A.K. Chaubey. 2000. Response of rainy season bunch groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.) to row spacing and seed rate. Crop Research 20: 407-410.

Khidir, M.O. 1997. Oil seed crops in the Sudan. Khartoum University Press, Khrtoum, Sudan

Konlan, S. J. Sarkodie-Addo, E. Asare, and M. J. Kombiok . 2013. Groundnut (Arachis

hypogaea L.) varietal response to spacing in the Guinea savanna agro- ecological zone
of Ghana: Growth and yield. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(22): p.
2769-2777.

KFEDO (Kucha Finance and Economic Development Offices), 2006. Kucha district
livelihood Profile: USAID/FEWSNET, p. 27.

45
Kueneman, E.A., G. Hernandez-Bravo and D.H. Wallace. 2008. Effects of growth habits and
competition on yields of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Tropics. Cambridge
University Press. 97-104p.

Landon, J. R. 1996 Booker tropical soil manual. A Hand Book for Soil Survey and
Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Sub- Tropics, Logman. 431pp

Leitch, M.H and F. Sahi. 1999. The effect of plant spacing on growth and development in
linseed. Annals of Applied Biology. 135: 529-534

Lemlem H/Giorgis. 2011. Effect of N fertilizer and plant density on yield, seed quality, and oil
content of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr) at Hawassa, southern Ethiopia. M.Sc.
Thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Maasa, L.A., K.E. Dashiellb and H.A. Meloukc. 2006. Planting density influences disease
incidence and severity of sclerotinia blight in peanut. Crop Science Journal 46: 1341-
1345.

Matthews, P.W., D.J. Carpenter, A. Smith and N. Fettell. 2001. Faba bean seeding rates for
Central and Southern NSW. Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference,
Hobart Australian Society of Agronomy, Australia.

Matthews, P.W., E.L. Armstrong, C.J. Lisle, I.D. Menz, P.L. Shephard and B.C. Armstrong.
2008. The effect of faba bean plant population on yield, seed quality and plant
architecture under irrigation in southern NSW. Australian Crop Agronomy Journal
20:100-107

Mehmet, O.Z. 2008. Nitrogen rate and plant population effects on yield and yield components
in soybean. African Biotechnology Journal 7(24): 4464-4470.

Mekonnen, D, 1999. Effects of spacing and nitrogen fertilization on yield and related traits of
finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaerth) grown on soils of Bako area, Western
Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Alemaya University, Dire Dawa Ethiopia.

Meseret Fanta. 2006. Effect of population density, inter- row spacing and phosphorus fertilizer
on yield and yield components of mung bean (Vigna radiate (L.) wilczek). M.Sc.
thesis, Hawassa University , Ethiopia.

Million Eshete. 1994. Chickpea and lentil agronomy research. pp: 230-251.In: Proceedings of
the 1st National Cool Food Season Legumes Review Conference, 16-20 December
1993. ICARDA/Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. 1995. Agricultural compendium for rural development
in the tropics and subtropics, Commissioned by the Netherlands. The Netherlands
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

46
Mohiuddin, M.D. and D.C. Ghosh, 2006. Performance of groundnut varieties in rainfed
lateritic uplands of West Bengal. Indian Agricultural 40(1): 39-43.

Mozingo R.W.. and J.L. Steel. 1989. Intra-row spacing effects on morphological
characteristics, yield, grade and net value of five peanut cultivars. Peanut Science 16:
9599

Mukhtar ,A. A. , B. A. Babaji1 , S., H. Ibrahim , H. Mani, A. A. Mohammad and A. Ibrahim.

2013. Dry Matter Production and Harvest Index of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
Varieties Under Irrigation. Nigeria Journal of Agricultural Science; 5: 25-43.

Nadeem, M. A, A .A. Nadeem, S. Rashid, and M. Mudassar. 2004. Effect of different planting
pattern on Growth, yield and quality of grain legumes. Pakkistan Journal Life Society
Science 2(2): 132-135

Njoka, E.M., M.M. Muraya and M. Okumu. 2002. The influences of plant density on yield and
yield components of common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). New York Ann. Rep.
Bean Improved Cooperative Program 25: 92-95.

Norman, A.G. 1963. The influence of density on the plant. Advances in Agronomy 15: 17-26.

Oad, F.C., M.A. Samo, S.M. Qayylan and N.L. Oad. 2002. Inter- and intra- row spacing effect
on the growth, seed yield and oil continent of safflower. Asian Plant Science Journal
1: 18-19.

Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe and L.A. Dean, 1954. Estimation of Available
Phosphorus in Soils by Extraction with Sodium Bicarbonate. Circ. 939. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Washington, DC.

Ossom, E.M., L.M. Kuhlase and R.L. Rhykerd. 2009. Effect of plant population on yield
components and yield of intercropped sweetpotato [Ipomeoea batatas (L.) Lam.] and
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). .American-Eurasian Journal of Agronomy 2(1): 01-
06.

Ouattara, S. and D.B. Weaver. 1994. Effect of growth habit on yield and agronomic
characteristics of late-planted soybean. Crop Science 34: 870-873.

Ozer, H. 2003.The effect of plant population densities on growth, yield and yield components
of two spring rapeseed cultivars. Turkey journal of Plant, Soil and Environment. 49:
422–426

Pande , S. and J. N. Rao , 2002. Effect of plant population densities on the severity of late leaf
spot and rust of groundnut. Indian Plant Pathology Journal 18(5) : 271-278

Page, A. L. 1982. Methods of soil analysis. Part II. Chemical and Microbiological Properties.
Madison, USA.

47
Pedersen, P. 2008. Soybean plant population. In: Soybean Extension and Research Program.
Iowa State University, USA.

Rajeswari, R. 1999. Evaluation of groundnut genotypes for Rain-fed conditions in the

Northern Coastal Zone of Andhra Pradesh, India. International Arachis Newsletter 19:
13-15.

Ramesh, R. And R.N. Sabale. 2001. Phosphorus and plant population management in
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) – fenugreek (Trigonella foenum – graecum) cropping
system. Indian Journal Agronomy 46(4): 621-626.

Raseckh, H. , J. Asghari, M.N. Safarzadeh Wishkai, S.L. Massoumi and R. Zakerinjad. 2010.
Effect of planting Pattern and plant density on physiological Characteristics and Yield
of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Iran. Research Journal of Biological Sciences 5(8):
542-547.

Reddy, R.S., 2000. Principle of crop production. pp. 45-47. In: Asfaw. Telaye, Geletu. Bejiga,
M.C. Sexana, M.B. Sohl (eds.). Proceedings of the 1st National Research Review on
Cool-season Food Legumes of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Rezene Fessehaie. 1994. Weed research in cool-season food legumes. pp. 252-278. In:
Proceedings of the 1st National Research Review Conference on Cool Food Season
Legumes Review Conference, 16-20 December 1993. ICARDA/ Institute of
Agricultural Research. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Robinson, R.G., J.H. Ford, W.E. Lueschen, D.L. Rabas, D.D. Warnes and J.V. Wiersma.
2002. Sunflower Plant Population and Its Arrangement.Communication and
Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension.

RIU(Research Into Use) 2010.Improved technologies for groundnut production in sub-Saharan

Africa. Retrieved from http://www.researchintouse.com/nrk/RIUinfo/PF/CPP38.htm
Accessed on November 2, 2013.

SAS Institute, Inc. 2004. SAS user’s guide, version 9. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.

Sharaan, A.N., A. Ekram, H. Megawer, H.A. Saber and Z.A. Hemida, 2003. Biological yield,
its related growth criteria and chocolate-spot disease as influenced by cultivar, sowing
date and planting distances in faba bean. Agron. Dept., Fac. Agric. at Fayoum, Cairo
Univ. Legumes Sec. Field Crop Res. Ins., ARC. FIPMP, Min. Agric. at Fayoum,
Egypt. .

Shiyam, L.O. 2010. growth and yield response of groundnut to plant densities and phosphorus
on an Ultisol in Southeastern Nigeria (Arachis hypogaea L.). Libyan Agriculture
Research Center Journal International 1 (4): 211-214.

48
Singh, K.N., A, Bali, M. H. Shah and B.A. Khanday. 1991. Effect of spacing and seed rate on
yield of green gram in Kashmir Valley. Indian Journal Agricultural Science (12): 326-
327.

Singh, N.P, and R.A. Singh. 2002. Scientific crop production. Press Graphics, Delhi-28, India.

Sobkowicz, P. and M.L. Podgorska. 2007. Experiments with crop mixture: Interactions,
designs and interpretation. Department of Soil Management and Plant Cultivation,
Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Poland.

Solomon Abate, 2003. Effects of irrigation frequency and plant population density on growth,
yield components and yield of haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Dire Dawa
Area. M.Sc. Thesis Presented to Haramaya University, Ethiopia.

Squire, G.R. 1993. The Physiology of Tropical Crops.Tropical Agriculture Science 120-280p.

Subrahmaniyan, K and Yellamanda Reddy, T and Nigam, S N. 2004. Management of peanut

stem necrosis disease in groundnut through border cropping. In: Current Trends of
Research on Groundnut in India. National Symposium on ‘Enhancing Productivity of
Groundnut for Sustaining Food and Nutritional Security’: 11-13 Oct 2004, NRCG,
Junagadh, India.

Talal , T. and G. Shalaldeh, 2006. Effect of planting date on faba bean plant nodulation and
performance under semiarid conditions. World Agricultural Science Journal, 2(4):
477-482.

Tarimo, A.J.P. 2006. Philological response of groundnut to different leveles of plant

population, Oil Crop Newsletter No.3. pp.43-45

Tarimo, A.J.P. and .F.P. Blamey . 1999. Effects of plant population density and cultivar on
growth, yield and yield components in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). S. African
Journal Plant Soil. 16(2): 74-78.

Tekalign Mamo., L. Haque and E.A. Aduayi. 1991. Working Document: Soil, Plant, Fertilizer,
Animal Manure and Compost Analysis Manual, International Livestock Center for
Africa, No. B13, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Thangwana, N. M. And J. B.O. Ogola. 2012. Yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer
arietinum): Response to genotype and planting density in summer and winter sowings.
South Africa Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment 10 (2): 710-715.

Tillman, B.L, D.W. Gorbet, A.K. Culbreath, J.W. Todd. 2006. Response of peanut cultivars to
seeding density and row patterns. Online. Crop Management doi: 10.1094/CM-2006-
0711-01-RS.

Toomsan, B., V. Limpinuntana, J. Homchan, P. Sripa, P. Paopuree, M. Srichantawong, S.

Manikan, S. Saranun, J. Sanitchon, S. Theerapongthanathorn, J.F. Mc Donagh and
49
 K.E. Giller. 1999. Measurement of nitrogen fixation in some groundnut lines using N-
15 isotope dilution technique. Proc.10st Thailand National Groundnut Research
Meeting 16-19: 311-316.

Turk, K.J., A.E. Hall and C.W. Asbell. 2007. Drought adaptation of cowpea. I. Influence of
drought on seed yield. Agronomy Journal, 72: 413-420.

Walkley, A. and C. A. Black. 1954. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining
soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method.
Journal of Soil Science 37: 29-38.

Wogayehu Woku. 2005. Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties
intercropped with maize (Zea mays L.) for double cropping at Alemaya and Hirna
areas, Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Worku Mosisa and Astatkie, T. . 2011. Row and plant spacing effects on yield and yield
components of soya bean varieties under hot humid tropical environment of Ethiopia.
Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 194:67-74

Virender S, Kandhola SS. 2007. Productivity of semi-spreading and bunch type varieties of
groundnut as influenced by sowing dates. Journal SAT Agricultural Research 5(1).

Virk, A.S, J.N Kaul, B.S Bhangoo, A. Singh. 2005. Influence of planting techniques and plant
population on biology and pod productivity of summer groundnut varieties. Research
Crops 6(1):173-174.

Yadava,T.P. and Kurnar. 1981. Stability analysis for pods yield and maturity in bunch group
of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) .Indian Journal Agricultural Research 12: 14-15,

Yayock, J.Y. 2004. Effects of variety and spacing on growth, development and dry matter
distribution in groundnut at two locations in Nigeria. Experimental Agriculture 15,
339-51.

50
7. APPENDICES

51
Appendix 1. Mean square values from the ANOVA for days to emergence (DE), day to
flowering (DF), days to physiological maturity (DM), canopy spread (CP), number of leaves
(NL) and number of branches (NB) of four groundnuts varieties grown under five different
plant densities

Mean squares

Source of DF DE DF DM CS NL NB
variation

Block 3 0.12 5.52 0.12 114.7 9792.11 7.02

Varieties (V) 3 69** 936.9** 2896.0** 116.ns 78677.** 0.53ns
Density (D) 4 11** 145.21** 48.69** 669.1* 290.56ns 1.01ns
VXD 12 1.4** 1.36ns 7.91** 221.9ns 3519.65ns 1.66ns
Error 38 0.15 0.73 0.73 219.52 3886.77 1.61
CV (%) 3.43 1.31 0.63 17.1 21.49 28.90

**highly significant, *significant, ns=non- significant.

Appendix 2. Mean square values of ANOVA for on number of effective nodules (EN), non-
effective nodules (NEN), total nodules (TN) and dry biomass yield (DBMY) of groundnut as
affected by variety and plant densities

Mean squares

Source of DF EN NEN TN DBMY

variation

Block 3 332.41 16.41 400.6 1622507

Varieties (V) 3 1294.62** 15.654** 2103.8** 10129363**
Density (D) 4 25.53ns 0.786ns 65.90ns 2245532.ns
VXD 12 300.38ns 35.17ns 379.9ns 655048.ns
Error 38 201.20 49.79 233.01 882133
CV (%) 20.6 15.43 26.91 20.6

**highly significant, *significant, ns=non-significant

52
Appendix 3. Mean square values of ANOVA for final stand count percentage (SCP), number
of seed per pod (NSPP), hundred seed weight (HSW), and shelling percentage (SHP) of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant densities
Mean squares

Source of DF SCP NSPP HSW SHP

variation

Block 3 4.13 0.27 43.53 8.54

Varieties (V) 3 7.02** 0.6*** 814.21** 11.5**
Density (D) 4 26.75** 0.12ns 18.92ns 2.2ns
VXD 12 7.3ns 0.05ns 26.01ns 0.9ns
Error 38 1.38 0.09 38.17 2.52
CV (%) 1.23 13.72 11.06 2.26

**highly significant, *significant, ns=non- significant.

Appendix Table 4 Mean square values of ANOVA for number of mature (MP), immature
(IMP) and total pods (TP), dry pod yield (DPY), seed yield (SY) and harvest index (HI) of
groundnut as affected by variety and plant density

Mean squares

Source of DF MP IMP TP DPY SY HI

variation

Block 3 4.245ns 17.22ns 25.83ns 453249.8ns 180446.42ns 656.44ns

Varieties(V) 3 286.90* 235.02** 455.73** 1524814.5** 764261.3*** 1943.2**
Density(D) 4 243.97** 136.78** 685.94** 1036359.9* 548335.80** 224.47ns
VXD 12 85.63ns 35.25ns 180.8ns 1293091.6ns 180446.42ns 315.07ns
Error 38 55.99 7.49 73.73 291330.12 107840.69 303.60
CV (%) 16.75 22.48 15.10 14.52 12.57 21.26

**highly significant, *significant, ns=non- significant.

53
Appendix 5. Temperature, and rainfall at Kucha Woreda Fango Kebele for the months April to
September 2012

April May June July August September

T (0C) Max. 25.8 26.1 28.68 24.76 21 23.55

Min. 14.5 14.6 16.4 12.45 15.3 15.34
RF(mm) 172.2 126 13.5 66 233 60

NB: T = temperature RF= rainfall

Source: Kucha Woreda Agricultural Development Office

54