CoDANR

Mekelle University

College of Dry Land Agriculture and Natural Resources

Department of Dry land Crop and Horticultural Science

Agronomic and Economic Effects of Blended Fertilizers Under Planting Method On Yield And
Yield Components Of Tef In Wereda Laelay maychew, Central Tigray, Ethiopia.
By
Brhan Abayu
A thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Master of Science Degree
In
Dry Land Crop Science
Major Advisor: Grmay G/Samuiel (PhD)
Co advisors: Mitiku Haile (Prof)
Co advisors: Marco Quinines (PhD)
March 2012
Mekelle, Ethiop
 ABSTRACT
Agriculture is the basis of the Ethiopian economy and cereal including tef is one of the most
important crops for human consumption. Increasing crop productivity is necessary to feed the
increasing population. One of the main inputs to improve crop productivity is use of blended
fertilizers and row planting. However, application of blended fertilizers should be formulated
based on soil test for a specific field and not to be based on blanket recommendations. The
objective of this research is to evaluate Agronomic and Economic effects of blended fertilizers
under planting method on vert and Nitosols at Laelay Michew wereda of Tigray, north Ethiopia.
The experiment was conducted during 2011 growing season at Laelay Michew wereda. An
improved teff variety ‘Kuncho’ (DZ-01-387) will be used as a test crop and 5 treatments was
used and laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications in each
site. Generally, treatment one and treatment two were applied 69kg/ha N, 46kg/ha P, 22kg/ha S
and 0.3kg/ha Zn and 2%Mg were applied under row and broadcast respectively, while treatment
three and treatment four were applied 64kg/ha N, 46kg/ha P under row and broadcast
respectively except the check(no fertilized) plots. At vertsol the soil fertility status indicated that
the sites was neutral (pH 7.5), texture of 12 % sand, 26% silt and 62% clay, CEC of 47.88
cmol(+)kg soil and 1.35% organic mater (O.M ),0.81organic carbon, 10% C/N, Total N was
0.08%, available P 15.08ppm, Exchange Ca 61.79 cmol(+)kg, Exchange Mg 8.83 cmol(+)kg,
Exchange Na 0.74 cmol(+)kg and 0.77 cmol(+)kg exchangeable K. While at Nitosol the site
was slightly alkaline (pH 8.1), texture of 18 % sand, 24% silt and 58% clay, CEC of 46.23
cmol(+)kg soil and 1.68% organic mater (O.M ),1.01organic carbon, 5% C/N, Total N was
0.1%, available P 19.72ppm, Exchange Ca 50.36 cmol(+)kg, Exchange Mg 11.79 cmol(+)kg,
Exchange Na 0.57 cmol(+)kg and 0.72 cmol(+)kg exchangeable K. The application of blended
fertilizers under the planting method resulted a significant differerenc (P<0.01) to all yield and
yield components. At both soil type after harvest the five treatments has a significant effect on
available P, available K, and in all micronutrients except that Total Nitrogen. However, with
respect to net profit, application of blended fertilizers under row planting and application of
urea and dap under row planting are preferable. Validation of these results by either repeating
the experiment at multiple seasons, soil type or through simulation modeling is recommended.
Key words: Blended Fertilizers, low seed rate (Row) and high seed rate (broadcast) planting.

i
 Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation and special gratitude to my
major advisors Dr. Grmay G/samiel, co advisors professor mitiku Haile and Dr. Marco quninos
for their unreserved support, continuous encouragement, consistent guidance and constructive
criticisms and suggestions throughout the research work and in the preparation of the manuscript.
The visit made by Dr. Tareke Berhe and Ato Zewde two times to my research site on own
expense, and also shared me his accumulated professional experience and were cooperative from
the beginning of proposal writing to the completion of the thesis work is highly appreciated and I
will never forget it.

I wish to express my special thanks to Professor, Tekalign Mamo for his advices in my thesis
title and all relate encouragement in undertaking this study on data entry and organization and
fasten the writing of the thesis work. I would like to say tanks to my sister Abrehet Abayu and
my friend Tefery H/slassie for their moral and financial support until the complisitioment of this
work.
I would like to express my warm gratitude to the agricultural transformation agency funded the
study. Therefore, I extend my heart-felt gratitude and appreciation for its kind and generous
research financial support without which this work would have not been materialized. I would
like to express my warm gratitude to Axum University, Axum Agricultur research center for
their support in sensitive balance and other field materials.
My heartfelt thanks also go to Ato Kiros welday, Kidanu g/sslassie, g/kidan w/ssamiel,
Gzaineshe w/ssamiel, brhane muzey, teklay G/kidan who assisted me during field lay out,
sowing and urea top dressing and harvesting. I would also like to appreciate the kind treatment I
received from Ato Eyob, Mhretup, haftom, Gidena.
Lastly, but by no means least, I remain sincere, grateful and indebted to my wife Brhan Aregawi
and my Daughter Meiron Brhane whose Financial support, words of encouragement, affection
and prayer served me as a source of strength, inspiration and impetus throughout my study.

ii
 Acronyms

BOARD Bureau of Agriculture and Rural development

CEC Cation exchange capacity
Cmol Centi mole
C/N Carbon Nitrogen Ratio
CSA Central statistics authority
DAP Die ammonium phosphate
DZARC Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IAR Institute for Agricultural Research
K K2O as fertilizer
LGP Length of Growing Period
LSD List significant different.
ppm parts per million
N Nitrogen as fertilizer
O.M Organic Mater
P P2O5 Fertilizer
PET Potential Evapotranspiration
pH the negative logarithm of Hydrogen ion concentration
SE Standard Error of means
TSP Triple super phosphate

iii
 Table of content

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgement .......................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ix

Chapter I: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Significance of the study....................................................................................................... 3

1.3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................. 4

1.3.1 General Objective .......................................................................................................... 4

1.3.2. Specific objectives ........................................................................................................ 4

1.3.3 Hypothesis...................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter II: Literature Review ......................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Agro-ecology and soil suitability for teff.............................................................................. 5

2.2 Production activities in teff cultivation ................................................................................. 6

2.3. Uses and importance of tef .................................................................................................. 6

2.4 General soil fertility concept ................................................................................................. 8

2.5 Role and availability of N, P, K, S, Zn and Mg in plants and their availability in soils. ...... 8

2.5.1 Role of N in plants and its availability in soils .............................................................. 8

2.5.2 Role of P in plants and its availability in soils ............................................................... 9

2.5.3 Role of K in plants and its availability in soils ............................................................ 10

2.5. 4 Role of S in plants and its availability in soils ............................................................ 12

2.5.5 Role of Mg in plants and its availability in soils ......................................................... 12

iv
 2.5.6 Role of Zn in plants and its availability in soils........................................................... 13

2.6 Row and broadcast application of blended fertilizers ......................................................... 14

2.7 integrated (blended) fertilizers ............................................................................................ 15

2.8 Effect of blended fertilizers on Agronomic attributes ........................................................ 16

2. 9 Effects of method of sowing and seed rate on teff yield.................................................... 18

2.9.1 High seed rate (broadcast) ........................................................................................... 18

2.9.2 Low seed rate (row) planting ....................................................................................... 19

Chapter 3: Materials and methods ............................................................................................... 20

3.1 description of the study area ............................................................................................... 20

3.1.1 Location ....................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.2 Climate ......................................................................................................................... 20

3.1.3 Soil ............................................................................................................................... 22

3.1. 4 Farming practice ......................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Metrological Data of the growing season ........................................................................... 22

3.3. Treatments and design of the field experiment .................................................................. 23

3.3.1 Treatment Details ......................................................................................................... 23

3.3.2. Experimental Procedure .............................................................................................. 23

3.4 Source of seed and fertilizer ............................................................................................... 25

3.5 Management practices ........................................................................................................ 25

3.5.1 Sowing and fertilizer application. ................................................................................ 25

3.5.2 Harvesting .................................................................................................................... 25

3.5.3 Threshing ..................................................................................................................... 26

3.6 Soil Sampling and preparation ............................................................................................ 26

3.7 Data and sample collection ................................................................................................. 26

3.7.1 Agronomic data collection ........................................................................................... 26

v
 3.7.2 Soil and plant sample collection .................................................................................. 27

3.8. Soil and Plant Tissue Analysis ........................................................................................... 27

3.8.1 Soil analysis ................................................................................................................. 27

3.8.2. Plant tissue analysis .................................................................................................... 28

3.9. Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................. 29

3.10. Economical analyses ........................................................................................................ 29

Chapter IV: Results and discussion ............................................................................................. 30

4.1. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Soil of the Experimental Field ........................ 30

4.1.1 Soil Properties before Planting .................................................................................... 30

4.2. Effects of Residual Nutrients on Some Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil................... 33

4.2.1 Residual Total Nitrogen nutrient Content on soil after harvest ................................... 34

4.2.2 Residual Available Phosphorus on soil after harvest ................................................... 36

4.2.3 Residual Available Potassium nutrient on soil after harvest ....................................... 37

4.2.4 Residual Iron (Fe) nutrient on soil after harvest .......................................................... 37

4.2.5 Residual Manganese (Mn) nutrient on soil after harvest ............................................. 38

4.2.6 Residual Zinc (Zn) nutrient on soil after harvest ......................................................... 38

4.2.7 Residual Cupper (Cu) nutrient on soil after harvest ................................................... 39

4.3 Relationship between soil N, P, K, and micronutrients after harvest ................................. 39

4.4. Response of tef yield and yield component to blended fertilizers under planting method.40

4.1. Crop Growth Characters and Yield.................................................................................... 40

4.4.1 Germination ................................................................................................................. 42

4.4.2 Days to heading............................................................................................................ 43

4.4. 3 Days to maturity.......................................................................................................... 43

4.4.4 Plant height: ................................................................................................................. 44

4.4.5. Panicle length .............................................................................................................. 45

vi
 4.4.6 Seed weight/panicle ..................................................................................................... 45

4.4.7 Spike Length ................................................................................................................ 46

4.4.8 no of tillers/plant .......................................................................................................... 46

4.4.9 Lodging percentage ...................................................................................................... 47

4.4.10 Straw yield ................................................................................................................. 48

4.4.11 Grain yield ................................................................................................................. 49

4.4.10. Harvest index ............................................................................................................ 50

4.5 Relationship between Agronomic attributes ....................................................................... 50

4.6. N, P, P, Mg and Zn Concentrations and Uptakes by Plant ................................................ 51

4.6.1. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of N .............................................................. 51

4.6.2. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of P .............................................................. 53

4.6.3. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of K .............................................................. 55

4.6.4. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of Mg ........................................................... 57

4.6.5. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of Zn ............................................................ 59

4.7 Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Magnesium and Zinc Total plant uptake of tef plant ... 61

4.8 Economic Analysis ............................................................................................................. 62

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation............................................................................... 66

References ..................................................................................................................................... 69

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 78

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Soil fertility status of Vertisols and Nitosol……………………………………………32

Table 2. Effects of blended fertilizers under planting method on selected soil chemical properties
after harvest………………………………………………………………………………………34
Table 3. Effects of blended fertilizers under planting method on yield and yield components of
teff yield in vertsoil………………………………………………………………………………40
Table 4. Effects of blended fertilizers under planting method on yield and yield components of
teff yield in Nitosols……………………………………………………………………………...41
Table 5. Effects of blended fertilizers and planting method on N nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw…………………………………………………………………………...52
Table 6. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on P nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw………………………………………………………………………….54
Table 7. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on K nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw………………………………………………………………………….56
Table 8. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on Mg nutrient concentrations and
up take of grain and straw………………………………………………………………………58
Table 9. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on Zn nutrient concentrations and
up take of grain and straw………………………………………………………………………60
Table 10. Summery on The effect of source of fertilizers under planting method on total plant up
take……………………………………………………………………………………………….61
Table 11: Result of the Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) Analysis as influenced by Integrated
(blended fertilizers) under planting method on tef yield……………………………………….. 64
Table12: Total revenue analysis as influenced by integrated use of chemical fertilizers and
planting method………………………………………………………………………………….65
Table 13: Net Economic Profit…………………………………………………………………..66

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of the study area……………………………………………………………20

Figure 2. Average annual rainfall in mm, Average annual minimum and maximum temperatures
in 0C at Axum, Tigray for the last 10 years (2002-2011)…………………………………. ..21

Figure 3 Rainfall in mm, average maximum and minimum temperature in oc of the growing
Season at Laelay Michew, Tigray (2011)……………………………………………………….22

Figure 4. Layout of the field experiment………………………………………………………. .23

ix
x
 Chapter I: Introduction

Agriculture is the basis of the Ethiopian economy, accounting for 46 % of its GDP and 90% of its
export earning and employing 85 % of the countries labor force (Mulatu, 1999; UNDP, 2002).
Increasing agricultural productivity is absolutely necessary to feed the increasing population by
increasing land productivity. The national average yield for teff is currently below 1 ton per hectare
(Tareke, 2008). Since teff is the staple food of most Ethiopian people, the present production system
cannot satisfy the consumers’ demand (Tareke, 2008). This is because the farming system that
farmers use is backward which is not supported by modern technologies. This means the local
people use broadcasting system rather than using row sowing. Reducing the high seed rate I.e.
25kg/ha that the farmers use to low seed rate i.e. 5kg/ha is obtained 500-1200kg/ha from broadcast
and 3400-5100kg/ha from row planting (Tareke, etal 2008).this show that the new approach i.e. the
row planting has a fourfold increase in yield, moreover it increases tiller number, producing strong
tiller culms and it increases number and quality of seeds.

Most of the Ethiopian soils are low nutrient content due to erosion and absence of nutrient recycling.
On the contrary, most of the areas used for production of grains especially teff, wheat and barley fall
under the low fertility soils (Yihenew, 2002). Soils in the highlands of Ethiopia usually have low
levels of essential plant nutrients and organic matter content, especially low availability of nitrogen
and phosphorus has been demonstrated to be major constraint to cereal production (Tekalign et al.,
1988).

Fertilizer usage plays a major role in the universal need to increase food production to meet the
demands of the growing world population. Fertilizer application resulted in marked crop yield
increases, which for most crops was more than hundred percent (Mengel and Kirkby, 1996). The
extent to which fertilizers are used still differs considerably between various regions of the world
(Mengel and Kirkby, 1996).Mostly in Ethiopia Urea and DAP are the only fertilizers that are used in
agricultural productivity. But using blended fertilizers has an impact on plant growth. Consequently,
the most critical production limiting nutrients in the dry land areas of the region are N and P within

1
the normal moisture status, how to maintain such most important plant nutrients in favor of the dry
land economically important versatile crops like teff is a serious concern to be addressed.
Many factors were suggested to contribute to its lower productivity. Lodging, being among the most
important factors threatening increased production and productivity of tef (Seyfu, 1993, 1997; Hailu
and Seyfu, 2001; Yu et al.,2007), poses up to 22% grain yield reduction (Seyfu, 1993) and reduces
straw quality.
Soil nutrient status is widely constrained by the limited use of inorganic and organic fertilizers and
by nutrient loss mainly due to erosion and leaching (Tulema et al, 2005). Many small holder farmers
do not have access to synthetic fertilizer because of high price of fertilizers, lack of credit facilities,
poor distribution, and other socio-economic factors. Consequently, crop yields are low, in fact
decreasing in many areas, and the sustainability of the current farming system is at risk (Tulema et
al, 2005). Ethiopia is one of the 14 sub-Saharan countries with highest rates of nutrient depletion
(yu, 2006). ) due to lack of adequate synthetic fertilizer input, limited return of organic residues and
manure, and high biomass removal, erosion, and leaching rates.
Declining soil fertility has been recognized as one of the major causes for low crop productivity,
especially for cereals (Assefa, 2005). This can be seen from the number of extension initiatives
implemented and the institutional structures that have been established to promote fertilizer use in
Ethiopia since 1950’s (Eyasu, 2002). In Tigray regional state, increasing crop productivity in a
sustainable manner is one of the major strategies to alleviate food security problems. The overall
strategy for increasing crop yield in a sustainable fashion should include integrated soil fertility
management.
In Ethiopia, it is estimated that 16.5 million hectares is under cultivation and grains are the most
important field crops occupying 86% of the planted area (USDA, 2003). The principal grain crops
are tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)) Trotter, Tef is the most preferred crop grown in the cooler highlands,
while sorghum is the principal lowland crop because it thrives well in semi-arid environments due to
its hardy and drought resistant properties (USDA, 2003).
Tef is an important cereal crop in Ethiopia. Tef occupies the largest area and it cover about 28% of
total cereal land area in 2006 (CSA, 2006). In Tigray region of Ethiopia, it holds about 24% of the
area occupied by cereals (CSA, 2006). However, it has the lowest yield per hectare compared to
other cereals. At present the national grain yield of tef is 910 kg/ha (Seifu, 1997). In Tigray region,
average tef productivity for the last three years were about 56 kg/ha (BOARD, reports).

2
 Despite its actual low productivity, tef have relatively high yield potential. Improved varieties of tef
gives 1700-2200 kg/ha on farmers’ fields and 2200-2800 kg/ha under research conditions (Seifu,
1997). The study of 2255 accessions of tef demonstrated high yield potential up to 6000 kg/ha. Seifu
(1997) argued that it is not fair at this point to state that low yield is one of its genetic limitations.
Despite its low productivity, Ethiopian farmers prefer to grow tef more than any other cereal crops
because of its adoptability to different environmental and soil conditions, resistance to water stress,
disease, and insects. Tef has also high acceptance in the diet of the country and as a result high
market price. Primarily tef is grown in Ethiopia for its grain as human food but the Stover is also
good animal feed in the dry season.
In Ethiopia, fertilizer was applied to more than 1.5 million hectares of tef fields in 2005 (CSA,
2006). One hundred thousand metric tons of fertilizer was applied for tef out of 390,000 metric tons
in 2005, which is second to wheat (CSA, 2006). In Tigray 33.6% of the fertilizer procured for the
region were for tef alone in 2005. Besides, 26% of the total area fertilized was on tef fields during
the same year (CSA, 2006).

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Since teff is the staple food of most Ethiopian people, the present production system cannot satisfy
the consumers’ demand because Ethiopian farmers use traditional and backward system which is not
supported by modern technology due to small size of the grain and how easily it is lost if dropped.
This means the local people use high seed rate with a broadcasting system rather than using low seed
rate with row sowing.

1.2 Significance of the study

Generally the purpose of this study is to observe and review the Agronomic and Economic effect of
blended fertilizers under planting method on tef yield. Since the broadcasting system with poor
quality of seed, poor soil fertility, and the high seed rate which is 25 kg/ha which make the mature
plant to lodge i.e. fall over changed in to low seed rate i.e. 5kg/ha with row sowing results valuable
change to the country and the people for food security, keeping the environment and using the land
economically.

3
In addition to this study, it is very important to examine the stability of the soil by improving its
water holding capacity, soil porosity, microorganism and nutrient interaction in the soil. The
Improvement in the production, utilization and market aspect of teff would increase the income of
farmers; consequently leading to food security in the country. It also serves as a base document for
future reference for researchers as well as university students.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The main objective of this experiment is to change the traditional method of cultivation,
broadcasting method that farmers commonly use these days which contributes to the insufficiency
and poor productivity of teff, to row sowing that increases the productivity of teff.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To evaluate the effects of blended fertilizers under low seed rate (row sowing) and high seed rate
(broadcast sowing) on tef yield.
 To evaluate economic advantages of using blended fertilizers under planting method.

1.3.3 Hypothesis

 Changing the high seed rate (broadcast) method in to low seed rate (row sowing) and blended
fertilizer application will increase yield and yield components of tef.
 Application of blended fertilizers and planting method fertilizers can give additional economic
return to producers.

4
 Chapter II: Literature Review

2.1 Agro-ecology and soil suitability for teff

In Ethiopia, teff performs well in ‘Weina dega’ agro-ecological zones or medium altitude (1700-
2400 m above sea level) (Habtamu, et al., 2007). An altitude ranging from sea level to 2800masl
with varying mean annual rainfall of 750-850 mm and the mean temperature between 10 and 270c
are suitable for optimal agronomical environment for teff cultivation (Seyfu, 1997). Interestingly,
teff can thrive well in both waterlogged as well as drought condition.

The first plowing for teff production in most part of the country is done as soon as the previous crop
is harvested. In less weed prone areas, it is done after the onset of the small (belg) or main (kiremt)
rainy seasons (Fufa et al., 2001). Teff needs high tillage frequencies as compared to other cereal
crops in Ethiopia. Also, it requires firm, level seedbed, free from clods and stumps (Deckers et al.,
2001). With respect to teff cultivation on Vertisols, several plowings are necessary, occasionally as
much as 12 times, relative to Nitosols (Deckers et al., 2001). According to Kenea et al. (2001), the
tillage frequency for teff in Ethiopia ranges from 3 times in Nazareth to 12-times in western
Wellega. Though research results indicated teff grain yield increased with increasing number of
plowings (IAR, 1998). Others recommended tillage frequency for teff to be 3-5 times (Melesse,
2007), 5-9 times especially in high rainfall areas (Tarekegn et al., 1996) and 4-times (Nyssen et al.,
2000). Generally, the tillage frequency is not

5
consistent from region to region, from soil type to soil type and from farmer to farmer.

2.2 Production activities in teff cultivation

The calendar for tef production activities takes place both during short (Belg) and long rainy seasons,
frequent ploughing of land is the first requisite in order to pulverise the soil for fine seedbed
preparation congenial to germination of tiny tef seeds. Hand broadcast seeding is the traditional
sowing method with seed rate varying from 25 to 50 kg/ha (Tareke, 2008) depending upon
germination ratio. The blanket fertilizer recommendation for tef is 100kg each of DAP and Urea per
hectare for moisture sufficient area made by the Ministry of agriculture. However, the actual dose of
fertilizer application is below such blanket recommendation due to the expected drawback with
lodging, moisture and weed problems. Two hand weeding are generally recommended. Tef is
harvested when panicle gets grayish in order to avoid losses from shattering by cutting the lower part
of the culm with sickle, laying the crop to dry for about seven days and finally threshed (Tareke,
2008).
Generally tef is mainly cultivated as a mono crop, but occasionally grows under a multiple cropping
system (Seyfu, 1989). Diversification in agro climatic zonation does not allow allocation of a
specific date of sowing (Tareke, etal). A delay in planting date from second week of July to first
week of August reduces the tef yield by 30% (Teshome and Verheye, 1993).

2.3. Uses and importance of tef

It has also high nutritional value. When teff is compared to other cereals, it has more value than
others cost wise as well as cultural values (Tareke, 2008). But it is the lowest in yield of all the
cereals grown in the country. In Ethiopian culture for instance, the food served on weddings, New
Year occasions or any celebrations, without injera which is traditional and staple food made of teff,
is unthinkable (Tareke, 2008). Teff has also a lot of fanatic consumers, like the top Ethiopians
sportsmen Haile Gebrelassie and Kenenisse Bekele (Turkensteen, 2008), they say that the teff
products are not only gluten free but might help consumers to control their weight. Different then the
modern grains teff helps the body to be fit for life. They think that products made out of teff,
including enjera, helps them break international records over and over again. This is possible

6
because teff has a high content of iron. This made that the hemoglobin in the blood is higher, so
more oxygen can be transmitted, and the sportsmen can reach better sport results.

Moreover, some is used to prepare homemade beverages and sometimes for making porridge. The
grain is used to made local alcohol drinks called Tela and Katikala (Seifu, 1993). The grains owing
to its high mineral content ,has started to be used in mixture with soyabean ,check pea and other
grains in the baby food industry (Seifu ,1997). Tef has as much or even more food value than the
major grains; wheat, barley, and maize. This is probably because it is always eaten in the whole
grain form. The germ and bran are consumed along with the endosperm. According NRC (1996), tef
is reach in energy (353-367K cal/100g). Its fat content averages about 2.6%. The protein content is
as good as or better than that of other cereals and it ranges from 8% to 15 % average 11%. The
protein digestibility is probably high because the main protein fraction, albumine, glut line, and
globulin are the most digestible types. The vitamin content seems to be about average for a cereal.
The level of minerals is also good; (average ahs content is 3 %). Tef is reported rich in iron calcium,
potassium, and phosphorus. The iron and calcium contents (0.011-0.033 %) and (0.1-0.15)
respectively are especially notable (NRC, 1996).

Tef is predominantly grown in Ethiopia as a cereal crop and not as forage crop. Haw ever, when
grown as a cereal, farmers highly value the straw of tef and it is stored and used a very important
source of animal feed especially during the dry season. Ethiopian farmers relay on it to strength their
oxen at the end of winter; a time when fresh grass is unavailable but the planting season is coming.
Farmers feed tef straw preferentially to lactating cows and working oxen. Cattle prefer tef straw to
the straw of any other cereal and its price is higher than that of other cereals (Seifu, 1997). It is both
nutritious and extremely palatable to livestock. Its digestively (65%) is relatively high, and its
protein content (1.9-5.2) low but nevertheless voluble (NRC, 1996). In Ethiopia, tef straw is the
preferred binding material for wall, bricks, and house hold containers made of clay. As the same
time Ethiopian farmers, prefer to grow tef because of its adoptability to different environment and
soil conditions resistance to water stress, disease, and insect pests.

7
2.4 General soil fertility concept
Soil fertility refers to the ability of the soil to supply the nutrients needed by the plants. According to
Habtamu et al (2007) the study of soil fertility involves examining the forms in which plant nutrients
occur in the soil, how these become available to the plant, and factors that influence their uptake.
This in turn leads to a study of the measures that can be taken to improve soil fertility and crop
yields by supplying nutrients to the soil-plant system. This is usually done by adding fertilizers,
manures and amendments to the soil but sometimes by supplying nutrients directly to the plant parts
by means of sprays.
A mineral element is considered essential to plant growth and development if the element is
involved in plant metabolic functions and plant cannot complete its life cycle without the element, if
Usually the plant exhibits a visual symptom indicating a deficiency in specific nutrient, which
normally can be corrected or prevented by supplying that nutrient Habtegebrial K and Haile M
(2009)

Fertilizer usage plays a major role in the universal need to increase food production to meet the
demands of the growing world population. Fertilizer application resulted in marked crop Yield
increases, which for most crops was more than hundred percent (Tulema et al, 2007). The extent to
which fertilizers are used still differs considerably between various Regions of the world (Tulema et
al, 2007).
The quantity of fertilizer nutrients required for optimum crop production depends on the inherent
capacity of the soil to supply adequate levels of nutrients to growing plants (Tulema et al, 2007), the
yield potential of the crop variety grown (Tilahun et al., 1996) and the availability and cost of
fertilizers and climatic conditions prevailing during the crop growing season (Baligar and Bennett,
1986).

2.5 Role and availability of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Sulfur, Zinc and
Magnesium in plants and their availability in soils.

2.5.1 Role of N in plants and its availability in soils

8
Nitrogen is an integral component of many essential plant compounds such as amino acids which are
the building blocks of all proteins including enzymes, nucleic acids and chlorophyll (Brady and
Weil, 2000). It is also the nutrent element applied in the largest quantity for most annual crops
covering about 80 million ton of fertilizers per year (Huber and Tompso (2007). Since nitrogen is
present in so many essential compounds, it is not surprising that growth with out added nitrogen is
slow. Nitrogen is one of the most widely distributed elements in nature. It is present in the
atmosphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. Nitrogen is a very mobile element circulating
between the atmosphere, the soil and living organisms.
Inorganic N exists in the form of NH4+, NO3-, NO2, NO and the element nitrogen (N2), while the
organic forms include protein, amino acids, amino sugars and other complexes. The NH4+, NO3- and
NO2 are produced from aerobic decomposition of organic matter or addition of fertilizers to the soil
and are the most important in plant nutrition. N2O and NO are the forms of N lost through
denitrification For example; urea applied to the soil is splitted in to NH4+ and CO2 by the enzyme
urease. The resulting NH4+ can be taken up by the plants or microorganism (immobilization),
adsorbed or fixed to the soil particle, or oxidized to NO3-.

Plants absorb N both as NH4+ and NO3-. Generally NO3 occur in higher concentration than NH4+ and
it is free to move to the root by mass flow and diffusion. The preference of plants for either NH4+ or
NO3- determined by the age, type of the plant, environment and other factors. The rate of NO3-
uptake is usually high and favored by low PH and absorption of NO3- is more rapid at low PH value
(Tsidal et al., 1993). These workers suggest that the reduction of NO3 uptake at high PH value may
be due to competitive effect of OH- ions suppressing the NO3 uptake transport. The inverse is true
for NH4 absorption, wherein plant uptake for NH4+ performs best at neutral PH value and is
depressed by increasing acidity. Absorption of NH4 by roots reduce the ca+, Mg+ and k+ uptake
while increases the absorption of H2PO4-, SO4-2 and C1-. As a result, the rhizospheric PH decreases
when plant receives NH4+ (Tsidale et al., 1993).

2.5.2 Role of P in plants and its availability in soils

Plant available P is related with total P present in the soil in a pool of ions which can move to the
roots and can be absorbed by plants during their growth (Mnkeni et al., 1995). Eylachew (1996)

9
reviewed different reports and stated that the availability of soil P is influenced by soil reaction, soil
type, amount and forms of P as well as other factors. Many sandy soils low in humus content, for
instance, have low available P while Oxisols and other soils high in sesquioxide clay, iron oxides
and aluminum oxides often have high P adsorption capacities (Miller et al., 1995). Ouying et al.,
(1999) reported that P fixation results in low P use efficiency in acid soils of Canada and any
mechanism, which attributes to increase the soil PH, might improve P availability and its use
efficiency. Miller et al., (1995) stated that soil PH, because of its influence on the presence and
solubility of calcium, iron and aluminum influences the availability of P. The optimum P availability
in mineral soils as indicated by these authors is believed to be near PH 6.5 with some exceptional
crop such as cotton. An optimum range of PH value 6 to 7 was also given by Mengel et at., (1987) to
most mineral soils.

The best means for estimating P fertilizer rate needed for a given soil as indicated by Olsen and
Sander (1992) in soil testing. They reported that maize yield response was quit unlikely when the
soil test value was greater than 15mg/kg of Bray and Kurtz No 1. A concept known as soil critical
concentration (cc) is also another expression. Critical concentration of soil test P as generally
expressed by the same authors are generally considered to be the soil test values below which crop
response to p fertilization should be expected, but there is no expectation above it. The cc of P for
maize as estimated by Mallarino et, al (1992) is 13mg/kg for Bray P1, 12mg/kg for Mehlich-3, and 5
mg/kg for the Olsen extractions. Generally phosphate concentration of about 10-4 M and 10-6 M as
available soil P in the soil solution are high and too low levels to supply crops with adequate P,
respectively (Mengel et al., 1987). The quantity of P in soil solution, even in soils with a fairly high
level of available phosphate is only in range of 0.3 to 3 kg/ha. They reported that rapidly growing
crops absorb phosphate with quantity about 1 kg/ha/day.

2.5.3 Role of K in plants and its availability in soils

Potassium is a key plant nutrient in the soil. Plant consumes more potassium than any other nutrient
except nitrogen and may equal or exceed the uptake of nitrogen (Plaster, 1992; Wild, 1988).
Potassium is soluble in the cell sap. It neither is a permanent constituent of a plant part nor is it laid
down as part of any specific compound in the plant (Kilmer et al, 1968). But the potassium ion plays

10
a role in most metabolic processes of the plant. Potassium activates enzymes needed for the
formation of protein starch, cellulose and lignin (Plaster, 1992). According (Kilmer et al, 1968),
evidences indicated that various facets of the photosynthetic process are affected by the potassium
status of the plant and more ever, respiratory process is definitely altered as potassium comes in to
short supply. Dry mater production and translocation is also affected by potassium. Dry mater
production was substantially greater when potassium was adequate and approximately 11% more of
the dry mater produce was translocated to the ear when potassium was adequate in the crop corn
(Kilmer et al, 1968).
The total amount of potassium in the soil is relatively large compared with even the greatest
potassium up take by crops. The total content of potassium in soils varies widely from less than
0.01% to 4% and averaging about 1% (Wild, 1988; Tisdale et al, 1993). The total content in soils
range between 3000 and 100000 kg/ha in the upper 0.2 meters of the soil profile (Sharply, 2000).
According Yayock, et al, (1988) potassium may be considered the most abundant in tropical soils
and the problem of potash deficiency in the tropics is more localized than that of either nitrogen or
phosphorus.
Soil K exists in four forms in soils: Solution, exchangeable, fixed or none exchangeable and
Structural or mineral forms. Exchangeable and none changeable, which are the available forms of K,
comprises a small portion of the total content. Ninety eight percent of K in the soil bound in the
mineral form; whereas two percent is in soil solution and exchangeable phases (Sparks, 2000).
A number of factors influence the movement of potassium in soils, including the CEC, soil pH,
methods and rate of K application, and K absorption by the plants. The ability of a soil to retain
applied K is very dependent on the CEC of the soil. Soil with high CEC have a greater ability to
retain added K; where as leaching of K is often a problem on sandy soils. In tropical soils, the total K
content may be quiet low because of origin of the soil, high rainfall and continued high temperatures
(Tisdale et al, 1993).
Unlike nitrogen and phosphorus which are immediately deficient in most tropical soils due to
leaching and fixation, the need for potassium frequently arise only after a few years of cropping a
virgin soil (Tisdale et al, 1993). Potassium deficiency is evidence more when there is high yielding
and when there is removal of all biomass produced in arable land (wild, 1988). Large amount of K
are removed when the whole crop is harvested. In cereal crops at harvest, 50% or more of the
potassium is present in the straw and will be removed if the straw is sold off the farm (wild, 1988).

11
The yield level within a species is a major factor influencing the amount of potassium needed. It is
well recognized that higher yielding crops take up and remove large amount of potassium.

2.5. 4 Role of S in plants and its availability in soils

Sulfur occurs primarily in the sulfate (SO4 -2) form in the soil. Elemental sulfur (S) may be used as
a source of this nutrient, but it must first undergo a biological oxidation process that is dependent
upon the Thiobacillus bacteria to produce sulfate. This process is produces large amounts of acid,
and occasionally elemental sulfur is used to decrease soil pH. Fertilizer materials containing sulfate
do not acidify the soil, although pH may decline slightly for a short period (salt effect). Sulfate,
being an anion (SO4 -2), is not strongly retained and can readily be leached form most soils. Until
recently, deficiencies of sulfur were relatively uncommon due to the fact that the atmosphere
contained significant amounts of this element due to the use of coal and oil fired processes. Also,
commercial fertilizers using ordinary superphosphate contained significant amounts of sulfur. The
increased use of high analysis fertilizers such as urea and triple superphosphate with low amounts of
S, deficiencies have become somewhat more common.
Sulfur is a constituent of several plant biochemicals which regulate plant growth. This element is
essential in the synthesis of chlorophyll and in photosynthesis reaction. Along with Mg, S plays a
role in the formation of oils within the seed. Sulfur deficiency symptoms include pale green to
yellow leaves along with small, spindly plants and short, slender stalks. The veins of the leaf
generally remain green. Symptoms of N and S deficiencies are very similar, but N deficiency
symptoms occur near the bottom of the plant while S deficiency symptoms are found near the top or
throughout the whole plant. Visual symptoms can be misleading! Use plant tissue analysis when in
doubt.

2.5.5 Role of Mg in plants and its availability in soils

Calcium and magnesium behave very much the same in the soil due to similar chemical properties.
Both are divalent cations, and their ionic size is about the same. The mobility of both calcium and
magnesium is relatively low, especially compared to anions or even other cations such as sodium or

12
potassium. Therefore, loss of these two cations through leaching is relatively low, especially when
applied in the form of lime. Where soils are deficient in Ca and lime is not an alternative because of
pH or insolubility, a more soluble source such as gypsum (calcium sulfate) should be used.

About 15-20% of the plant Mg is contained in chlorophyll, without which the plant could not capture
energy from the sun for growth and development. Magnesium also appears to activate a number of
enzymes and plays a role in protein synthesis and phosphorus reactions. Oil seed crops have much
higher seed Mg than cereal seed, with Mg and S apparently influencing oil formation within the
seed. In cereal crops, Mg deficiency symptoms include interveinal chlorosis on the lower leaves.
Leaf edges may also show a thin hint of red or purple. On broad-leaved crops, the lower leaves of
Mg-deficient plants may initially show interveinal chlorosis and become purplish-red with green
veins.

2.5.6 Role of Zn in plants and its availability in soils

Most of the Zn produced world wide comes from ores containing Zn-sulfide minerals. Although
there are more than 80 Zn minerals known, only a few are commercially important. Those of
commercial interest and use include sphalerite and wurtzite and their weathered products smithsonite
and hemimorphite. Zinc concentration in different minerals varies and is influenced by the
concentration in the magma, premetamorphic rock, and the ability of the crystal lattice to incorporate
Zn. To a large extent, the Zn content of soil depends on the nature of the parent material, organic
matter, texture and pH. The most quoted range for total Zn in soils is 10 to 300 ppm. Mean soil
concentrations of Zn in the US are around 54 ppm. When using soil tests for predictive plant
responses extractable Zn should be used. The distribution of extractable Zn in soil profile has greater
variation with soil depth that does total Zn. In most well drained soils, extractable Zn usually
decreases with increasing soil depth. Extractable Zn has been positively correlated with total Zn,
organic matter, clay content and cation exchange capacity and inversely correlated with free CaCO3
, soil pH and base saturation. Zinc availability is greatly affected by soil pH. As soil pH increases,
Zn availability decreases. The reverse is also true. In one study, extractable Zn declined sharply as
the soil was limed from pH 4.3 to 5.0. In another experiment liming the soil to pH 6.1 restricted the
Zn supply to forage crop severely. Zinc availability to plants is lower in organic soils, and in mineral

13
soils with significant amounts of organic matter. In North Carolina, the availability of Zn on soil test
reports is adjusted based on soil class as it relates to organic matter content.

Zinc is important in plant nutrition and functions in enzymes , stability of cytoplasmic ribosomes,
oxidation processes, transformation of carbohydrates and synthesis of auxin indole acetic acid.
Worldwide Zn is the most commonly deficient micronutrient. Zinc deficiency is caused primarily by
three factors: 1) low content of Zn in soils; 2) unavailability of Zn present in soil to the plant; and 3)
management practices that depress Zn availability or uptake. Zinc concentrations are low in highly
leached, acid sandy soils such as those found in many coastal regions.
Because plants vary in their requirement for Zn, even among cultivars, it is difficult to establish a
single critical value. However, plants with Zn contents below 20 ppm in dry tissue can be suspected
of Zn deficiency. Normal ranges are usually 25 to 150 ppm in dry tissue. Micronutrient deficiencies
are often induced because of interactions with other nutrients. Zinc uptake is often depressed in the
presence of excess P. When large quantities of P are applied on marginal Zn soils a Zn deficiency
can occur. During the growing season if Zn deficiencies occur due to high pH and P levels, a foliar
application will be required. Alternatively, use a 1 % solution. Extractable Zn concentrations that
produced toxicity in acid southeastern soils ranged from 450 to 1,400 ppm for corn and 180 to 700
ppm for cowpeas

2.6 Row and broadcast application of blended fertilizers

Fertilizers are most efficiently used when applied near the row where most of the roots occur David
et al (2009). Liquid or complete dry granular fertilizer may be applied at planting near the row, and
some data suggest that rates may be reduced 25–30% when row-applied as compared with broadcast
applications David et al (2009). Starter or row-applied fertilizer may be more critical on infertile,
cold, and droughty soils. Starter N on sandy soils has resulted in increased yields, while no yield
increase was noted for starter N on heavy soils.

The majority of research in soybean has shown that the application of fertilizers in row lead to
quicker canopy closure, a reduction in the quantity of light that reaches the soil surface and a
reduction in weed emergence later in the season Lizabeth et al (2009). As a result, row fertilizer

14
application can enhance weed control in soybean, particularly since glyphosate, the leading herbicide
used in soybean, has no residual activity Lizabeth et al (2009). Seed yield, pods plant, seed
weight/plant, and no of tillers/plant were significantly greater with band placement than with the
broadcast methods of phosphorus application. The superiority of band placement was probably due
to a better fertilizer efficiency as developing roots are in intimate contact with the P-enriched soil
adjacent to the fertilizer granule (Turk, Tawaha, 2001).

2.7 integrated (blended) fertilizers

If fertilizers are placed under the soil surface below the crop residue, volatilization, and
immobilization will be reduced and the major pathways of loss will be by denitrification and
leaching Grant et al (1996). The primary plant nutrients, (N, P, and K) which are needed by plant in
higher amount are the most limiting factors on the nutrient side. Plants need those and other essential
nutrients in appropriate ratio for proper growth and development Balasubramaniyan and
palaniappan( 2001).
However, the nutrient available in the soil is rarely Present in balanced conditions to meet the
nutrient requirement of different crops. Most soils are only able to supply a fraction of the nutrients
needed to achieve high yields of arable crops. Addition of nutrients should be such that they are
available in adequate quantities and in right ratios (Balasubramaniyanet and Palaniappan, 2001).
These needs application of blended fertilizer in desired combination and quantities. Blended
fertilizers are any combination or mixture of fertilizer designed for use, or claimed to have value, in
promoting plant growth (Balasubramaniyan and Palaniappan, 2001).

The availability of One plant nutrient affects the uptake and efficiency of other nutrient. This
interaction between plant nutrients hase an effect on the response of a crop to particular nutrient.
With adequate N and P and improved management practices the demand for K will increase
application of 30 kg/ha of N there was little response by rice to K, however, when 90 kg/ha of N
was applied, the response to K was linear up to the highest rate of K or what applied (Tisdale et
al, 1993). Similarly, crop response to N is greatly reduced when P is limiting. When both N and
P was adequate, crop recovery of fertilizer N was approximately 75 % compared to about 40 %
without adequate P fertilizer. Adequate N and P fertilizer will optimize yield and profitability
and maximize the fertilizer N recovery whilst minimizing the environment impact of fertilizer N

15
use (Tisdale et al, 1993). In soils N fertilizer stimulated low in available N up tack of P
application. This indicates that for good crop yield there should be desirable ratio of plant
nutrients.

2.8 Effect of blended fertilizers on Agronomic attributes

Experimental results of N, P fertilizer trial on tef showed that grain yield could be substantially
improved with the application of N and P fertilizers. As expected, tef yield response will vary
according across locations based on the soil fertility status and moisture conditions. For example
under water logged and leached Vertisols conditions, maximum tef yield was found with the
application of 90 kg N. /ha (Finck et al, 1982). The higher response for applied N is due to low total
nitrogen content of the soil, leaching, and denitrification of most of the NH4 or N2 based fertilizer N
after application (Finck et al, 1982). Ammonia fixation also affects fertilizer efficiency in heavy
Vertisols. In the semi arid vertisols the removal of crop residue and absence of crop rotation and
limited fertilizer use are major chouses of N deficiency.
Some literature argues that, soils of the arid regions are often well supplied with weather able
minerals that contain adequate potassium for many years. Puelschen (1986) also conclude the
majority of the samples tasted in central highlands had ample K based on critical level of K
saturation. Tekaling & Haque (1988) also argued that K is not more important to tef production.
How ever, continued grain and crop residues removal can deplete the available K pool. An annual K
loss from plant removal is as greater as 400 kg/ha. Some crop yield response trials of K in Ethiopian
high land Vertisols showed significant yield increase. For instance, incorporation of 50 kg/ha
potassium sulphate in on farm trial significantly increased grain and straw yield of wheat and the N
level for both wheat grain and straw was even higher from those not received K2So4 (Abiye et.al
,2004) . Based on their investigation they conclude, “Availability of extra K in these soils improved
the extraction of N by the wheat crop these improving the grain yields.” The finding indicated that
the need to reassess the traditional practice system of not applying potassium to Ethiopian soils
(Abiye et.al, 2004). In northern highlands, results of fertilizer experiment conducted at Teghane,
Tigray, showed significant barley crop response to applied K (Assefa, 2005). He concludes that the
response varies with indigenous soil exchangeable K status and average agronomic efficiency of K
was generally higher in the soil characterized by low exchangeable K than those with high K level.

16
Dry matter production and N uptake in wheat reached a maximum at heading, soft dough and
maturity as observed on NP, N and unfertilized plots, respectively (Boatwright et al., 1981).
Nitrogen at all rates was found to increase the dry matter of barley (Grunes et al., 1983).

A series of green house experiments in tef were carried out at FAO-IAEA Agriculture and
biotechnology laboratory in Seibersdort, Austria, and at Holeta research center, Ethiopia with an
objective to determine the N uptake and recovery of four tef genotype using two source of chemical
fertilizer (ammonium sulphate and urea). The result showed no significant grain yield difference due
to N fertilizer sources.
The fertilizer N uptake in the shoot dry matter of four tef cultivars differed due to genotype, the N
source and interaction between the two. The highest N uptake was for the late maturing variety DZ-
01-354(8.2%) and the lowest was for early maturing tef cultivar Dabbi (7.55%). For all varieties, the
highest percent of fertilizer N recovery was recorded when the N source was urea than when it was
ammonium sulfate (EARO, 2000). Such finding discloses that uptake and N –use efficiency of tef
depend on length of growing period. As results of this, long maturing varieties have got substantially
better N use efficiency as compared to the early maturing ones. The type of N fertilizer also had
influential role on N uptake and recovery of tef dry matter and other agronomic parameters.

Application of N has been found to influence grain yield of crops. A high correlation has been found
between grain yield and the quantity of N in wheat plant at all stages including tillering, jointing and
dough stage (Long et al., 1981). Wheat yield as well as quality of wheat flour was shown to be
influenced by N fertilization (Long et al., 1981). The Debre Zeit Agricultural Research center
(DZARC, 1988/89) indicated that the grain-straw yield response of tef to increasing rates of N was
highly significant on Vertisols. The highest mean grain yield of 2478kg/ha was obtained with
application of the highest rate of N (92 kg/ha).
A research conducted at Kobo, North wollo by Temesgen (2001) showed that the application of
different levels of nitrogen fertilizer in tef affected the grain yield significantly (P< 0.01) on the
farmer’s field. In this experiment, increasing levels of applied nitrogen fertilizer consistently
increased the teff grain yield from 16.2q/ha in the control to 19.2q/ha in the treatment where the
highest level (69kg/ha) of N was applied. The straw yield and other agronomic parameters such as

17
biomass yield, plant height, days to maturity and dead heart count were highly and positively
correlated with the increasing levels of N at the farmer’s field on Kobo Vertisol (Temesgen, 2001).

2. 9 Effects of method of sowing and seed rate on teff yield

2.9.1 High seed rate (broadcast)

For broadcast sowing, very poor establishment percentages are common, often falling below 50
percent Oyewole et al (2010. Part of this is due to rough seedbeds, poor seed covering and poor
contact between seed and moist soil. Additionally, where seed is hand harvested and stored on-
farms, quality can be poor because of storage at high temperature and moisture. Sticks, stones and
weed seeds reduce quality further. With such poor seed, farmers have to use very high seed rates to
obtain adequate plant populations. The optimum seed rate for broadcast crops can be twice that for
drill-sown crops. Maximum yield in broadcast crops is also likely to be lower. This in part is because
applied fertilizer is mixed through the soil rather than placed near the seed as in drilling, so is less
directly accessible to plant roots.

For germination to occur in seeds there is the need for row seeded to be in perfect contact with the
soil to facilitate water uptake Oyewole et al (2010). Broadcasting does not bring seed in perfect
contact with the soil for water uptake (Oyewole et al (2010), which must have accounted for the
observed reduction in mean stand count among broadcast plots in comparison with the broadcast.
The broadcasting system with poor quality of seed, poor soil fertility, and seed rate which is 25-50
kg/ha which make the mature plant to lodge i.e. fall over. All these things affected the production of
teff (Tareke, 2008). A research was conducted at Debrezeit Agriculture research center by using
25kg/ha but the result was very low as comparing to row sowing. The yield of the broadcasting plot
was 500-1200kg/ha on the other hand the transplanted ones have given 3,400-5,100kg/ha.This shows
the new the row planting has a four-fold increase in yield.

One of the risks associated with higher plant populations is the increased potential for lodging which
can impact yield and quality. This may be particularly true under high yield environments like the
Red River Valley. When using higher seeding rates, growers are advised to select semi-dwarf and
shorter-straw varieties or varieties with very strong straw strength. Another consideration of higher

18
plant stands is a thicker canopy which may lead to higher disease pressure. Scouting will be
important during the season to monitor disease pressure in case fungicide applications are warranted.

2.9.2 Low seed rate (row) planting

As applied in conventional horizontal farming or gardening is a system of growing crops in linear
pattern in at least one direction rather than planting without any distinct arrangement. It is practiced
in most crops whether direct seeded, transplanted or grown from vegetative planting materials, both
in monocropping and multiple cropping Ben Bareja (2011).

Crops are planted in rows or straight lines, either singly or in multiple rows, mainly to enhance
maximum yields as well as for convenience (Ben Bareja (2011).

The specific advantages of row planting over broadcasting or scatter planting include the following:
(1) light absorption is maximized and, conversely, the excessive shading effect of other plants is
minimized thus favoring more efficient photosynthesis and improved crop yield; (2) wind passage
along the interrows is enhanced which increases gas exchanges and prevents excessive humidity; (3)
access through the interrows facilitates cultivation, weeding, and other farm operations including
hauling; (4) movement within the crop area is convenient and allows close inspection of individual
plants; and (5) visibility is enhanced.

However, manual row seeding is extremely laboured intensive and unacceptable to peasant
farmers in Ethiopia Aefa et.al (1997). Row seeders developed elsewhere have not been
accepted in Ethiopia because they were either too labour inefficient or ineffective in cloddy and
rough fields. Therefore, a four-row seeder has been developed in Ethiopia with a new type of
seed metering mechanism. Field tests have shown that the row seeder can work
net additional crop management intervention proposed to facilitate the control of grass weeds in
peasants' wheat fields in Ethiopia is row sowing (vs. the traditional practice of broadcasting
seed and fertilizer): weeds emerging in the inter-row space could be more readily controlled
either by hand pulling or by using a mechanical weeded than broadcast sowing.. The limitation
to row sowing wheat by hand in Ethiopia is the high labour and time requirement (Melesse et
al., 1996).

19
The row seeding (vs. broadcasting) had a significant effect on heading, plant height, spike density
tillering/plant, biomass yield ,grain yield and harvest index Row seeding in contrast to broadcasting
increased wheat plant height (91.9 vs. 89.0 cm), the number of wheat spikes m2 at maturity (507 vs.
438), the number of days to heading for the crop (66.9 vs. 66.1), and wheat biomass yield (9271 vs.
8480 kg /ha); resulting in the relatively uniform wheat grain yield across treatments (i.e., 3188 kg/ ha
for row seeder vs. 3082 kg/ ha for broadcasting.

Generally row planting has increased plant height, panicle length, seed weight/panicle, no
tillering/plant, straw yield .grain yield and harvest index over broadcast method of sowing

Chapter 3: Materials and methods

3.1 description of the study area

3.1.1 Location
The experiment was conducted at wereda laelay maychew of Central zone of Tigray Tabia Hatsebo
and Debrebrhan. Axum is 260 Km North West of Mekelle and the study sites are located at 5 and
12km fare from Axum town respectively. Geographical location of the site is 140 07’N and 38044’E
and at elevation 2050 m.a.s.l. The topography of the area is relatively flat.

3.1.2 Climate

Based on the traditional climate classification in Ethiopia, most of Laelay Michew werda belongs to
Weyna Dega agro ecology. Further, the sites are classified by the bureau of agriculture as moist
Woinadega sub agro ecology in the region.
3.1.2.1 Rainfall

The rainfall pattern is monomodal with the main rainy season from July to September and more than
58 percent of the annual rainfall in the months July and August. Annual average rainfall of the
wereda during the last ten years was about 707 mm, from the data collected by meteorology agency

20
for the last 10 years; the range was 354.6 mm in 2002 to 1027 mm in 2007. This showed the
variability of the rainfall between different years.

Figure 1. Location of the study area

(Source: NMA (National Meteorology Agency), Mekelle branch. (2011).

250

200

150
Av.Max.T
Av.Min.T
100
Av. Rainfal

50

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Figure 2. Average annual rainfall in mm, Average annual minimum and maximum temperatures in
0
C at Axum, Tigray for the last 10 years (2002-2011)

(Source: NMA (National Meteorology Agency), Mekelle branch. (2011).

21
3.1.2.2Temperature
Most of the area of Laelay Michew woreda lies in the woinadega agro ecology. The average
maximum and minimum temperature for the last ten years was 27.85 o C and 11 o C respectively. The
lowest and the highest maximum temperature were recorded 30.160C on May and 25.52o C on July.
In addition, the lowest and highest minimum temperature was recorded on January 8.5 and on Jun 13
o
C respectively.

3.1.3 Soil
The dominant soil type of the woreda is black Soil/ Vertisols, which covers about 40% of the total
area. Others are 21% red clay soil, 19% loam soil and the rest 20% course textured soil according the
classification made by the woreda office of agriculture. The soil of the trial site is Vertisols and
Nitosoil. This is assumed as fertile soil in the region.

3.1. 4 Farming practice

The farming system of the area is mixed crop livestock. Crops grown in the woreda are tef, barley,
sorghum, wheat, finger milate, maize, legumes, and oil seeds in the order of importance in which
more than 40 % of the arable land is sown with tef.

3.2 Metrological Data of the growing season

Total rainfall during the growing season was 547 mm, which is lower than (707 mm) the average of
the past 10 years. Rainfall distribution in the growing season was not uniformly distributed. On
decade bases, the highest rainfall (204 mm) was recorded 204 and 115 mm in July and August
respectively. However, the rainfall distribution from June to mid September in general was good and
may not affect the crop considerably. On the other hand rainfall in the late season I.e. September was
93.7mm that were higher than the average of the last ten years by 20%. But since the rain fail was

22
started late there was no enough rain in the late October. Therefore the low moisture in the late
season my affect the crop yield negatively.
Variations in average minimum and maximum temperatures were too small to adversely affect the
crop productivity.

250

200

150
Rain fail
Max.T
100
min.T

50

0
Ja Fe Ma Ap Ma Ju Ju Au Se Oc No De

Figure 3 Rainfall in mm, average maximum and minimum temperature in oc of the growing season
at Laelay Michew, Tigray (2011).

3.3. Treatments and design of the field experiment

3.3.1 Treatment Details

An improved teff variety ‘Kuncho’ (DZ-01-387) was used as a test crop to study the effect of low
seeding rate on (row planting) and blended fertilizer application and 5 treatment combinations will
be laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications in each site.

3.3.2. Experimental Procedure

The experimental field was prepared by using local plough (maresha) according to farmers'
Conventional farming practices. The field was ploughed four times, the first plough at the end of
May 2011 and the fourth during the middle of July 2011 before planting the crop. In accordance with

23
the specifications of the design, a field layout was prepared and each Treatment was assigned
randomly to experimental units within a block. A 5 m x 4 m (20 m2) was the size of each
experimental unit. The blocks were separated by 1m wide-open Spaces; whereas the plots within a
block were 0.5 m apart from each other.

1m
T1 0.5m T2 0.5m T3 0.5m T4 0.5m T5

BLOCK_1 1m
1m T10 0.5m T9 0.5m T8 0.5m T7 0.5m T6 1m

BLOCK_2 1m

T11 0.5m T12 0.5m T13 0.5m T14 0.5m T15

BLOCK_3 1m 1m

Figure 4. Field Layout of the experimental sites.

The Treatments were five

1. Treatment one: 100kg/ha of 23-10-5+3s+0.3 Zn+ 2%Mg +100kg/ha Urea + 50kg/ha potassium
sulphate + 80kg/ha TSP: Both seed and Fertilizer Row Planted-seed rate=5kg/ha.
2. Treatment two: the same as # one but broadcast sowing (both seed and fertilizer)-seed
rate=25kg/ha.
3. 100kg/ha DAP+100kg/ha Urea (Both seed and fertilizer row seeded)-seed rate=5kg/ha.
4. 100kg/ha DAP +100kg/ha Urea; Seed rate=25kg/ha both seed and Fertilizer Broad casted.
5. Control; no fertilizer seed rate= 25kg/ha
Generally, treatment one and treatment two were applied 69kg/ha N, 46kg/ha P, 22kg/ha S and
0.3kg/ha Zn and 2% Mg were applied while treatment three and treatment four were applied 64kg/ha
N, 46kg/ha P except the check plots.

24
All mixed ,P and half dose of fertilizer N as per treatment were applied as basal application at
planting and the remainder N was top-dressed at mid -tillering stage (30 days after planting). Seeds
of teff (DZ-01-387) vert soil and Nitosol soil type was sow on July 23, 27 2011 Agriculture.

3.4 Source of seed and fertilizer

The planting material was tef improved Variety Dz-.01- 387 which is acceptable and recommended
for farms of the area. The seed source was from federal Agricultural Transformation Agency.
Urea and Dap was used as a source of N and P which was purchased from agricultural depot of the
woreda. Triple super phosphate (TSP) was used as source of phosphorus and potassium Sulfate as a
source of P and S. Generally Teff seed, Yaramella, Potassium Sulfate and TSP were supplied
Federal Agricultural Transformation Agency.

3.5 Management practices

All management practices except the experimental variables were the same to all the plots. These
essentially consisted of plowing with three passes of the equipment to ensure a favorable seedbed.

3.5.1 Sowing and fertilizer application.

Seeding was done manually at a seed rate of 5kg/ha for row planting and 25kg/ha for broadcast
sowing on both sites on July 23and 27/2011. Thereafter, fertilizer application was done according
the recommendations for each plot. All the Yaramella, TSP, K2so4, Dap and half of Urea were
applied and one-half of the urea was applied basal application at sowing time and the remaining urea
was applied as top dressing after 20 days of sowing.

3.5.2 Harvesting
After physiological maturity, yield and total dry matter harvesting was done by hand sickle on a net
plot size 3m by 4m. Data of plant height, panicle length and spike length were also taken as part of
the harvesting process.

25
3.5.3 Threshing
Threshing was done by hand on a mat after ten days of harvesting to insure uniform drying of the
whole stock. Total dry matter was weighed by using ordinary scale at the field. After threshing the
grain yield was weighed using digital balance.

3.6 Soil Sampling and preparation

Two representative composite surface soil (0-25 cm depth) samples were collected from the whole
experimental field just before planting the crop. Similarly, surface soil (0-25 cm depth) samples were
collected from every replication of each treatment and bulked to yield a total of 15 composite surface
soils samples from each soil type, which is three composite soil samples per treatment, after
harvesting the experimental plots. The soil samples collected both before planting and after harvest
were air dried and ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve in preparation for laboratory analysis of pH,
CEC, electric conductivity, micro nutrients(Cu ,Fe ,Zn, Mn), texture (particle size
distribution),organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable bases(K, Ca, Mg
Na).

3.7 Data and sample collection

3.7.1 Agronomic data collection

The data collected include plant height, panicle length, number of seeds/panicle, spick length,
tllering number, Grain yield, straw biomass, lodging percentage , days to 50% emergency, days to
75% maturity, and harvest index. The method and procedure that have been used in obtaining and /or
recording the above data during the experimental period were briefly outlined as below

 Days to 50% emergence was determined and recorded using one by one quadrant for each
treatment and estimated visually as the number of days from planting to 50% of the plants
emerged in each plot.
 Lodging percentage was estimated as the proportion of plants lodged in each plot and determined
through visual assessment by estimating the percentage of plants lodged at a time of harvest.
 Plant height (cm) was recorded by measuring from the base of the plant to the tip of the plant
panicle by taking ten plants from each plot at maturity stage.

26
 Days to 75% maturity were determined by counting the number of days from emergence to the
period when 75% of the plants had reached the physiological maturity based on visual
observations.
 Seeds weight/panicle: the average seed weight of the main panicle at harvest in gram,
Averagely five randomly selected pre-tagged plants were taken.
 Grain yields were determined by harvesting and threshing all the plants in the 4m x 5m = 20m2
net harvest area of each plot and expressed in t/ha.
 Above ground biomass yields were recorded by weighing all the plants in the 4m x 5m = 20m2
of each plot that was harvested close to the ground surface and expressed in t/ha.
 Harvest index was calculated from the ratio of the total grain yield threshed to the total biomass
yield harvested from each plot.

3.7.2 Soil and plant sample collection

From both soil type base Surface soil samples (0 – 25 cm) 30 soil and 30 plant samples were taken
for further analysis. Thereafter, the samples were taken to the laboratory and analyze for total
nitrogen, available phosphorous, particle size distribution, organic matter content and PH. Similarly,
after harvest, a surface soil sample was taken from each plot (three per treatment) for analysis of the
relevant parameters. Therefore, a total of 62 samples were used for soil and plant analysis.

3.8. Soil and Plant Tissue Analysis

The soil and plant tissue samples were analyzed for some parameters relevant to the study at
National Soil Laboratory, Addis Ababa.

3.8.1 Soil analysis

Soil color, particle size distribution (texture), pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), EC,
micronutrients, exchangeable bases (Ca, Mg, Na and K), organic matter content, total N, and
available P contents were determined for the soil samples collected before planting. Besides

27
available P, T.N, K, and Micronutrients (Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu) of the soil samples collected after harvest
were determined.
Soil colour was determined using the Munsell soil colour chart whereas soil pH was determined in a
1:2.5 soil water suspension using glass electrode pH meter (Von Reeuwijk, 1992). Determination of
particle size distribution (texture) was carried out using the hydrometer method (Day, 1965).Based
on the oxidation of organic carbon with acid potassium dichromate, organic matter was determined
using the Walkley and Black wet digestion method as described by Nelson and Sommers (1982) and
total nitrogen was analyzed using the Kjeldhal method as described by Bremner and Mulvaney
(1982). Besides, available and total phosphorus were determined using the Olsen (NaHCO3)
extraction method (Olsen and Sommer, 1982) and the NaOH fusion method (Smith and Bain, 1982),
respectively.

Cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil was determined from ammonium-saturated samples that
were subsequently replaced by sodium (Na) from a percolating sodium chloride solution. The excess
salt was removed by washing with alcohol and the ammonium that was displaced by sodium was
measured by Kjeldahl method (Chapman, 1965). Exchangeable cations were extracted using the
ammonium acetate method from which exchangeable Ca and Mg were measured with atomic
absorption spectrophotometery while exchangeable K and Na with flame photometer (Chapman,
1965). Moreover, percentage base saturation (PBS) was obtained by dividing the sum of
exchangeable bases (Ca, Mg, K and Na) by the CEC values.

3.8.2. Plant tissue analysis

The plant tissue (grain and straw) samples were analyzed for determination of T.N, P, K, Mg and Zn
at the Soils Laboratory of the National Soil Research Center. Nitrogen was determined by the
modified Kjeldahl method as described by Jackson (1958) and the concentration of phosphorus was
measured using spectrophotometer after its extraction by the Olsen method (Olsen et al., 1954).

28
3.9. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed statistically, that is, analysis of variance, and correlation etc. by GenStat and
JMP software. Whenever treatment effects were significant, mean separations were made using the
least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% and 1% level of probability. Correlation analysis was
determined by calculating simple correlation coefficient between yield components as affected by
blended fertilizers under planting method. Interpretations were made following the procedure
described by Gomez and Gomez (1984).

3.10 Economical analyses

The economic advantage of applied blended fertilizes were carried out using partial budget analysis.
In the calculation the cost of production, fertilizers, management expenses were considered. Costs
that vary between treatments were input and management costs associated with each treatment.
Table 13 shows the costs that vary by treatment. Costs that don't vary among all treatments are not
included in the analysis. In the teff variety trial, the costs that vary is calculated by adding costs of
seed, fertilizer, labour for fertilizer application and weeding. However, other management and fixed
costs were assumed as equal for all and not included in the calculation. The price of teff seed,
Yaramella, Potassium Sulfate and TSP was 1250, 1200, 1250 and 1250 Birr/100kg respectively. The
price of DAP and urea was taken from local market at Axum during the growing season that were
1160 and 933 Birr /100 kg respectively. The cost of K is assumed as equal as the cost of P, since
there is no local K fertilizer market price available. Market price of tef grain and Stover were also
taken from the local market at the time of harvesting. Price of tef grain was 1250 Birr/k and of the
Stover was 90 Birr/k.

29
 Chapter IV: Results and discussion

A field experiment was conducted during the 2011 cropping season to study the effect of low
seeding rate on (row planting) and blended fertilizer application on tef [Eragrostis teff (Zucc)] in
Wereda Laelay Maychew central Tigray. . Baseline soil analyses for CEC, EC, pH, texture, total N,
OC, C/N, available P, micronutrients (Cu, Fe, Zn and Mn) and exchangeable Base(Na, K, Ca and
Mn) were conducted to identify the nutrient status of the soil. Plant nutrient analysis for T.N and P,
K, Mg, Zn were also carried out to quantify the nutrient uptake by the crops. The results of soil and
plant analysis were compared with the crop response in the field trial. The results obtained from the
field experiment and laboratory analysis are presented and discussed as follows.

4.1. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Soil of the Experimental Field

4.1.1 Soil Properties before Planting

The soils of the experimental field were characterized in the laboratory for selected physical and
chemical properties (Table 1) based on analysis of composite surface soil samples collected before
the application of the treatments.

Soil color, particle size distribution (texture), pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), micronutrients
(Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn) exchangeable bases (Ca, Mg, Na and K), organic matter content, total N and
available P are presented in table 1).
The results indicate that the soil reaction was slightly alkaline (pH in H2O: 1:25). The pH of the
vertsol was almost neutral as it is indicated in the (table 1,Appendix 5, while Average pH of the
Nitosol was 8.33 indicated that the soil is slightly alkaline (table 1,Appendix 5). This value falls in
the pH range that is very conducive for teff production as normal soil pH for teff is recorded to be
from pH of 6-7.5 probably being an optimal for most teff varieties (Seifu, 1993. Usually, 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. The CEC of the sites was 47.88 and 46.23 meq
/100g soil which is very high (Landon, 1991) indicated good agricultural soil. . The result is within

30
the range reported by Berhanu (1985), which indicate CEC of 35-70 meq/100 g soil for nearly all the
Vertisol of Ethiopia. According to Landon (1991), top soils having CEC greater than 40 cmol (+)/kg
are rated as very high and 25-40 cmol (+)/kg as high. Those topsoils with 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 soils of the study area have very high CEC, which is a reflection of the very high
clay.

Moreover, Texture class of versil was (clay 62%), (Silt 26%) (Sand 12%), while The Texture class
of Nitosol was (clay 58%), (Silt 24%) (Sand 18%). Organic Carbon content vertsol was 0.81%, and
Nitosol was 1%, which is below (1%) the critical organic mater content for tef growth (NFIU, 1989).
The total OC of the experimental field was 0.81 which is grouped under very low while the Nitosol
the total organic carbon was 1. Total OC (%) of greater than 1o as high, 4-10 as medium and less
than 4 as low (booker,1991). The Organic mater was also 1.4 which is low. The low amount of
organic matter in the soil is related to environmental conditions, particularly to vegetation, climate
and to the history of cultivation. This total removal of the crop residue might have contributed to the
low level of organic matter and total nitrogen. Most cultivated soils of Ethiopia are poor in their
organic matter content due to low amount of organic materials applied to the soil and complete
removal of biomass from the field (Yihenew, 2002).

At vertsol the total nitrogen was 0.081%, while at Nitosol it was 1 Moreover, Tekalign et al. (1991)
classified soil 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. There for according to Tekalign both sites have low Nitrogen availability.
Higher amount of fragments of live and decomposing root tissues of crops and biological N fixation
mainly by grass pea grown under sequential cropping since long time at the experimental field might
have contributed to higher total N and organic carbon contents at the surface soil
Available P content of the vertsol soil was 15.08 ppm while Nioltos was 19.72 ppm which is in the
high rating compared to an average of (11.6 ppm) content of Vertisols in Ethiopia (Pulschen, 1987.
According to Olsen Chapman, P classified soil P availability of <3ppm very low, 4-7ppm low, 8-
11ppm medium, 12-20ppm high, >20ppm very high. Therefore the Nitosol soil type has almost very
high P content and no need of P starter is needed. According to Foster (1973), P response is likely in
soils with less than 20 mg/kg soil of soil extractable. Available K content of vertsol soil was 15.24

31
ppm while Nitosol was 17.72 ppm. Moreover, Booker (1991) classified soil k availability of <
0.05% as very low, 0.05-0.12% as poor, 0.12-0.25% as moderate and > 0.25% as high.

Table 1. Soil fertility status of Vertisols and Nitosol

.
Vertsol .
pH O.C CEC Sand Silt Clay Texture Total Availa Available EC
% Cm/kg % % % class N% P ppm K mg/kg ds/m.
7.5 0.81 47.8 8 12 26 62 clay .08 15.0 0.17
Litosols .
pH O.C CEC Sand Silt Clay Texture Total Availa. Available EC
% Cm/kg % % % class N% P ppm K mg/kg ds/m.
8.1 1.01 46.23 18 24 58 clay 0.2 19.72 17 0 .64
.
Vertsols .
Na K Ca Mg Sum Bas.Sa Fe Mn Zn Cu
cmol(+)/kg % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
0.74 0.77 61.79 8.83 72.12 62 15 27.07 17.8 1.01
.
Litosols(Debrebrhan) . Na
K Ca Mg Sum Bas.Sa Fe Mn Zn Cu
Cm/kg % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm.
0.57 0.72 50.36 11.79 63.43 137 18.63 23.2 1.17 2.34

Total C/N ratio of vertsol and Nitosol was 10 and 5 respectively. The vertsol has low C/N ratio while
Nitosol has very low. The report included C/N ratios of >25, 16-25, 11-15, 8-10 and < 8 as very
high, high, medium, low and very low respectively.
Calcium was the most dominant basic cation occupying 77.7% of the basic exchangeable soil at the
experimental cations or 61.7% of the exchange complex followed by Mg, K and Na in this order.
Moreover, the soil exhibited high percent base saturation and very high cation exchange capacity
ensuring that the field is good agricultural soil.

32
Usually, 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 (1991), topsoils
having CEC greater than 40 cmol (+)/kg are rated as very high and 25-40 cmol (+)/kg as high. Those
topsoils with 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 soils of the study site have very high CEC,
which is a reflection of the very high clay.
Exchangeable Ca (61.79 cmol(+) kg-1) followed in this order by exchangeable Mg 8.8 cmol(+) kg-
1) , exchangeable K (0.77cmol(+) kg-1) and exchangeable Na is the dominant basic cation in the
soil of the Hatsebo site (Table 2). The order exchangeable bases of Debrebrhan site was Ca
(50.36)>Mg (11.79)>K (0.72) and Na (0.57). Base saturation was 151% and 137%.Electric
conductivity of the experimental sites are 0.167 and o.643ds/m. Similarly, the average
concentrations of the micro nutrients viz. Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu were 27.07, 17.87, 1.01 and
1.9815.39, 9.88, 7.16 and 0.92 ppm of compost, respectively.

Generally, the contents of the soil fertility parameters studied are indicatives of the fact that the soils
of the study area are more or less deficient in most of the major plant nutrients particularly in total
Nitrogen (Tekalign and Haque, 1991).

4.2. Effects of Residual Nutrients on Some Physico-Chemical Properties of Soil

Soil fertility is the status of a soil with respect to its ability to supply essential elements for plant
growth. Soil fertility is determined or evaluated with various techniques, however in the present
study the residual effects of fertilizers were determined by laboratory analysis of soil samples
collected after crop harvest. The chemical analysis results of the soil samples collected from the
experimental plots based on treatment just after harvesting the crop are depicted in Table 2.

33
4.2.1 Residual Total Nitrogen nutrient Content on soil after harvest

The soil N content after harvesting averaged across blended fertilizers under planting method at all
sites showed no significant (P> 0.05) among the treatments (table 2). These suggested that N
fertilizer has little or no considerable effect on N content of the soil (after harvesting) probably due
to the mobile nature of this plant nutrient. At vertsol the status/concentration of N in soil as usual
declined after harvest than what observed 0.08% before sowing of teff (Table 2) while at Nitosol the
status/concentration of N in soil was 0.11%. This is agreed with Fassile and Charlss (2009) reported
that total Nitrogen varies from 0.05 in the vertsiol of wukro to 1.0 the versols of Adwa. Moreover, N
loss through various mechanisms, e.g., leaching, denitrification, volatilization, although could not be
quantified, played major role. Therefore there was a little but gradual improvement in N content of
soil after harvest (Table 2) the respective amount of applied fertilizer could replenish/compensate, to
some extent, the N taken up by teff crop (which, otherwise, would have been extracted only from
soil pool) and caused little improvement in N status of soil after harvest compared to control (no N
fertilized) plot. Generally, the application of blended fertilizers under the two planting method has
no nutrient increment in soil after harvest.

34
Table 2. Effects of Nutrient sources under planting method on selected soil chemical properties after
harvest
Vertsols (Hatsebo .
Treatments T.N Av.P Av.K Fe Mn Zn Cu
% ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
T1 0.06 17.92a 42.93a 26.22b 17.95a 0.99a 2.53a
T2 0.06 17.72b 42.58b 26.71a 16.37b 0.89b 2.26b
T3 0.06 16.95c 41.75c 25.88d 15.01c 0.84c 2.17c
T4 0.06 15.90d 41.28d 26.14c 14.98 0.75d 2.12d
T5 0.06 13.54e 39.39e 23.0 14.40 0.73c 2.04e
Mean 0.06 16.40 41.58 25.77 15.74 0.838 2.226
SE+ 0.0013 0.428 0.333 0.258 0.343 0.02 0.054
LSD 0.01263 0.1085 0.1085 0.05011 0.0766 0.04238 0.04238

Nitosols .
Treatments T.N Av.P Av.K Fe Mn Zn Cu
% ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm
T1 0.11a 8.91a 41.56 24.35b 21.68a 0.787 2.31b
T2 0.11 a 8.66b 41.14 24.91a 20.79b 0.767 2.42a
T3 0.11a 8.37c 40.57c 23.62c 20.30c 0.64 2.13d
T4 0.11a 7.52d 40.08d 24.29 18.31d 0.61 2.23c
T5 0.11a 4.58e 39.29e 23.0 18.08e 0.51 2.04
Mean 0.011 7.609 40.52 24.0 19.83 0.66 2.23
SE+ 0.0014 0.424 0.214 0.170 0.377 0.027 0.035
LSD (5%) 0.01263 0.0584 0.1085 0.0501 0.076 0.042 0.037

The reduction of total N in soil after harvest could be due to consumptive use of teff plant and losses
by different means such as ammonia (NH3) volatilization, denitrification, leaching, immobilization
and ammonium (NH4 +) fixation (De Datta and Patrick, 1986). Generally N applied to cultivated
crops has little effect on the level of soil organic matter or organic N in soil and it can only be

35
maintained by inclusion of a sod crop in rotation or by frequent and heavy application of manure and
crop residues (Wild, 1988).

4.2.2 Residual Available Phosphorus on soil after harvest

The results of soil analysis for available soil P after harvest against treatments are presented in
(Table 2, Appendex C2). There was highly significant difference in Olsen extractable available soil
P across all treatments. The application of blended fertilizers under both planting method recorded
the highest Phosphorus residue on soil after crop harvest (table 2).
Even though soil Phosphorus after harvest was not increase soil Phosphorus before harvest, at both
soil type there is highly significant difference among all treatments. At vertsol the available
phosphorus at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 17.92ppm, 17.72ppm, 16.95ppm, 15.90ppmand 13.54ppm
respectively, while, at Nitosol available phosphorus in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was obtained 8.91ppm,
8.66ppm, 8.37ppm and 7.52ppm. This result contradicts with the findings of Fassile and Charles
(2009) the reported that the available P was very low, ranging between 0.43ppm in shire 1.95ppm in
Adwa. At both soil types the highest Phosphorus residue was recorded at plots that received blended
fertilizers under row planting (table 2). The average Phosphorus residue on the plots that receive
blended fertilizers under row planting was 17.92ppm reviled 32% greater than the check plots. Those
plots that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast were obtained 17.72ppm next to treatments that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting and also increased by 31% over the control.
Those plots that receive UREA and DAP under row planting were obtained 16.95ppm next to
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast planting. Those plots that receive UREA
and DAP under broadcast were obtained 15.90ppm next to treatments that receive UREA and DAP
fertilizers under row planting.
At vertsol and Nitosol the available Phosphorus was 15.08ppm and 19.72ppm, but after harvest the
available phosphorus of the Nitosol was highly reduced than Vertsol. Generally, low amount of
available soil P was recorded after harvest as comparing to pre sowing. The reason is that the Nitosol
has very high Phosphorus and addition of P fertilizer at the time of sowing reduces P availability in
the soil and this leads to highly assimilation of Phosphorus nutrient by the plant or attributed to the
possibility of high fixation in the soil due to increased P adsorption surfaces with the broadcasting
method. Accordingly, Ouyang et al. (1999) also disclosed that soil P fixation results in low P use

36
efficiency or availability. Moreover, Miller and Danahaue (1995) noticed that almost no P is lost
through leaching and there is relatively little mineralization of phosphate in the soil indicating that
fixation is the major loss of available soil phosphorus. In line with the above findings, Tisdale et al.
(2002) confirmed that band applied P increased soil test P more than the same rate of broadcasted P.
They also reported more P fixation to broadcasted phosphate fertilizer than banding the same rate.
Furthermore, Miller and Donahue (1995) disclosed that banding increased P availability in the soil
by avoiding extreme P fixation.

4.2.3 Residual Available Potassium nutrient on soil after harvest

The results of soil analysis for available soil K after harvest against treatments are presented in Table
2. At both soil type there was highly significant difference (p<0.001) in available soil K across all
treatments due to K placement methods with the application of P in the form of Potassium Sulfate
(H2So4 ( table 2, Appendix C3). At vertsol the available Potassium at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was
42.93ppm, 42.58ppm, 41.75ppm, 41.28ppm, and 39.39ppm respectively, while, at Nitosol available
phosphorus in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was obtained 41.56ppm, 41.14ppm, 40.57ppm, 40.08ppm and
39.29ppm. The highest increment in soil available K was obtained 42.93ppm by the use of blended
fertilizers under row planting. These vertsol plots that receive blended fertilizers under row planting
increased by 10% over the check plots. Available K on the plots that receive UREA and DAP under
row planting was 41.75ppm increased 6% over the check plots. At both soil types the lowest
available K was recorded at check plots. Those plots that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast
were obtained 17.72ppm next to treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and
also increased by 31% over the control.

4.2.4 Residual Iron (Fe) nutrient on soil after harvest

Application of blended fertilizers under planting method at both soil type (Table 2) affected highly
significant (P < 0.01) the residual micro nutrients in the soil after harvest. At vertsol the residual Fe
micro nutrient at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 26.22ppm, 26.71ppm, 25.88ppm, 26.14ppm and
23.08ppm respectively, while, at Nitosol the residual Fe micro nutrient at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was
obtained 24.35ppm, 24.91ppm, 23.62ppm, 24.29ppm and 23.08ppm respectively. The highest Fe in

37
soil was obtained 42.93ppm by the use of blended fertilizers under broadcast planting. The plots that
receive blended fertilizers under broadcast planting exceeds by 16% over the check (no fertilized)
plots. In this study the application of blended fertilizers under row planting recorded 26.22ppm next
to the plots that receive blended fertilizers under row planting.

At vertsol the averaged across all treatments the amount of micro nutrients that were recorded after
sowing was less than pre sowing. The reason might be due to the presence of high Phosphorus at pre
sowing and application of enough Phosphorus at the time of sowing induces micronutrient
deficiency.

4.2.5 Residual Manganese (Mn) nutrient on soil after harvest

In all soil type the presence of Mn in the soil was affected significantly (P < 0.01) by the main
effects of the nutrient supplied and the planting method (Table 2). As expected, at vertsol the
presences of residual Mn in the two soil type, those plots receive blended fertilizers under row
planting was 17.95ppm which exceeds 24.5% over the check plots. While at Nitosol those plots that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting was obtained 21.8ppm which exceeds 20% over the
check (not fertilized) plots. the concentration of Mn in soil covers a particularly wide range, from a
little as 20µg/g to well over 3000µg/g (Harmsen, 1961). At vertsol the Mn soil residual at T1, T2,
T3, T4 and T5 was 17.95ppm, 1637ppm, 15.01ppm, 14.98ppm and 14.40ppm respectively, while, at
Nitosol Mn soil residual at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was obtained 21.68ppm, 20.79ppm, 20.30ppm,
18.31ppm and 18.08ppm.

4.2.6 Residual Zinc (Zn) nutrient on soil after harvest

The effect of blended fertilizer application under row planting on the Zn soil residual was
significantly high at all soil type (table 2). At vertsols Zn soil residual in the check plots was
0.73ppm and of those that received blended fertilizers under row planting was 0.99ppm indicated an
increase by 36% over the check plots. 0.89ppm was recorded from the plots that receive blended
fertilizers under broadcast and which reviled 22% greater than the check plots. But application of
UREA and DAP under row planting recorded 0.84ppm reviled 15% greater than the check plots. The
lowest Zn soil residual was recorded from check plots next to those plots that receive UREA and
38
DAP under broadcast. At Nitosol the highest Zn soil residual was recorded from the plots that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting (table 2) i.e. 0.79ppm which exceeds 55% over the
check plots. But the application of UREA and DAP under broadcast was obtained 0.61ppm reviled
20% greater than the check plots. At both soil type there is low Zn in the soil. The reason is that
since there is high P, the presence of high P reduces Zn deficiency. Fassil and Charles (2009) also
reported that alkaline soils reduces the availability of Zn unless proper management approach is
introduced.

4.2.7 Residual Cupper (Cu) nutrient on soil after harvest

The effect of all source of fertilizers under row planting are presented in (Table 2). The source of
fertilizers under plating method revealed a significant deference at (P<0.01) across all treatments. In
vertsol the average Cu soil residual in the plots that receive blended fertilizers under row planting
was obtained 2.53ppm, which exceeds 24% over the check plots. While in Nitosol the plots that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting was 2.31 which exceed 13% over the check plots. In
vertsol the highest Cu soil residual was obtained from the plots that receive blended fertilizers under
row planting (table 2), while in Nitosol the highest Cu soil residual was obtained from the plots that
receive blended fertilizers under broadcast i.e. 2.42 which reviled 17% over the check plots.
Therefore in Nitosol those plots that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast was recorded the
highest Cu soil residual which is the reverse of vertsol.

4.3 Relationship between soil N, P, K, and micronutrients after harvest

At vert soil when the total soil N after harvest of tef was correlated with P, K and micro nutrients, it
was observed that correlation was negative but non significant, with Mn and Cu but positive and non
significant with P, K, and Zn. While at Nitosoil the total Nitrogen after harvest was positively and
non significantly correlated with Cupper(r= 0.196) and Manganese(r=0.1205).
Moreover, these negative and non significant or loose of association of N content and Mn and Cu
might be due to the consumptive use of the plant, or leaching of the nitrogen soil after harvest or

39
antagonistic effect. Tsidale et al. (1993) also found that the mobility of nitrogen in the soil and its
minimal level after harvest could be attributed to the above observation.
Accordingly, available soil P content after harvest, however, indicates positive and highly significant
(P< 0.001) correlation with potassium(r=0.99**), Manganese(r=0.79**), Iron(r=0.92**),
Zinc(r=0.86**) and Cu(r=0.78**) but positively and non significant correlation with total Nitrogen

4.4. Response of tef yield and yield component to applied integrated fertilizers
under planting method.

Under the present study, the response of tef to Planting method and different fertilizer application
was examined in terms of various agronomic parameters like days to 50% germination, 50%
heading, 75% maturity, Plant height, panicle length, seed weight/panicle, Spike length, Tillering no,
Lodging%, Grain yield, Straw yield and harvest Index. Their effect on these agronomic parameters
was a deciding factor of where the row sowing with blended fertilizer application is needed or not.

4.1. Crop Growth Characters and Yield

Table 3. Effects of blended fertilizers under planting method on yield and yield components of
teff yield in vertsoil

treatment 50% 50% 75% Plant Panicle Seed Spick

Emergency Heading Maturity height length weight/panicle length
T1 6c 46b 109b 130a 52a 1.78a 24a
T2 7b 44c 103c 125c 47.67b 1.48c 21.33b
T3 6c 46b 109b 128b 51.67a 1.65b 22b
T4 7b 44c 103c 120d 45.67c 1.37d 19.67c
T5 9c 49a 115a 50e 22.33d 0.28e 1od
Mean 7 46 108 110.60 11 1.31 19.14
SE 0.305 0.526 0.766 8.15 2.95 0.144 1.32
LSD (5%) 1.35 0.063 1.14
CV 16.14 4.3 2.71 28.53 26.06 42 26.27

40
 Value within a column followed by the same latter is not significantly different at LSD (0.05)

Continued: vert sols

Treatment T.N Lo% S.Y G.Y H.I
T1 15a 15d 100.6a 41.55a 0.292a
T2 11b 75a 84.35c 31.97c 0.275c
T3 13.67a 17c 96.23b 37.57b 0.281b
T4 10b 65b 75.16d 27.73d 0.270c
T5 5c 4e 29.36e 8.7e 0.229d
Mean 11 34.4 77.14 27.50 0.269
SE 0.943 7.57 6.82 3.05 0.0058
LSD (at 5%) 1.14 0.0084 0.9 0.61 0.0061
CV 33.42 34.23 40.08 8.34

Table 4. Effects of blended fertilizers under planting method on yield and yield components of
teff yield in Nitosols

treatment 50% 50% 75% Plant Panicle Seed Spike

Emergency Heading Maturity height length weight/panicle length
b b b a
T1 6 44 97 127a 51.33 1.74a 23.67a
T2 7a 42c 94c 120.33c 47.67b 1.45c 20.33c
T3 6b 44b 97b 123b 51.33a 1.56b 22.33b
T4 7b 42c 94c 116.7d 43.67c 1.23d 20.33c
T5 8a 45a 103a 78e 32d 0.32e 15.33d
Mean 7 45 97 113 45 1.12 20
SE 0.137 0.341 0.943 4.77 1.94 0.133 0.767
LSD (5%) * * * 2.16 2.29 0.036 1.14
CV 16.14 4.3 2.71 28.53 26.06 42 26.27

Continued on Nitosols

41
Treatment T. N Lo% S.Y G.Y H. I
T1 15a 17.6d 95.90 39.67a 0.293a
T2 10c 81.00a 79.23 30.30c 0.275bc
T3 12.67b 23.7c 88.3 35.78
b
0.288ab
T4 9.67c 64.3b 70.48 26d 0.270c
T5 5d 5.00e 45.43 14.58e 0.231d
mean 10 38.00 76 29 0.27
SE 1.19 0.011 0.9 0.46 0.019
LSD at (5%) 1.19 0.012 0.90 0.46 0.02
CV 33.66 23.77 30.76 8.84
Value within a column followed by the same latter is not significantly different at LSD (0.05)

4.4.1 Germination

After the germination of seed, the radicles require nutrients in order to nourish the emerging plant.
Thus, the availability of nutrients in the soil and the planting method dictates the extent of plant’s
emergence. Germination of seeds was completed from 6-9 days after sowing. The row planting with
blended fertilizers hastens the germination rate. But the seeds of check plots were germinated 9 days
after sowing. In conformity with the results obtained from this study, Tisdale et al. (2002) reported
that application of fertilizer near the seeds of wheat at the time of planting has the added advantage
of stimulating seed germination and seedling emergence.

The result shows that day to 50% emergence was significantly (P< 0.05) influenced by different
rates of blended fertilization under planting method however the 50% emergency was not significant
in plots that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and plots that receive UREA and DAP
under row planting (Table 3 and table 4). Furthermore, application of blended fertilizers and urea
and Dap under row planting resulted in a significant reduction of days to 50% emergences of teff.
Thus a minimum of six days was recorded at treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row
planting and treatments that receive UREA and DAP under row planting for emergence of tef. The
50% emergency was not significant in treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row
broadcast and treatments that receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. There for application of

42
blended fertilizers with high seed rate and application of Urea and Dap with high seed rate results
the same 50% day emergency.
At both soil type the highest days to emergency was obtained at no fertilizer treated plot (table 3 and
table 4). This is in line with Memon et al (2007) that the emergences of maize seedling between two
methods of sowing were highly significant. Maize sown on row resulted shortest period of mean of
days to emergence when banding P to the side of the seeds.

4.4.2 Days to heading

Days from sawing to heading ranges from 46 days to 49 days. Most of the plots received blended
fertilizers with high seed rate and application of Urea and DAP with high seed rate was emerged
first. This result is in contrary with the finding of Tisdale et al. (2002), reported that the early
heading and maturity were obtained when P fertilizer was banded below the seed. The check plots
day to heading was 49 days. This it is also agreed with the finding of Aefa et al (1997) in wheat crop
Row seeding vs. broadcasting increased the number of days to crop heading.

4.4. 3 Days to maturity

Early maturing crop is preferred due to many agronomic reasons Such as water stress, low soil
fertility, insect and pest attack, etc .That is why the days to 75% maturity of a crop is one of the
important agronomic parameter used to evaluate the efficiency of planting method and blended
fertilizers. Days from germination to physiological maturity ranges from 103 to 115 in vertsoil while
in Nitosol it ranges from 94 to 103 days(table 3 and table 4).
Both planting method and Application of blended fertilizers significantly (P< 0.05) influenced days
to 75% maturity. 50% emergency has significant difference on treatment (T1, T3), (T2, T4) and T5.
There is no significant difference between treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row
planting and treatments that receive UREA and DAP under row planting. There is no significant
difference in treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast and in treatments that
receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. Generally row planting and blended fertilizers and row
planting with Urea and Dap prolong days to 75% maturity.

43
In Vertsoil the mean values for days to 75% maturity averaged in treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting and treatments that receive UREA and DAP under row planting was
109 days(table 1). While in Nitosoil the mean values for days to 75% maturity averaged in
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast and treatments that receive UREA and
DAP under broadcast was 94 days. The findings are in line with the fact that application of blended
fertilizers with row planting and application of Urea and Dap with row planting by facilitating
vegetative growth stage of cereals as a result the planting method and blended fertilizers prolongs
the maturity of crops. Similar observation was recorded by Temesgen (2001) who reported that
application of NPK fertilizers with delayed tef maturity through the delay vegetative phase of tef by
seven days over the control treatment (plot with no fertilizer) at farmers field and research station of
Kobo Vertisols. There is a side back to the delay in maturity period in long exposure of crops to
insects and pests attack. Furthermore Lemlem et al., (2002) observed that there were significant
effect due to N and P on days to maturity of tef at Welmera Nitosols.
At vertsol and Nitosoil the mean values for days to 75% maturity averaged for check plots were 115
and 103 days respectively. The plots that received bended fertilizers under row planting were
increased 12 days than the check plots.

4.4.4 Plant height:

An improved teff variety ‘Kuncho’ (DZ-01-387) to the five treatments of the two soil on plant height
was significantly high (table1, table 2. at vertsols the plant height of the plots that received blended
fertilizers under row planting was 130cm indicated a height increase by 260% than the check plots.
But the average plant height in the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast was
125 cm that increase 250% greater than in the check plots. This is agreed with finding of Eshetayehu
(2001), the highest plant height in wheat was obtained from treatments that receive Phosphorus
under row sowing. This indicate that due to planting method there is highly significant difference
between treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row plating and treatments that receive
blended fertilizers under broadcast. The plant height in treatments that receive UREA and DAP
under row planting was 128cm next to treatment one. 120cm plant height was recorded from the
treatments that receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. It was the same with treatment two except
the only difference in fertilizer.

44
Generally a good plant height was recorded from row planting. These findings are in agreement with
Arif, et al., (2001) who show that sowing 100kg/ha wheat in row and broadcast significantly
decrease in plant height Hameed, et al. (2003) find that sowing wheat in row planting has the longest
high than broadcast method .Akram, et al., (2010) also reported that application of NPK with in
broadcast sowing was recorded 90cm, while in row planting plant height was recorded 98cm.
Although, wheat is planting with different sowing method depending upon the availability of soil
water, time of planting, amount of preceding crop residues, row planting increases plant height,
tillering no, grain yield, straw yield (Sikander et al., (2003).

4.4.5. Panicle length

In both soil type Panicle length have highly Significant difference in all treatments at (P<0.05) (table
3 and table 4). The mean panicle length in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 52, 47.67, 51.67, 45.67 and
22.33 respectively. Likewise the Highest panicle length mean was 52cm at treatments that receive
blended fertilizers under row planting. This indicates that the treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting were exceeded by 133% over the check plots. The next panicle length
51.67cm was also obtained from treatments that receive UREA and DAP under row planting next to
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row plating. From the experiment it is observed that
Panicle length is associated with plant height I.e. the longest plant height obtained in both row
sowing treatments have the longest panicle length. Likewise, in vert soil the lowest panicle length
mean 22.33cm was observed in check plots, while in Nitosol it was 32cm.

4.4.6 Seed weight/panicle

The data on both soil type the influence of the five treatments on seeds weight/panicle is presented in
(Table 3, 4). The effect of all the five treatments on seed weight/panicle have significant difference
at P<0.05. At both soil types the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting
recorded the highest seed weight/panicle(table 3,4 ).In short at vertsol the average seed
weight/panicle in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 1.74, 1.48, 1.65, 1.37 and 0.28 0 respectively. While at
Nitosol the average seed weight/panicle in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 1.74g, 1.45g, 1.56g, 1.23g and
0.32g respectively. Generally in Nitosol the check plots have higher seed weight/panicle than
vertsols.

45
4.4.7 Spike Length

At both soil type the application of blended fertilizers under the planting method has significant
(p<0.05) difference on spike length (Table 3, 4). But the treatments that receive blended fertilizers
under broadcast has no significant difference with the treatments that receive urea and dap under row
planting. At vertsol the average spike length in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 24, 21.33, 22, 19.67 and
10 respectively. While at Nitosol the average spike length in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 23.67,
20.33, 22.33, 20.33 and 15.33 respectively. In the particular experiment at Nitosol the application of
blended fertilizers under row planting has no significant difference with the treatments that receive
Urea and Dap under row planting. From the vertsoil spick length was recorded 10cm, while 15.33cm
was recorded from Nitosol. From this particular experiment it concludes that those plots that have
longer panicle length have longer spike length.

4.4.8 no of tillers/plant

At both soil type the application of blended fertilizers under the planting method causes significant
difference across all treatments except in treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast
and treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast (table 3, 4. Generally at all soil type the
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and the treatments that receive urea
and dap under row planting was recorded the highest tillering no (table 3, 4). This finding is
agreement with Jan et al., (2003) due to row plating method wheat tillering no was significantly
increases than broadcast sowing. The tillering no in broadcast was 213, while in row planting it was
305. The main reason for the increment of tillering no is sowing teff seed with row planting. While
the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast and urea and dap under broadcast was
obtained lower than the row planting. These findings are closely confirmed with Tomas (2004), who
found that lowest number of effective tillers was recorded in treatments that treated with broadcast
method.
Tareke (2008) also reported that Reducing the high seed rate I.e. 25kg/ha that the farmers use to low
seed rate i.e. 5kg/ha results increases tiller number, producing strong tiller culms and it increases
number and quality of seeds. At both soil type 5 tillering no was recorded from the check plots due

46
to the high seed population and at the same time all the seeds are computing for light, temperature
and other essential macro and micro nutrients.

4.4.9 Lodging percentage

At both soil types all the treatments have significant difference at (p < 0.05)(table 3,4). The highest
lodging% response of tef was recorded from treatments that receive blended fertilizers under
broadcast (table 1, 2). The application of blended fertilizers under row planting reduced its lodging
% by 400% over the treatments that receive blended fertilizer under broadcast. At vertsoil the
average lodging % in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 15%, 75%, 17%, 65%, and 4%
respectively(table1). While at Nitosols the average lodging % in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 17%,
81%, 23%, 64% and 5%. At both soil type the application of blended fertilizers under row planting
and application of urea and dap under row planting has the lowest lodging% next to control (table 3,
4).
Furthermore, the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast and the treatments that
receive urea and dap under broadcast i.e. that the most common way of establishing teff was
recorded the highest lodging percentage. Although, seed rate, seed size and type of fertilizer have a
great impact on lodging%, other internal and external factors are present within it (Seifu, 2003). It
can be induced by both external and internal factors like wind, rain and morphological traits of the
crops or by their interactions. The grain bearing organs of cereals are found at the top of the stem,
and therefore, exert a strain on the stalk especially under high wind or wind driven rain. Moreover,
crop husbandry, crop disease and an abundant supply of nutrients in the soil contribute to the process
of lodging (Tams et al., 2004).
The severity of lodging and the extent of the losses resulting from it depend on the crop’s
environment and the growth stage at which lodging occurs. Favorable growing conditions that
Promote crop development and grain yield will evoke lodging and increase its severity. Seyfu (1993)
indicated that lodging is affected very strongly by environmental conditions through its effect on
plant characters prone to environmental effects, namely, structure of basal culm internodes and total
culm length. In artificially induced lodging on wheat, barley and oats, heading and early grain

47
development stages were found to be the most crucial stages (Pinthus, 1973); lodging that occurred
at heading resulted in a 10% greater yield reduction than lodging occurred 15-20 days after heading.
As in other small grain cereals, the tef crop is also prone to severe lodging under favorable and high
input husbandry (Kebebew, 1991; Fufa et al., 2001; Tekalign et al., 2001). This is ascribed to the
morphological features of the plant, hence posing significant losses in quality and quantity of both
grain and straw yield.

4.4.10 Straw yield

The straw yield of cereal crops is an important agronomic parameter that is sensitive to nutrient level
of soil or the nutrient applied from external sources and the planting method. The result of planting
method with a combination of blended fertilizers on straw yield of tef was studied and the data are
presented in (Table 3, 4).
Application of planting method within its different complex fertilizer significantly (P< 0.05) affected
the Straw yield (Table 1, 2). At vertsoil the highest straw yield 100.6k/ha is obtained from treatment
that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and exceeds 20% over the plots that receive
blended fertilizers under broadcast sowing, while at Nitosol it was recorded 95.90k/ha and increased
21% over the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast. These findings are closely
harmony with mennan and Zandstra (2005) seed rate of 100kg/ha showed significant increase straw
biomass from row planting (5609 kg/ha) to 5590kg/ha in broadcast sowing. At vertsol treatments
that receive blended fertilizers under row planting increases by 5% over Nitosol treatments that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting. The second higher straw yield 96.23k/ha is obtained
at vertsol from treatment that receive urea and dap under row planting and which exceeds 28% over
the treatment that receive urea and dap under broadcast, while at Nitosol it was recorded 88.35k/ha
and increased 25% over the treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast. At vertsol
treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting increases by 10% over treatments which
receive urea and dap under row planting at Nitosol.

The third higher straw yield 84.35k/ha is obtained at vetsol from treatment that receive blended
fertilizers under broadcast and increase 12% over treatments that receive urea and dap under
broadcast. But at Nitosol 79.23k/ha is obtained from the treatments that receive blended fertilizers

48
under broadcast and increases 12% over treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast. At
both soil type the lowest straw yield was recorded from treatments that receive high seed rate under
urea and dap under broadcast next the check (no fertilized) plots(table1,2).these results are agreed
with Kotal et al (2010 ) application of high seed rate i.e. 25kg/ha may only enhances production cost
without any Increase in straw yield.

In general at both soil types the high straw yield is obtained from treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting and treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting due to row
sowing increases tiller number, producing strong tiller culms. Tareke, (2008) also reported that tef
straw yield increased highly due to changing of the traditional method i.e. broadcast to that of
newly introduced row planting.

4.4.11 Grain yield

At both soil types application of blended fertilizers under the planting method significantly (p <
0.05) affects grain yield of tef (Table 3, 4). The application of blended fertilizers under row planting
would be the best choice as per the present finding for maximizing the tef production in the study
area. At vertsol treatments that received blended fertilizers under row planting is obtained 4155k/ha
and increased 30% and 378% over treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting and
check plots respectively. while at Nitosol treatments that received blended fertilizers under row
planting is obtained 39.67k/ha and increased 27% and 172% over treatments that receive urea and
dap under row planting and check plots respectively. Furthermore, this is agreed with Collins, (2003)
reported that Maize grain yield was recorded 52.96k/ha from treatments that receive row planting,
while 42.10 k/ha-1 from broadcast.

At vertsol treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting was recorded 37.57k/ha next to
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and increased 35% and 332% over
treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast and the check plots respectively.
Tareke (2008) reported that sowing with low seed rate (row planting) i.e. 5kg/ha increased yield
from 34-51kg/ha. At Nitosol treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting was recorded
35.78k/ha and increased 38% and 376% over treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast
and the check plots respectively. At vertsol treatments that receive broadcast sowing under
49
application of urea and dap was recorded 27.73k/ha and increased 218% over the check plots. This is
in line with Tareke (2008) explained that the yield of the broadcasting plot was 5-12kg/ha on the
other hand the transplanted ones have given 3,400-5,100kg/ha. Hassan and Hassan (2007) and
tanveer et al. 003) have also reported significant difference in maize grain yield for various planting
methods. At Nitosol average 8.7k/ha of grain yield was obtained from check plots and increased
68% over vertsol check plots .From the analysis it is observed that almost there is a yield difference
of 10 k/ha across each treatments.
Generally, treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and treatments that receive
urea and dap under row planting received the highest grain yield and these two treatments would be
the best choice as per the present finding for maximizing the tef production in the study area. This is
in line with Mishra and Tiwari, (2001), the analysis of the data revealed that significant difference
was noted for grain yield. Maximum grain yield was produced by line planted 30 cm (5164 kg/ ha)
followed by single row on ridge (4729 kg/ ha) whereas minimum grain yield was produced by broad
cast planted wheat (4088 kg/ ha.

4.4.10. Harvest index

Harvest index is the relationship of the economic yield to the total or biological yield expressed as
coefficient of effectiveness. Thus, harvest index (HI) is the balance between the productive parts of
the plant and the reserves, which form the economic yield. The effect of blended fertilizers under
planting method has significant difference on harvest index except treatment that receive blended
fertilizers under broadcast and treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast. Harvest indices
Over all the treatments at vertsol in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 0.291, 0.275, 0.281, 0.271and 0.229
respectively, while at Nitosol in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 293, 0.275, 0.288, 0.270 and 0.231
respectively. At both soil type the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and
treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting resulted high harvest index (table 1, 2).
These findings are in line with Abd,.E.A and Lattief, El(2011) who found that wheat sown by row
planting at a seed rate of 150kg/ha significantly increase harvest index. The harvest index of row
planting was 0.337 while in broadcast it was 0.325.

4.5 Relationship between Agronomic attributes

50
At both soil type 50% emergency, 50% heading and 75% maturity are negatively correlated to all
agronomic parameters but positively correlated to each other (Appendix table7).
At both soil type lodging% was positively but non-significantly correlated to all agronomic
parameters (P>0.5)( Appendix table 7). At vertsoil the number of tillers was positively and strongly
correlated to plant height (r = 0.89**), panicle length (0.93**), spike length (0.94**), grain yield
(0.98**), seed weight/panicle (0.94**), straw yield (r = 0.96**) and harvest index(r=0.6**). At
vertsoil grain yield was positively and strongly correlated to plant height (0.95**), panicle
length(r=0.97**), spike length(r=0.99**), seed weight/panicle (0.99**), tillering no(r=0.98**), straw
biomass(r=0.99**), and harvest index(r=0.99). At Nitosol grain yield was highly correlated with
spike length. This in agreed with G.Grmay et al (2009) relationship between yield parameters (grain
and straw) and crop variables such as plant height, spick length were analyzed. Results showed that
in a vertsoil grain yield is strongly correlated with spick length while straw yield is strongly
correlated with plant height.
Generally at all soil type plant height, panicle length, spike length, seed weight/panicle, grain yield,
straw biomass, harvest index, and Tillering no, have positively and strongly correlated each other
except day to 50% emergency, 50% heading and 75% maturity.

4.6. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Magnesium and Zinc

Concentrations and Uptakes by Plant

The grain and straw samples were separately partitioned for analysis of total N, P, K, Mg and Zn
contents. The data on the concentrations and uptakes of N, P, K, Mg and Zn in the grain and straw of
teff at maturity as influenced by source of fertilizer applied and the planting methods are discussed
in the following sections.

4.6.1. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of N

Even though, the application of different source of fertilizers under the planting method in soil N
nutrient residue after harvest was no show significant difference, the application of blended
fertilizers under the planting method significantly (P< 0.01) affected N concentration and uptake
(table 5). Among the treatments, the highest concentration of N (0.87%) in straw was obtained by

51
those treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting while the least straw N
concentration (0.45%) recorded from check(un fertilized) plots.

Table 5. Effects of blended fertilizers and planting method on N nutrient concentrations and up take
of grain and straw.
Vertsol Nitosol
Treatments Straw N Straw Grain N Grain N Straw Straw N Grain N Grain N
content N up content Up take N up take content Up take
take content
Treatment % Kg /ha % Kg /ha % Kg /ha % Kg /ha
T1 0.87a 87.55 2.42a 100.42a 0.870a 83.25 2.53a 100.48a
T2 0.77b 64.95 2.17b 73.76b 0.81b 66.54 2.46b 74.64c
T3 0.65c 62.56 1.96c 69.52c 0.75c 64.89 2.25c 80.40b
T4 0.52d 39.34 1.75d 48.62d 0.70d 49.07 2.04d 53.21d
T5 0.45e 13.12 1.52e 13.22e 0.52e 23.78 1.62e 23.67e
Mean 0.652 53.51 2.18 66.48 0.73 57.51 1.965 61.16
SE+ 0.0418 6.78 0.0878 7.00 0.032 5.36 0.084 7.79
CV 24 49 15.58 40.77 16.96 36.00 16.53 49.34

At vertsol With regards to the application of blended fertilizers under planting method those plots
that receive blended fertilizers under row planting revealed that the highest total N uptake value of
187.97 kg N ha-1 (Table 10) which is obviously attributed to improved availability of the nutrient.

At both soil type the Stover N content recorded the plots that received blended fertilizers under row
planting was 0.87%, but in treatment two i.e. those plots that receive blended fertilizers under
broadcast was 0.77% which reduced 13% over the plots that receive blended fertilizers under row
planting. This might be due to the high N mobilization to the grain at grain filling stage influenced
the planting method of N application. The application of blended fertilizer near the plant root
stimulates early seedling (Tisdale et al., 2002). Applying below the seed for wheat at the time of
planting has the added advantage of placing the fertilizer in the immediate contact with the emerging
radical and seminal roots during seedling establishment (Tisdale et al., 2002)).

52
The percentage of nitrogen concentration in the grain was greater than in straw. In vertsol the
percentage of nitrogen in the grain was 2.42kg/ha increased by 178% over percentage of straw N
content. In is in line with, Obreza and Rhoads (1988) indicated that at harvest about two third of total
nitrogen should be present in the maize grain.

At vertsol the straw N content at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 0.87%, 0.77%, 0.65%, 0.52% and
0.45% respectively, while, at Nitosol at T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was obtained 0.87%, 0.81%, 0.75%,
0.70% and 0.52%. Straw and grain concentration on the plots that receive UREA and DAP under
row planting was recorded the 2nd next to plots that receive blended fertilizers under both planting
method. At both soil types the lowest nutrient content at straw, grain and the whole plant up take was
recorded at check plots. At vert and Nitosol the straw and grain N nutrient up take on those plots that
receive blended fertilizers under broadcast were 62.56kg/ha, 64.89kg/ha and 73.76kg/ha and
80.40kg/ha respectively next to treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting.
Generally Total N uptake (straw + grains) of all treatments are presented in Table 10.the application
of different source of fertilizers under the two planting method shows highly significant (P<0.001)
difference in N plant up take. In both soil types the highest plant up take was obtained in the plots
which receive blended fertilizers under row planting. at vertsols the highest N plant up take
(188kg/ha) was obtained at plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting, while at
Nitosol 184.kg/ha was obtained which reduced by 3% over vertsol. the same types of fertilizer but
difference in planting method shows highly significant difference in total plant up take(table 10).at
both soil type the application of UREA and DAP under row planting ranks 3 rd next to the plots
which receive blended fertilizers under both planting method. 88kg/ha of N plant up take was
obtained from the application of UREA and DAP under broadcast. The application of blended
fertilizers under row planting reviled 35% over the application of blended fertilizers under broadcast.
Application of UREA and DAP under row planting exceeds by 50% over the plots which receive
UREA and DAP under broadcast. The lowest plant nutrient uptake was obtained at check (not
fertilized) plots.

4.6.2. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of P

The concentration of P in the grain and straw in tef crop at both soil types was high in the plots
which receive blended fertilizers under row planting (Table 12). At vertsol application of blended

53
fertilizers under row planting has improved grain P contents by 10% over the plot receiving no
fertilizer (Table 12), while in Nitosol the application of blended fertilizers under row planting grain
P content was 0.319% which exceeds 17.7% over the check(no fertilized) plots.

Table 6. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on P nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw.

vertsol Nitosol
Treatments Straw P Straw P Grain P Grain P Straw P Straw P Grain P Grain P
content up take content Up take content up take content Up take
% % % % % % % %
T1 0.179a 17.96a 0.333a 1.38a 0.064a 6.14a 0.319a 12.66a
T2 0.087c 7.32c 0.317b 1.17b 0.046c 3.68c 0.299b 9.07c
T3 0.169b 16.29b 0.311c 1.01c 0.059b 5.24b 0.287c 10.27b
T4 0.083d 6.25d 0.309d 0.86d 0.042d 2.98d 0.286d 7.44d
T5 0.068e 2.00e 0.302e 0.26e 0.027e 1.24e 0.272e 3.97e
Mean 0.117 9.97 0.293 8.68 0.0478 3.855 0.3144 0.937
SE+ 0.0418 6.78 0.0042 0.777 0.0035 0.460 0.0027 0.101
CV 24.84 49.09 5.58 34.67 28.38 46.23 3.37 41.88

At both soil type the second P straw content was obtained from the plots which receive UREA and
DAP under row planting (table 6).at vertsols the straw P content of the plots which receive DAP and
UREA increased by 103% over the plots which receive UREA and DAP under broadcast, while at
Nitosoils it application of UREA and DAP under row planting increased by 40% over the plots
which receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. The lowest straw, grain and plant uptake was
obtained from check plots.

Before sowing at the soil composite P content of Nitosoil was higher than vertsoil, but in the plant
tissue the concentration, uptake of the plant 0f vertsoil increases than Nitosoil. This may be due
application of Phosphorus for phosphorus sufficient soil decrease Phosphorus concentration and up
take of the crop. Not only this but also application of phosphorus for phosphorus sufficient soils

54
results Zn deficiency. But the vertsoil the application of Phosphorus attributed to improved
availability of the nutrient and resulted increases phosphorus concentration, and up take of the
Stover, grain and the whole plant up take. The grain P up take of vertsoil in T1, T2, T3,T4, and T5
was 13.8kg/ha, 11.7kg/ha, 10.1kg/ha, 8.6kg/ha and 2.6kg/ha respectively, while at Nitosoil, in T1,
T2, T3, T4 and T5 the grain P up take was 12.66kg/ha, 9.07kg/ha, 10.27kg/ha, 7.44kg/ha and
3.97kg/ha respectively.

Finally, Total P uptake of all treatments are presented in Table 10.the application of blended
fertilizers under the two planting method shows highly significant (P<0.001) difference in P plant up
take. In both soil types the highest plant up take was obtained in the plots which receive blended
fertilizers under row planting. at vertsols the highest P plant up take (31.76kg/ha) was obtained at
plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting, while at Nitosoil 18.8kg/ha was obtained
which reduced by 64% over vertsol. At vertsoil the plots which receive blended fertilizers under row
planting exceeds by 35% over the plots which receive blended fertilizers under broadcast. This
results are in agreement with the findings of Peterson et al. (1981); Bert and Sims (2002) and Tisdale
et al. (2002) who reported that beneficial effect of P uptake and its concentration in wheat tissue for
applying P near to the seeds are due mainly to placing fertilizer where there is contact with active
roots and increase in availability through decreased soil-fertilizer contact. At both soil type the
application of UREA and DAP ranks 3rd next to the plots which receive blended fertilizers under
both planting method. 88kg/ha of N plant up take was obtained from the application of UREA and
DAP under broadcast. The application of blended fertilizers under row planting reviled 35% over the
application of blended fertilizers under broadcast. Application of UREA and DAP under row
planting exceeds by 50% over the plots which receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. At both soil
types the lowest plant nutrient uptake was obtained at check (not fertilized) plots.

4.6.3. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of K

In the tef plant tissue the concentration and up take of K averaged across blended fertilizers under
planting method at all sites showed significant (P<0.05) among the treatments (Table 6). Among the
treatments, in vertsoil the highest concentration of K (1.72%) in straw was obtained by those
treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and exceeds 53% over the check plots.

55
while in Nitosoil the straw N concentration (1.22%) was recorded from plots which receive blended
fertilizers under row planting and exceeds 52% over the check plots.

Table 7. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on K nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw.
Vertsol Nitosol
Treatments Straw K Straw K Grain K Grain K Straw K Straw K Grain K Grain K
content up take content Up take content up take content Up take
Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha
T1 1.725a 173.53a 0.65a 27.01 1.225a 117.23a 0.55a 21.82
T2 1.55b 130.74c 0.6b 19.22 1.125b 89.77c 0.55a 16.67
T3 1.36c 132.32b 0.65a 24.41 1.075c 94.96b 0.55a 19.68
T4 1.35d 101.48 0.6b 16.64 1.025d 71.62d 0.55a 14.30
T5 1.125e 33.03 0.55c 4.79 0.8e 4.32e 0.52b 7.58
Mean 1.425 114.2 0.544 16.01 0.909 75.6 0.610 18.41
SE+ 0.054 12.5 0.0032 1.32 0.110 10.3 0.010 2.07
CV 14.66 42.26 2.28 31.89 46.95 52.71 6.35 43.51

At both soil type the second K straw content was obtained from the plots which receive blended
fertilizers under broadcast (table 7).
The straw K content at vertsoil in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 1.72%, 1.55%, 1.36, 1.35% and 1.12%
respectively, while at Nitosoil in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 1.22%, 1.12%, 1.07%, 1.02% and
0.1%respectively. At vertsoil the plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting and
UREA and DAP under row planting obtained the highest grain K content. But at Nitosoil the
application of different source of fertilizers under the planting method has no significant difference
across all treatments (table 7).

At vertsoil the treatments which receive blended fertilizers under row planting results the highest
grain uptake i.e 27.01kg/ha and reviled 40% over the plots which receive blended fertilizers under
broadcast, while at Nitosoil receives 21.82kg/ha and exceeds 31% over the treatments that receive

56
UREA and DAP under broadcast sowing. At both soil type application of UREA and DAP under
row planting obtained the 2nd grain K uptake next to treatments which receive blended fertilizers
under row planting(table 7).at vertsoil the treatments that receive DAP and UREA under row
planting increase K grain up take by 47% over the treatments which receive DAP and UREA under
broadcast. Finally the row planting under both fertilizer type results an increase in K grain uptake
due Application of the nutrent to the side if the crop and creates good root contact with soil led to
greater absorption of nutrients, which ultimately resulted in vigorous growth of tef in terms of higher
dry matter accumulation and enhanced the total plant uptake.

Generally, Total K uptake of all treatments are presented in Table 10.the application of blended
fertilizers under the two planting method shows highly significant (P<0.001) difference in K plant up
take. In both soil types the highest plant uptake was obtained in the plots which receive blended
fertilizers under row planting (table7). at vertsols the highest K plant up take (200.54kg/ha) was
obtained at plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting, while at Nitosoil 139kg/ha
was obtained which reduced by 44% over vertsol. At vertsoil the plots which receive blended
fertilizers under row planting exceeds by 34% over the plots which receive blended fertilizers under
broadcast. At both soil types the application of UREA and DAP ranks 3rd next to the plots which
receive blended fertilizers under both planting method. 157kg/ha of K plant up take was obtained
from the application of UREA and DAP under broadcast which increase 33% over the treatments
that receive UREA and DAP under broadcast.

4.6.4. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of Mg

The application of different source of fertilizers under the planting method has significant difference
in all treatments. At all soil type the application of blended fertilizers under row planting results the
highest Mg nutrient concentration and uptake in straw, grain and total plant uptake(table 8). Whereas
the lowest concentration and uptake of Mg in straw, grain and plant uptake was obtained by those
treatments that are not treated by fertilizers.

57
 Table 8. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on Mg nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw.

Vertsol Nitosol
Straw Straw Mg Grain Mg Grain Mg Straw Mg Straw Mg Grain Grain Mg
Treatmen Mg up take content Up take content up take Mg co Up take
ts content
% Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha

T1 0.066a 6.66a 0.107a 4.45a 0.079a 7.54a 0.112a 4.44

T2 0.058c 4.88c 0.103b 3.32c 0.076c 6.04c 0.110b 3.33
T3 0.063b 6.04b 0.101c 3.82b 0.078b 6.86b 0.108c 3.88
T4 0.051d 3.85d 0.099b 2.75d 0.074d 5.25d 0.106d 2.76
T5 0.036e 1.05e 0.094e 0.82e 0.072e 3.29e 0.104e 1.52
Mean 0.0548 4.496 0.1082 3.187 0.0759 5.80 0.1012 3.032
SE+ 0.0029 0.528 0.00068 0.267 0.00060 0.393 0.0011 0.331
CV 20.41 45.46 2.45 32.49 3.06 26.22 4.37 42.31

At both soil type application of UREA and DAP under row planting resulted the 2 nd Mg
concentration and uptake next to treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting (table
7). This is may be due to the mobility of magnesium is relatively low, especially compared to anions
or even other cations such as sodium or potassium. Therefore, loss of these two cations through
leaching is relatively low, especially when applied in the near of the seed Tsidale et,.al (2002).

The straw Mg content at vertsoil in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 0.066%, 0.058, 0.063, 0.051 and
0.036% respectively, while at Nitosoil in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 0.079%, 0.076%, 0.078.0.074
and 0.072 respectively. at vertsols the straw Mg content of the treatments which receive DAP and
UREA under row planting increased by 24% over the plots which receive UREA and DAP under

58
 broadcast, while at Nitosoils the application of UREA and DAP under row planting increased by 5%
over the plots which receive UREA and DAP under broadcast. The lowest straw, grain and plant
uptake was obtained from check (no fertilized) plots.

The straw Mg up take of the vertsoil in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 6.66kg/ha, 4.48kg/ha, 6.04kg/ha,
3.85kg/ha and 1.05kg/ha. While in Nitosoil the straw Mg uptake in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was
7.54kg/ha, 6.04kg/ha, 6.86kg/hakg/ha, 5.25kg/ha and 3.29kg/ha respectively. The grain P up take of
vertsoil in T1, T2, T3,T4, and T5 was 13.8kg/ha, 11.7kg/ha, 10.1kg/ha, 8.6kg/ha and 2.6kg/ha
respectively, while at Nitosoil, in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 the grain P up take was 12.66kg/ha,
9.07kg/ha, 10.27kg/ha, 7.44kg/ha and 3.97kg/ha respectively.
Finally, Total Mg uptake of all treatments are presented in Table 8.the application of blended
fertilizers under the two planting method shows highly significant (P<0.001) difference in Mg plant
up take. In both soil types the highest plant up take was obtained in the plots which receive blended
fertilizers under row planting. at vertsols the highest Mg plant up take (11.11kg/ha) was obtained at
plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting, while at Nitosoil 11.98kg/ha was
obtained. At vertsoil the Mg plant uptake of treatments which receive blended fertilizers under row
planting exceeds by 37% over the plots which receive blended fertilizers under broadcast.

4.6.5. Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of Zn

Application of different source of fertilizers under the planting method significantly (P<0.01)
affected the Plant Tissue Concentration and Uptake of Zn. At both soil type the application of
blended fertilizers under row planting resulted the highest Zn nutrient concentration and uptake in tef
plant (table 9).
Table 9. Effects of the source fertilizers and planting method on Zn nutrient concentrations and up
take of grain and straw.

Vertsol Nitosol
Treatmen Straw Zn Straw Zn Grain Zn Grain Zn Straw Zn Straw Zn Grain Zn Grain
ts content up take content Up take content up take content Zn Up
take

59
 Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha Kg/ha
T1 0.000078 0.0079a 0.00009a 0.0033a 0.000082a 0.0079a 0.00032a 0.013a
a
T2 0.000072 0.0061c 0.000077 0.0017c 0.000076 0.006c 0.000079a 0.0024a
b b b
T3 0.000068 0.0065b 0.000074 0029ab 0.000073c 0.0065b 0.000076a 0.0028a
c c
T4 0.000063 0.0048d 0.000072 0.0020 0.000068 0.0048d 0.000075a 0.0019a
d d d
T5 0.000037 0.00107e 0.000069 0.0006 0.000056e 0.0025e 0.000073a 0.0010a
e e
Mean 0.000064 0.0053 0.000125 0.00416 0.000071 0.00554 0.000074 0.00208
SE+ 0.000003 0.00062 0.000048 0.00196 0.000002 0.00048 0.0000089 0.00027
9 4 6
Cv 23.47 45.58 149.29 182.78 12.96 33.62 4.46 51.43

Since the treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and those treated by
urea and dap under row plating are the only fertilizers that receive Zn resulted the highest Zinc
concentration and uptake in tef plant (table 9). At both soil type application of UREA and DAP
under row planting resulted the 3nd Zn concentration and uptake next to treatments that receive
blended fertilizers under both planting method (table 9). The grain Zinc up at vertsol in T1, T2,
T3, T4 and T5 was 0.0033kg/ha, 0.0017kg/ha, 0029kg/ha, 0.0020kg/ha and 0.0006kg/ha while
at Nitosol in T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 was 0.013kg/ha, 0.0024kg/ha, 0.0019kg/ha,0.0010a,
0.000276 respectively. At vertsols the grain uptake of the treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting exceeds by 45% over the check plots.

Generally, at all the five treatments Zinc straw content and uptake was greater than Zinc grain
content and uptake (table 9). Application of blnded fertilizers under row planting method and
application of urea and dap obtained higher Zinc plant uptake. At vertsols the highest Zinc plant up
take (0.011kg/ha) was obtained at plots which receive blended fertilizers under row planting and

60
 exceeds 547% over the check plots. While at Nitosoil 0.021kg/ha was obtained which increased
500% over check plots. At Nitosol Zinc plant uptake of the treatments that receive blended fertilizers
under row planting was increased by 90% over vertsoil treatments that receive blended fertilizers
under row planting.

4.7 Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Magnesium and Zinc Total plant uptake of
tef plant

In the tef plant the total plant uptake across all treatments at all soil type showed significant P<0.05
(Table 10). Among the treatments, in vertsoil the highest plant uptake of N (1.72%) was obtained
by those treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting. At versol 142kg/ha of N plant
uptake was obtained from treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting. 188kg/ha N,
19.34kg/ha P, 200.54kg/ha K, 11.11kg/ha Mg and 0,011kg/ha Zn was obtained from treatments that
receive blended fertilizers under row planting. While at Nitosol 183kg/ha N, 18.8kg/ha P,
139.0kg/ha K, 11.98kg/ha Mg and 0.02kg/ha Zn was obtained from treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting.
Table 10. Summery on The effect of source of fertilizers under planting method on total plant
up take
treatment Vertsol Nitosol
Total plant up take kg/ha Total plant up take kg/ha
T.N P K Mg Zn T.N P K Mg Zn
T1 188.0a 19.34 200.54 11.11 0.011 183.7 18.8 139.05 11.98 0.021
T2 140.0c 18.49 149.96 8.2 0.0078 141.2 12.75 106.44 9.37 0.0084
T3 142.96b 17.3 156.73 9.86 0.0094 145.3 15.51 114.64 10.24 0.0093
T4 92.56d 7.11 118.12 6.6 0.0068 102.3 10.42 85.92 8.01 0.0067
T5 36.79e 2.26 38.09 1.87 0.0017 47.45 5.21 11.9 4.81 0.0035
Mean 120.0 12.90 132.85 7.53 0.0073 124 12.54 91.59 8.88 0.010
SE+ 13.8 2.38 13.8 0.79 0.0023 124 12.54 91.6 8.99 0.097

61
140.0kg/ha N, 18.49kg/ha P, 149.96kg/ha K, 8.2kg/ha Mg and 0.0078kg/ha Zn was obtained from
treatments that receive urea and dap under row plantig.the lowest plant uptake was recorded from
check plots.
Generally the highest nutrient plant uptake was obtained from treatments that receive blended
fertilizers under row planting (table 10) .the second higher total plant uptake was recorded from
treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting(table. The third higher nutrient plant uptake
was obtained from treatments that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast sowing.

4.8 Economic Analysis

The primary objective of producers in applying fertilizer is to make profit. The extent to which their
use of fertilizers contributes to this objective depends not only upon the kinds and upon amounts of
fertilizer they apply and the yield, but also upon the cost of fertilizer and price of yields (Black,
1992). Both the physical and economical realities must be recognized. In the locality the demand and
market price of tef grain and Stover is relatively high. Due to this fact increasing both grain and
Stover yields can increase farmers’ income. In this experiment, the results of economical analysis
showed that there were high return due to applied integrated fertilizers and planting method.
Economic yields and added benefits as influenced by blended or integrated fertilizers under planting
method on tef have been calculated and presented in (Table 11.Table 12, Table). At vert and Nito
soil the highest grain yield of 41.55 Ql/ha and 39.67 Ql/ha and straw yield of 100.6 Ql/ha and
95.90Ql/ha was recorded in treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting. On the
basis of prevailing rates prices of inputs and outputs during the cropping season, the economic
analysis revealed that the highest mean net return of birr 55088.5 per hectare was recorded form the
plot that received blended fertilizers under row planting which is birr 45721 more than the net
returns from the control. At vertsol the second highest mean net benefit of birr 51112.7 per hectare
was obtained from plots that received Urea and Dap under row planting (Table 13). While in Nitosol
it was recorded 38362.7birr/ha from the treatments those receive urea and dap under row planting
(table 13). On the other hand, at vertsol and Nitosol the lowest net return (9367.5 birr/ha) and
(18163.7birr/ha) was obtained from the respective soil type with the control treatment (Table 4.16).
On the other hand the application of urea and dap under row planting showed higher net benefit next
to treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting. The analysis of the Marginal Rate

62
of Return (MRR) revealed that all the application of integrated fertilizers and the planting method on
the profitability of tef had MRR of greater than 100 which indicates tef production is profitable with
these all alternatives.

Table 4.16: Result of the Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) Analysis as influenced by
Integrated (blended fertilizers) under planting method on tef yield

Vertsoil
Treatments Treatment Gross Return TVC Net Net Return MRR
Description (birr/ha) (birr/ha) Return over control (%)
(Birr)
trt1 B.F,R.P 60991.5 5903 55088.5 45721 2708
trt2 B.F, B. S 47608.00 6643 40965.0 31597.6 1376

trt3 U & D, R.P 55622.7 4510 51112.7 41745.3 11695

trt4 U & D, B.S 41426.9 5493 35934.0 26566.6 2078
trt5 N.F, B.S 13517.4 4150 9367.4 Xxx Xxx

Nitosoil
Treatments Treatment Gross TVC Net Net Return MRR
Description Return (birr/ha) Return over control (%)
(birr/ha (Birr)
Treatments Treatment Gross TVC Net Net Return MRR
Description Return (birr/ha) Return over control (%)
(birr/ha) (Birr)
trt1 B.F,R.P 58218.5 5903 52315.5 34151.8 2048
trt2 B.F, B. S 45005.7 6643 38362.7 20199 910

trt3 U & D, R.P 52672 4510 48162 29998.3 8432

trt4 U & D, B.S 38843 5493 33350 15186.3 1230
trt5 N.F, B.S 22313.7 4150 18163.7 Xxx Xxx

63
B.F=Blended Fertilizers; R.P= Row Planting; B.S=Broadcast Sowing; U&D= Urea and Dap; N.F
=No Fertilizer; ; TVC=Total Variable Cost; MRR= Marginal Rate of Return

Table 4.17a: Total revenue analysis as influenced by integrated use of chemical

fertilizers and planting method

Vertsoil
Grain Straw
Gross
Grain Adj Price Revenue Straw Adj Price Revenue Return
yield Yield (Birr/Ql) (Birr/ha) yield Yield (Birr/Ql) (Birr/ha) SUM
Trt # Combinations (Ql/ha) (15% (1) (Ql/ha) (15% (2) (1+2)
less) less)
1 trt1 41.55 35.3 1250 44125 100.6 85.5 90 7695 51820

2 trt2 31.97 27.2 1250 34000 84.35 71.69 90 6452 40452

3 trt3 37.57 31.93 1250 39912.5 96.23 81.79 90 7361 47243

4 trt4 27.73 23.37 1250 29212.5 75.16 63.88 90 5749 34962

5 trt5 8.7 7.39 1250 9237.5 29.36 24.95 90 2245 11483

Nitosoil
Grain Straw
Gross
Grain Adj Price Revenue Straw Adj Price Revenue Return
yield Yield (Birr/Ql) (Birr/ha) yield Yield (Birr/Ql) (Birr/ha) SUM
Trt # Combinations (Ql/ha) (15% (1) (Ql/ha) (15% (2) (1+2)
less) less)
1 trt1 39.67 33.71 1250 42125 95.90 81.5 90 7335 49460

2 trt2 30.30 25.75 1250 32187.5 79.23 67.34 90 6060 38247.5

64
 3 trt3 35.78 30.41 1250 38012.5 88.3 75.05 90 6755 44767.5

4 trt4 26 22.10 1250 27625 70.48 59.90 90 5391 33016

5 trt5 14.58 12.39 1250 15487.5 45.43 38.61 90 3475 18962.5

Table 4.17b: Net Economic Profit

Vertsol soil
Revenue Revenue Gross Total Net
from from Return Cost Benefit
Trt # Combinations Grain Straw (a+b) (Birr/ha) (a+b)-(c)
(birr/ha) (birr/ha) (c)
(a) (b)
1 trt1 44125 7695 51820 5903 45917
2 trt2 34000 6452 40452 6643 33809
3 trt3 39912.5 7361 47273.5 4510 42764
4 trt4 29212.5 5749 34961.5 5493 29468
5 trt5 9237.5 2245 11482.5 4150 7332.5

Nitosol soil
Revenue Revenue Gross Total Net
from from Return Cost Benefit
Trt # Combinations Grain Straw (a+b) (Birr/ha) (a+b)-(c)
(birr/ha) (birr/ha) (c)
(a) (b)
1 trt1 42125 7335 49469 5903 43566
2 trt2 32187.5 6060 38247.5 6643 31605.5
3 trt3 38012.5 6755 44767.5 4510 40257.5
4 trt4 27625 5391 33016 5493 27523

65
 5 trt5 15487.5 3475 18962.5 4150 14812.5

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendation

Supplying food for the rapidly increasing population is one of the major problems of today in sub-
Saharan countries. In Ethiopia, low soil fertility is one of the factors limiting the productivity of
crops, including tef. Unless something is done to restore soil fertility first, other efforts to increase
crop production could end up with little success. Hence, sustaining soil fertility in intensive cropping
systems for higher yields of better quality can be achieved through optimum levels of fertilizer
applications. Thus, information on soil fertility status of soils and crop response to different soil
fertility management is very important to come up with profitable and sustainable crop production.
In line with this, research was undertaken to investigate the Agronomic and Economic effects of
blended fertilizers under planting method on yield and yield components of teff at wereda Laelay
Michew, Central zone during the 2011 cropping season.

Since teff is the staple food of most Ethiopian people, the present production system cannot satisfy
the consumers’ demand. This is because the farming system that farmers use is backward which is
not supported by modern technologies. This means the local people use broadcasting system rather
than using row sowing. Fertilizer usage plays a major role in the universal need to increase food
production to meet the demands of the growing world population. Blended Fertilizer application and
the row planting resulted in marked crop yield increases, which for most crops was more than
hundred percent.

At both soil type the Application of blended fertilizers under the planting method shows significant
difference in residual available P, K, exchange bases and micronutrients. But the soil N content after
harvesting averaged across blended fertilizers under planting method at both soil type showed no
significant (P> 0.05) among the treatments. The results further showed that the total N of the soil
after harvest was correlated negatively and significantly with applied levels of N fertilizer. This

66
indicated that applied N fertilizer played little or no role at bringing of significant difference of the
soil N content which could be due to the mobility and different way of N loss from the soil. However
P and K in the soil after harvest were positively and significantly correlated. The probable reason
was related with immobile nature of P and the retention capacity of the soil, possible by Ca since
arid soils generally have high Ca content. The result shows that day to 50% emergence, 50%
heading and 75% maturity was not significantly (P< 0.05) influenced by blended fertilizers and the
planting method. Generally at both soil type and at all treatments the application of source of
fertilizers under the planting method shows significant difference to plant height, panicle length,
spike length, tillering no , seed weight/panicle, lodging%, grain yield, straw yield and harvest index
. At both soil type treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row planting and treatments that
receive urea and dap under row planting shows no significant difference in panicle length and
tillering no .the harvest index of treatments that receive blended fertilizers under row broadcast and
treatments that receive urea and dap under broadcast has no significant difference.

Generally at all soil type plant height, panicle length, spike length, seed weight/panicle, grain yield,
straw biomass, harvest index, and Tillering no, have positively and strongly correlated each other
except day to 50% emergency, 50% heading and 75% maturity.

At both soil types application of blended fertilizers under the planting method significantly (p <
0.05) affects grain yield of tef (Table1, 2). The application of blended fertilizers under row planting
would be the best choice as per the present finding for maximizing the tef production in the study
area. At vertsol treatments that received blended fertilizers under row planting is obtained 4155k/ha
and increased 30% and 378% over treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting and
check plots respectively. while at Nitosol treatments that received blended fertilizers under row
planting is obtained 39.67k/ha and increased 27% and 172% over treatments that receive urea and
dap under row planting and check plots respectively. Application of planting method within its
different complex fertilizer significantly (P< 0.05) affected the Straw yield (Table 1, 2). At vertsoil
the highest straw yield 100.6k/ha is obtained from treatment that receive blended fertilizers under
row planting and exceeds 20% over the plots that receive blended fertilizers under broadcast sowing,
while at Nitosol it was recorded 95.90k/ha and increased 21% over the treatments that receive
blended fertilizers under broadcast. furthermore, treatments that receive blended fertilizers under

67
row planting and treatments that receive urea and dap under row planting received the highest grain
yield and these two treatments would be the best choice as per the present finding for maximizing
the tef production in the study area.

However, with respect to net profit, application of blended fertilizers under row planting and
application of urea and dap under row planting are preferable. Validation of these results by either
repeating the experiment at multiple seasons, or through simulation modeling is recommended.
Although significant responses in terms of yield and yield components of DZ-01-387) were
observed with applied integrated fertilizers under planting method, it would be advisable to make
definite conclusions based on different locations for number of seasons through using different
improved tef varieties in the region. The difference in all yield and yield components is no briefly
known, do the difference is do to row planting or blended fertilizers. There should be a trial on
blended fertilizers alone row planting because this may affect the extrapolation of conclusion. As in
some other researches, response of tef to K was significant in this experiment. This may indicate the
need of K fertilizer application. However, farther investigation of the amount to be applied is
necessary. The soil of the site is alkaline (pH 8.33), whereas available P is very high which is
unexpected with such high pH. This may need a research on the chemical properties of the soil in
relation to nutrient availability.

68
 References

ADD/NFIU. Joint working paper No.43 December 1992. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Agricultural policy
workshop, Nairobi, Kenya, June 1999.
Akram, Z.,S.U. Ajmal and M. Munir,2008. Estimation of correlation coeffeciant among same yield
parameters of wheat under rainfed conditions. Pak. J.Bot.,40:1777-1781
Assefa Abegaz (2005). Farm Management in mixed crop –live stock systems in the Northern Attaullah
Khan*, Muhammad Arif, Asad Shah, Sajid Ali, Zahira Hussain and Sajjad Khan(2007) :evaluation
of planting methods for grain yield and yield components of wheat: Sarhad J. Agric. Vol. 23, No. 3,
2007.
Baldovinos, F., and GH. Thomas. 1979. The effect of soil clay content on P uptake. Soil
barely. Argon. J. 50:729-732.
Black C. A. (1992). Soil fertility evaluation and control. Lewis Publishers, USA.
Booker Tate Limited, 1991. Tropical soil manual A hand book for soil survey and Agricultural land
Brady, N.C. and R.R. Well, 2000. The nature and properties of soil. 13th ed. Person edication. Ltd. USA.
Bremner, J. M., and C. S. Mulvaney (1982). Methods of soil analysis: in Chemical and microbiological
properties, ASA Monograph number 9. . pp. 595-624
Burio, U.A., F.C. Oad and S.K. Agha, 2004. Correlation coefficient (r) value of growth and yield
components of wheat under different nitrogen level and placement. Asia J. Plant Sci.,3: 372-374
Chapman, H.D., 1965. Cation exchange capacity. In: C.A. Black, L.E. Ensminger and F.E Clark (eds).
Methods of soil analysis. American society of Agronomy. 9: 891-901
Chem. Lab.(chemical instruments Ltd.).1981. Continous flow analysis method. Sheet No
Collins, B.A. and D.B.Fowler, 2003 comparison of broadcast and drill methods for no till seeding winter
wheat.Can.J. plant Sci., 72:1001-1008.
CSA (2006). Agricultural sample survey 2005/06. Report on farm management Practices.
Statistical Bulletin .Volume I. Central statistical Authority, Addis Ababa.
Dass, B and R. Singh, 1979. Uptake of nutrients (N,P & K) by rain fed maize as affected by N
application and soil type. J. Indian soc. Soil sci. 27: 142-145.

69
Day P .R, (1965). Particle fractions and particle size analysis. pp. 546-566 .In: C A. Black (Ed)
David Wright, Jim Marois, and Jim Rich (2009) :Cotton Cultural Practices and Fertility Management.
Publication #SS-AGR-194.
Defoer, T., Budelman, A., Toulmin, C., and Carter,S.,E.,2000. Managing soil fertility in the tropics.
Amesterdam Netherland.
Delwiche, C.C., 1981. Mineralization, immobilization of Nitrogen Wiley, New York, London, Sydney,
Toronto.
DZARC (Debre- Zeit Agricultural Research center). 1988/89. Annual research achievement report.
Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia. 271p.
DZARC (Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center). 2001. Proceedings of the International workshop
on tef Genetics and improvement. Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. 315p.
E.A. Abd El-Lattief. 2011.Bread Wheat(Triticum aestium L.) productivity and profitability as affected
by method and seeding rate under Qena Environment. Asian Journal of Crop Scince 3(4): 188-
196,2011
EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization). 2000. Narrowing the rift. Tef research and
development. Proceeding of the International Workshop on Tef Genetics and Improvement, Debre
Zeit, Ethiopia.
Eshetayehu Tefera, 2001. Yield and Phosphorus Uptake of Maiz Varieties as Influenced By Phosphorus
Placement Methods on Andosol of Arsi Neggale Area. A Thesis Submitted to SGS, Alemaya
Universty. pp. 28-50
Eyasu Elias (2002).Farmers perceptions of soil fertility change and management. . Paper presented to
the evaluation in the tropics and subtropics.
Eylachew Zewdie. 1996. Effect of N and P fertilizers on bread wheat grain yield on three soil types in
Ethiopia proceeding of the 9th regional wheat workshop for eastern Central and southern Africa,
CIMMY: AA, Ethiopia. 163p
FAO, 1998. Efficient fertilizer use in summer rain fed area. Food and Agriculture Orgaization of the
United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO., 2000. Fertilizers and their use 4th ed. International Fertilizer Industry association. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

70
Fassil.K and Charles.Y 2009. Soil fertility status and Numass Fertilizer recommendation of Typic
Hapluusters in the northern High lands of Ethiopia. World applied Science Journal 6(11): 1473-
1480.2009.
Follet, R.H., 1981. Fertilizer and soil amendment. Pretice, USA.
Foth, H.D., 1990. Fandamental of soil Scince, 8th Ed. John Wiley and Sons.Inc., Newyork, USA. 360p.
Fufa Hundera, Tesfa Bogale, Hailu Tefera, Kebebew Assefa, Tiruneh Kefyalew, Abera Debelo and
Seyfu Ketema, 2001. Agronomy research in tef. pp. 167-176. In: Hailu Tefera, Getachew Belay and
Mark Sorrels (eds.). Narrowing the rift. Tef Research and Development. Proceeding of the
nternational Workshop on Tef genetics and Improvement, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, 16-19 October 2000.
Gomez, A.K., and A.A. Gomez, 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research (2nd ed.). A Wily-
Inter science publication. John Wiley and sons. 680p.
Gooding M.J., and W.P., Davies, 1993. Wheat production and utilization system, quality and
environment. CAB international, USA.
Grant, C. A., Jia, S., Brown, K. R., and Bailey, L. D. 1996. Volatile losses of NH 3 from surface applied
urea and urea ammonium nitrate with and without the urease inhibitor NBPT. Can. J. Soil Sci.
76:417-419.
G.Grmay, H. Mitiku, and B.R.Singh (2009) Agronomic and economic performance of reservoir
sediment for rehabilitating degraded soils in Northern Ethiopia. Nutrient cycle Agroecosyst (2009)
84: 23-38.
Grunes .D.L, and B.A, Krutz., 1983. N Fertilizer increases N,P and K concentration in barely. Argon. J.
50:729-732.
1 2
Haftamu Gebretsadik , Mitiku Haile and *Charles F. Yamoah2 (2009). Tillage Frequency, Soil
Compaction and N-Fertilizer Rate Effects on Yield of Teff (Eragrostis Tef (Zucc) Trotter) in Central
Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Volume 1 (1): 82 – 94, 2009
HO, C.T, 1992. Results of fertilizer trial conducted on major cereal crops (1988-91) by
http:/www. Sasupern. Edu/Africa studies/eue web/undp pl.htm#top. Institute for sustainable
development, Addis Ababa.
Jan, M.T.,H. Ali and A. Jan, 2001 influence of sowing method and mulching on yield and yield
components of wheat. Pak.J. Bio.Sci.,4: 657-659

71
Kebebew Asefa, 1991. Effects of some synthetic plant growth regulators on lodging and other
agronomic and morphological characters of tef [Eragrostis tef, (Zucc.) Trotter]. M.Sc. Thesis,
Alemaya University of Agriculture, Alemaya, Ethiopia. 292p.

Kirby, E.A. 1985. Nitrogen Nutrition of the plants. The University of Leed Press, Leed.
Landon J. K (1991). Booker tropical soil manual. A handbook for survey and Agricultural land.

Kotal, B.D., A. Das and B.K Choudhury, 2010. Genetic variability and association of characters
in wheat(Triticum aestivum). Asia J. Crop Sci., 2: 155-160

Lemlem Aregu, Temesgen Adenew, and Likyelesh Gugsa.2002. To ward farmers participatory research:
Attempts and achievements in the central high land of Ethiopia. Proceeding of client-oriented
research evaluation work shop, 16-18 October 2001. Holetta Agricultural research Center, Holetta,
Ethiopia.
Lizabeth Stahl, Jeff Coulter, and David Bau (2009): Narrow-Row Corn Production in Minnesota

Long, O.H., and C. Sherbakoff. 1981. Effect on N, of yield and quality of wheat. Argon. J. 43:320-321.
Lume area of Ethiopia. Tropical Agriculture (Trindad) 72:165-169.
Mallarino, A.P, and A.M. Blackmer. 1992. Comparison of method of determining critical concentration
of soil test phosphorous for corn. AM. argon .J84 : 850-856.
Martin, A. P. 1993. Tropical soil and fertilizer use. Intermediate tropical agriculture series.
University of Nairibi, Kenya.2000.
Mehtab, S.K, 1972. The effect on P uptake by plants soil sci.Soc. Proc. 36:55-57.
Memon s.q., mirza b. baig, mari g.r (2007). Tillage practices and effect of sowing methods on growth
and yield of maize crop: vol. 40 (3) 2007.
Mennan,H. and B.H. Zandstra, 2005. Influence of wheat seeding rate and cultivars on computetive
ability of Bifra(Bifora radians). Weed technol ., 19:128-136
Mengle, K. and E.A., Kirby, 1987. Principle of plant nutrition. Der. Bund AG, Bem, Swizerland’s. PP.
360-376.
Miller, R.W., and R.L. Donahue, 1995. Soils in our environment (7th ed). Prentice, Hall Englewood
cliffs, New Jersey. 648p.

72
Mishra, M. K. J and R. C, Tiwari. 2001. Effect of seeding methods and fertilizer application on weed
biomass and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Indian J. Agron. 44(2): 353-356.
Mitiku Haile., 1983. Assessment of the availability of Soil P in Alfisols and Vertisol at ICRISAT center
of sorghum growth. M.Sc. Thesis presented to the school of graduate studies, Addis Ababa
University. 107p.
Mnkeni, P.N. J.M. Semoka, and D. Makamba. 1995. Bio available P status in some benchmark soils of
Morongo district, Tanzanian, Norwegian J.Agri. Sci. No.21:108-115.
Mulatu Demeke (1999). Agricultural technology, economic viability, and poverty alleviation in
Mulugeta Gezehagn., 2003. Response of Tef [Eragrostis tef (zucc) Trotter.] To Applied Nitrogen and
Phosphorous in Vertisol of Raya Vally, South Tigray.
Munsell color Company. 1975. Munsell soil color charts. Munsell color company Inc. Baltimore 18.
Mar land, USA.

NMA (National Meteorology Agency), Mekelle branch, 2011.

Olsen, S.R., C.V. Cole, F.S. Watanabe, and L.A. Dean, 1954. Estimation of Phosphorus in soils by
extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA, Circular 939.
Ouyang, D.S., A.F. Mackenzief and M.X. Fan. 1999. Availability of banded triple supper phosphate
with urea and phosphate use efficiency by corn date on maize. 5(3):10.
Oyewole C. I., Ajayi. O. and Ojuekaiye. R O. (2010): evaluation of yields of seven upland rice (oryzae
sativa) cultivars sown by three methods in anyigba, kogi state, Nigeria: African Journal of
Agricultural Research Vol. 5(16), pp. 2089-2096, 18 August, 2010
Peterson, C, L, E drink water and P. Wango 1999. The Rodale Institute farming System trial. The
Rodale Institute.
Power, J.F., 1983. Recovery of nitrogen and and phosphorous after 17 year from various fertilizer
materials applied to crested wheat grass. Am. Argon J.75 (2) : 249-254.
Reddy, M.S., and kidane Georgis. 1993. Dry land farming research in Ethiopia: review of the past and
thrust in nineties. IAR, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Seyfu Ketema, (1993). Tef (Eragrostis tef): breeding, genetic resource, agronomy utilization and role in
Ethiopia agriculture. Institute of Agricultural Research, Addis Ababa. 147p.

73
Seyfu Ketema., 1997.Tef:[Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)Trotter]. Promoting the conservation and use of under
utilized and neglected crops, 12.Institute of plant genetics and crop plant research, Gatersieben /
International plant genetics resource institute, Rome Italy.
Singh, B., and S.R. Bishoni. 1993. Determination of critical level of available soil phosphorous for
maize. J.Indian Soc. Soil Sci.41:501-503.
Singh, R.Y., Singh, S.S., Prihar and P. Singh. 1975. Effect of N fertilization on yield and water
efficiency on dry land winter wheat as affected by stored water and rainfall. Agron.J.67:593_603.
Singh, V.R., Singh, and G.S. Sekhou. 1977. Uptake of primary nutrients by dry land wheat as influenced
by N fertilization in relation to the soil type, profile water storage and rain fall .J. Indian Soc.soil Sci.
25:142-145.
Singh. A., R, Chhabra, and J.P. Abrol. 1979. Effect of Fluorine and P applied to a sodic soil their
availability and on yield and chemical composition of wheat. Soil Sci. 128:90-97.
Smith, B.F. and D.C. Bain, 1982. A sodium hydroxide fusion method for the determination of total
phosphate in soils. Soil sci. and plant analysis. 13:185-190
Tanner, D.G. 1992. The effect of N and P fertilizers on cereal crops and soil parameters of small holder
bread wheat in Ethiopia. In proceeding of the seventh regional wheat workshop for eastern, central
and southern Africa, CIMMYT. 422-427p.
Tanveer, S.K., I. Husssain, M. Sohail, N.S. Kissana and S.G. Abbas. 2003. Effect of different planting
methods on yield and yield components of wheat. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2(10): 811-813
Tareke Berhe* and Nigusse Zena(2008). Results in a trial of system of teff intensification ( sti ) at debre
zeit, Ethiopia
Tekalign Mammo, Teklu Erkossa and Balesh Tulema. 2001. Soil Fertility and Plant Nutrition research
on Tef in Ethiopia. Pp. 199-200. In: Hailu Tefera, Getachew Belay and Mark Sorrels (eds.).
Narrowing the Rift. Tef Research and Development. Proceeding of the International Workshop on
Tef genetics and Improvement, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia, 16-19 October 2000.

Tekalign Mamo, Selamyihun Kidane, Mesfin Abebe, and Teklu Erkossa. 2002. Reviw of the studies
conducted on tef \ : Experience of the Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia. 22pp.
Temesgen Kassa., 2001. Effect of sowing date and nitrogen fertilization on yield related traits of tef
(Eragrostis tef) on vertisols of Kobo area, North Wollo. M.Sc. Thesis presented to Alemaya
University. 67p.

74
Tisdale, L.S., L.W. Nelson, D.J. Beaton and J.L. Haulin, 2002. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers.Macmillan
publishing campany. NewYork, Toronto, Oxford and Singapore. 633p.
Tomar, S.K., Response of rainfed wheat to sowing methos and seed rate under diara land condition .
Madras Agri.J. 91: 47:51
Tsidale, S.L. W.L Nelson. 1993. Soil fertility and fertilizer (5th ed.). Macmillan publishing company,
USA. 648p.
Tulema, B.et.al. "Availability of organic nutrient sources and their effects on yield and nutrient recovery
of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] and on soil properties" In:J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2007, 170,
543–550.
Tu r k MA., Ta w a h a AM. (2001). Common vetch productivity as influenced by rate and method of
phosphate placement in Mediterranean environment. Agric. Mediterr. 131, p. 108–111.
Turkestan. H. ″The Netherlands Company Soil and Crop S&C says it is wrongly accused of bio-piracy
to patent Ethiopian grain Teff”.2008.http://www.tigraionline.com/sandc_responds.html.
UNDP (2002). UNDP assistance in the fifth country program to the agricultural sector.
USDA (2003). Main crop zones of Ethiopia. Production estimates and crop assessment division
Von Reeuwijk, L.P., 1992. Procedures for soil analysis. International soil reference and information
center (ISRIC) Wageningen, The Netherlands. 23p.
Whiteman P (1993). Dryland farming in Africa. In: Dry Land Farming in Africa (Rowland, J.R.J ed).
Macmillan London Press Ltd.

Wield, A. 1988. Plant nutrition in soil: Nitrogen in soil condition and plant growth, E, J.Russel (ed) 11th
ed. P.652-779.
Yihenew Gebreselassie, 2002. Selected chemical and physical characteristics of soil Adet research
center and its testing sites in northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiop.
YU, J.K. et al, "Expressed sequence tag analysis in tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter)" In:Genome 49:
365–372 (2006).

75
76
77
Appendix

Appendix Table 1. Years average maximum temperature (0C) of wereda Laelay maychew
Station Axum Element: Average Max Temperature 0c
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 28.01 30.5 30.8 32.4 32.4 30.1 27.1 24.7 26.9 27.5 29.0 28.1
2003 29.1 30.7 32.5 30.5 30.5 29.5 27.0 27.8 28.3 28.6 28.0 28.4
2004 28.8 28.7 29.0 30.9 31.9 29.7 12.5 28.2 27.2 28.2 28.2 28.3
2005 27.6 28.5 29.0 29.0 30.1 28.8 27.5 28.2 28.7 28.7 27.9 28.2
2006 28.4 28.8 29.6 29.6 29.0 28.8 28.0 24.4 25.6 28.2 27.8 27.7
2007 28 28.1 29.1 29.1 29.8 28.7 26.8 28.0 27.0 27.4 27.4 27.0
2008 26.9 27.7 28.5 28.2 28.4 28.1 25.8 24.8 24.2 25.4 25.5 25.4
2009 27.4 27.7 30.6 27.9 30.2 28.9 25.6 24.6 26.1 25.9 27.2 28.3
2010 27.0 28.4 29.2 29.2 29.4 28.4 28.9 26.7 25.7 26.0 25.3 24.9
2011 26.1 26.3 29.1 29.6 29.9 29.5 26.0 25.2 25.2 24.0 22.9 22.0
Source: National metrology agency Mekelle branch office (2011)
Appendix Table 2. Years average maximum temperature (0C) of wereda Laelay maychew
Station Axum Element: Average Minimum Temperature 0c

78
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 9.1 10.8 12.4 13.2 12.9 14.3 13.8 13.7 12.2 12.0 11.9 10.4
2003 7.4 10.8 12.0 11.1 11.8 13.3 12.9 14.5 14.3 12.2 10.4 9.1
2004 9.7 9.9 10.1 13.3 13.7 12.5 12.0 13.1 12.4 11.8 10 15.1
2005 7.4 10.6 11.9 13.2 12.4 12.4 12.7 12.9 11.7 10.7 9.9 8.9
2006 9.3 10.9 10.8 11.6 11.6 11.7 10.7 13.2 11.5 10.1 9.3 8.7
2007 9.3 10.3 11.0 11.0 11.9 13.4 11.5 12.7 10.7 8.8 8.9 6.3
2008 9.5 9.0 9.4 9.4 12.7 11.4 12.0 12.5 11.1 9.6 7.2 7.5
2009 6.9 10.0 12.2 12.2 13.5 14.7 12.5 12.8 11.7 11.0 10.4 8.4
2010 8.0 9.4 10.8 10.6 11.2 10..8 10.7 12.5 10.5 9.2 7.3 7.1
2011 8.5 8.6 11.9 9.7 13.3 13.8 11.7 12.0 10.5 7.6 7.3 4.8
Source: National metrology agency Mekelle branch office (2011).

Appendix Table 3. Years average monthly rainfall (mm) of wereda Laelay maychew
Station Axum Element: Monthly total rainfall
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002 0 8.8 10 15.3 9.2 31.1 102.3 96.5 50.6 1.3 1.8 27.7
2003 2.5 8.5 2.4 8.3 12.2 126.1 322.7 209.1 89.6 1.4 3.7 0
2004 18.2 3.8 3.9 41 0 132.4 269.9 173.6 16.8 24.4 34.8 0
2005 0 0 129.7 86 5.1 85.4 176.6 226 67.2 0 0 0
2006 0 0 0 31.1 61 86.5 230.7 240.6 123.9 9.5 0 30.5
2007 0 0 7 10.9 35.5 112.6 428.1 272.8 154.3 0 6.1 0
2008 38.5 0 0 85.2 41.3 102.3 161.8 174.7 49.9 1.5 6.8 0
2009 0 0 0.9 6 8.6 35.6 231.9 288.6 1.8 0 2.9 0
2010 1.2 0 54.2 36.3 17.3 109.4 209.4 223.2 137.5 20.3 0 0
2011 1.2 0 1.9 7.9 58.7 13.5 204.2 151.1 93.7 3.4 11.8 0
Source: National metrology agency Mekelle branch office (2011).

Appendix table 4: Critical values of soil organic carbon

Nutrients Critical value Description

79
 >1.7% Good
SOM 0.9-1.7% Deficient
<0.9 poor
Source: Defoer et al, (2000)
Appendix table 5. Critical values of soil ph adapted from foth and Ellis (1991)

Critcal value Description

<4.5 Extremely acidic
4.5-5 Very strongly acidic
5.1-5.5 Strongly acidic
5.6-6 Moderately acidic
6.1-6.5 Slightly acidic
6.6-7.3 neutral
7.4-7.8 Slightly alkaline
7.9-8.4 Moderately alkaline
8.5-9.0 Strongly alkaline
>9.1 Very strongly alkaline
Soufrce: foth and Ellis (1991

Appendix table 6: Critical values of soil nitrogen and phosphorus adapted from London (1991)
Nutrients Critical value Description
>1% Very high
0.5-1% high
Nitrogen 0.2-0.5% medium
0.1-0.2% low
<0.1% Very low
<5ppm low
Phosphorus 5-15ppm medium
>15ppm high

80
Appendix Table 7. Relationship between Agronomic attributes

50%E 50%H 75%M P.H P.L S/P S.L T.N L% S.Y G.Y H.I
50%E 1.0000 0.5976 0.4880 -0.9462 -0.9753 -0.9793 -0.9642 -0.9654 -0.1557 -0.9884 -0.9864 -0.9708
50%H 0.5976 1.0000 0.9915 -0.8210 -0.7488 -0.7206 -0.7225 -0.4966 -0.8747 -0.6578 -0.6093 -0.6725
75%M 0.4880 0.9915 1.0000 -0.7399 -0.6566 -0.6252 -0.6297 -0.3836 -0.9269 -0.5554 -0.5029 -0.5742
P.H -0.9462 -0.8210 -0.7399 1.0000 0.9920 0.9854 0.9786 0.8887 0.4657 0.9689 0.9496 0.9626
P.L -0.9753 -0.7488 -0.6566 0.9920 1.0000 0.9946 0.9855 0.9299 0.3624 0.9885 0.9744 0.9746
S/P -0.9793 -0.7206 -0.6252 0.9854 0.9946 1.0000 0.9925 0.9433 0.3253 0.9940 0.9864 0.9867
S.L -0.9642 -0.7225 -0.6297 0.9786 0.9855 0.9925 1.0000 0.9374 0.3424 0.9874 0.9830 0.9878
T.N -0.9654 -0.4966 -0.3836 0.8887 0.9299 0.9433 0.9374 1.0000 0.0633 0.9611 0.9754 0.9616
L% -0.1557 -0.8747 -0.9269 0.4657 0.3624 0.3253 0.3424 0.0633 1.0000 0.2522 0.1936 0.2716
S.Y -0.9884 -0.6578 -0.5554 0.9689 0.9885 0.9940 0.9874 0.9611 0.2522 1.0000 0.9961 0.9853
G.Y -0.9864 -0.6093 -0.5029 0.9496 0.9744 0.9864 0.9830 0.9754 0.1936 0.9961 1.0000 0.9894
H.I -0.9708 -0.6725 -0.5742 0.9626 0.9746 0.9867 0.9878 0.9616 0.2716 0.9853 0.9894 1.0000

Appendix tables A. Analysis of variance yield and yield components of tef vertsoil
Appendix A1: Analysis of Variance of tillering no
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 180.26667 45.0667 67.6000
Error 10 6.66667 0.6667 Prob > F
C. Total 14 186.93333 <.0001
RSquare 0.964337
RSquare Adj 0.950071

Appendix A2: Analysis of Variance of 50% emergency

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 18.000000 4.50000
Error 10 0.000000 0.00000 Prob > F

81
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
C. Total 14 18.000000
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix A3: Analysis of Variance of 50% heading

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 50.4 00000 12.6000 8.64e+13
Error 10 0.000000 0.0000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 50.400000 <.0001

RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix A4: Analysis of Variance of 75% maturity

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 302.40000 75.6000
Error 10 0.00000 0.0000 Prob > F

RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix A5: Analysis of Variance of plant height

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 13941.600 3485.40
Error 10 0.000 0.00 Prob > F
C. Total 14 13941.600
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

82
Appendix A6: Analysis of Variance of panicle length
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1825.0667 456.267 977.7143
Error 10 4.6667 0.467 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1829.7333 <.0001
RSquare 0.99745
RSquare Adj 0.996429

Appendix A7: Analysis of variance of seed weight/panicle

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 4.3152267 1.07881 1139.585
Error 10 0.0094667 0.00095 Prob > F
C. Total 14 4.3246933 <.0001
RSquare 0.997811
RSquare Adj 0.996935

Appendix A8: Analysis of variance of spike length

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 360.26667 90.0667 270.2000
Error 10 3.33333 0.3333 Prob > F
C. Total 14 363.60000 <.0001
RSquare 0.990832
RSquare Adj 0.987165

Appendix A9: Analysis of variance of lodging percentage

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1.1877600 0.296940 14847
Error 10 0.0002000 0.000020 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1.1879600 <.0001
RSquare 0.999832

83
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
RSquare Adj 0.999764

Appendix A10: Analysis of variance for Straw biomass

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 9760.2449 2440.06 11906.22
Error 10 2.0494 0.20 Prob > F
RSquare 0.99979
RSquare Adj 0.999706

Appendix A11: Analysis of Variance for grain yield

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1956.5983 489.150 4605.639
Error 10 1.0621 0.106 Prob > F
RSquare 0.999457
RSquare Adj 0.99924
Appendix A12: Analysis of variance of harvest index
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00695922 0.001740 194.5364
Error 10 0.00008943 0.000009 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00704865 <.0001

RSquare 0.987312
RSquare Adj 0.982237

Appendix B1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance of 50%emergency

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 21.600000 5.40000 2.361e15
Error 10 0.000000 0.00000 Prob > F

84
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
C. Total 14 21.600000 <.0001
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix B2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance of 50%heading

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 81.600000 20.4000 9.345e13
Error 10 0.000000 0.0000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 81.600000 <.0001
RSquare 1
Appendix B3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance of 75%maturity
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 162.00000 40.5000 .
Error 10 0.00000 0.0000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 162.00000 .
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1
Appendix B4: Nitosol: Analysis of variance of plant height
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 4764.6667 1191.17 893.3750
Error 10 13.3333 1.33 Prob > F
C. Total 14 4778.0000 <.0001
RSquare 0.997209
RSquare Adj 0.996093

Appendix B5: Analysis of panicle length

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 773.73333 193.433 131.8864
Error 10 14.66667 1.467 Prob > F
C. Total 14 788.40000 <.0001

85
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
RSquare 0.981397
RSquare Adj 0.973956

Appendix B6: Analysis of seed weight/panicle

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 3.6893067 0.922327 2385.328
Error 10 0.0038667 0.000387 Prob > F
C. Total 14 3.6931733 <.0001
RSquare 0.998953
RSquare Adj 0.998534

Appendix B7: Analysis of spike length

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 120.26667 30.0667 90.2000
Error 10 3.33333 0.3333 Prob > F
C. Total 14 123.60000 <.0001
RSquare 0.973031
RSquare Adj 0.962244

Appendix B8: Analysis of tillering no

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 168.40000 42.1000 78.9375
Error 10 5.33333 0.5333 Prob > F
C. Total 14 173.73333 <.0001
RSquare 0.969302
RSquare Adj 0.957022

Appendix B9: Analysis of lodging percentage

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1.2749333 0.318733 7968.333

86
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Error 10 0.0004000 0.000040 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1.2753333 <.0001
RSquare 0.999686
RSquare Adj 0.999561

Appendix B10: Analysis straw biomass

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 4559.0918 1139.77 4163.402
Error 10 2.7376 0.27 Prob > F
C. Total 14 4561.8294 <.0001
RSquare 0.9994
RSquare Adj 0.99916

Appendix B11: Analysis of grain yield

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1133.8983 283.475 4535.593
Error 10 0.6250 0.063 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1134.5233 <.0001
RSquare 0.999449
RSquare Adj 0.999229

Appendix B12: Analysis of harvest index

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

87
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00709200 0.001773 18.3903
Error 10 0.00096409 0.000096 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00805609 0.0001
RSquare 0.880327
RSquare Adj 0.832458

Appendix C1: Analysis of variance of total Nitrogen in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00010667 0.000027 2.0000
Error 10 0.00013333 0.000013 Prob > F
RSquare 0.444444
RSquare Adj 0.222222

Appendix C2: Analysis of variance of Available Phosphorus in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 38.433960 9.60849 15497.56
Error 10 0.006200 0.00062 Prob > F
C. Total 14 38.440160 <.0001
RSquare 0.999839
RSquare Adj 0.999774

Appendix C3: Analysis of variance of available K is soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 23.225760 5.80644 3599.033
Error 10 0.016133 0.00161 Prob > F
C. Total 14 23.241893 <.0001
RSquare 0.999306
RSquare Adj 0.999028

88
Appendix C4: Analysis of variance of Fe in soil after harvest
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 14.008040 3.50201 47754.68
Error 10 0.000733 0.00007 Prob > F
C. Total 14 14.008773 <.0001

RSquare 0.999948
RSquare Adj 0.999927

Appendix C5: Analysis of variance of Fe in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 24.632973 6.15824 32990.59
Error 10 0.001867 0.00019 Prob > F
C. Total 14 24.634840 <.0001
RSquare 0.999924
RSquare Adj 0.999894

Appendix C6: Analysis of variance of Zn in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.14197333 0.035493 253.5238
Error 10 0.00140000 0.000140 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.14337333 <.0001
RSquare 0.990235
RSquare Adj 0.986329

Appendix C7: Analysis of variance of Cu in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.42102667 0.105257 171.6141
Error 10 0.00613333 0.000613 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.42716000 <.0001
RSquare 0.985642

89
RSquare Adj 0.979898

Appendix D1: Analysis of variance of total Nitrogen in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00004000 0.000010 0.2500
Error 10 0.00040000 0.000040 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00044000 0.9032
RSquare 0.090909
RSquare Adj -0.27273

Appendix D2: Analysis of variance of available P in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 37.687573 9.42189 8888.579
Error 10 0.010600 0.00106 Prob > F
C. Total 14 37.698173 <.0001
RSquare 0.999719
RSquare Adj 0.999606

Appendix D3: Analysis of variance of available K in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 9.5817733 2.39544 793.1932
Error 10 0.0302000 0.00302 Prob > F
C. Total 14 9.6119733 <.0001
RSquare 0.996858
RSquare Adj 0.995601

Appendix D4: Analysis of variance of Fe in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Sq Mean Squ F Ratio
Model 4 6.0546933 1.51367 1009.116

90
Source DF Sum of Sq Mean Squ F Ratio
Error 10 0.0150000 0.00150 Prob > F
C. Total 14 6.0696933 <.0001
RSquare 0.997529
RSquare Adj 0.99654

Appendix D5: Analysis of variance of Mn in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 29.802400 7.45060 5644.394
Error 10 0.013200 0.00132 Prob > F
C. Total 14 29.815600 <.0001
RSquare 0.999557
RSquare Adj 0.99938

Appendix D6: Analysis of variance of Zn after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.15130667 0.037827 71.8228
Error 10 0.00526667 0.000527 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.15657333 <.0001

RSquare 0.966363
RSquare Adj 0.952908

Appendix D7: Analysis of variance of Cu in soil after harvest

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.25440000 0.063600 102.5806
Error 10 0.00620000 0.000620 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.26060000 <.0001

RSquare 0.976209
RSquare Adj 0.966692

91
Appendix E1: Vertsoil: Analysis of variance N concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 0.36094293 0.090236 142.9137
Error 10 0.00631400 0.000631 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.36725693 <.0001
RSquare 0.982808
RSquare Adj 0.975931

Appendix E2: Vertsoil: Analysis of variance of Phosphorus concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 3291000.9 822750 25393.53
Error 10 324.0 32 Prob > F
C. Total 14 3291324.9 <.0001

RSquare 0.999902
RSquare Adj 0.999862

Appendix E3: Vertsoil: Analysis of variance K concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 61125000 15281250 .
Error 10 0 0 Prob > F
C. Total 14 61125000 .
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix E4: Vertsoil: Analysis of variance Mg concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

92
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 196321.73 49080.4 1677.008
Error 10 292.67 29.3 Prob > F
C. Total 14 196614.40 <.0001
RSquare 0.998511
RSquare Adj 0.997916

Appendix E6: Vertsoil: Analysis of variance Zn concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.31268907 0.078172 2818.712
Error 10 0.00027733 0.000028 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.31296640 <.0001
RSquare 0.999114
RSquare Adj 0.998759

Appendix F1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance N concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 0.21270667 0.053177 215.5811
Error 10 0.00246667 0.000247 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.21517333 <.0001

RSquare 0.988536
RSquare Adj 0.983951

Appendix F2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance P concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

93
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 257590.40 64397.6 2502.497
Error 10 257.33 25.7 Prob > F
C. Total 14 257847.73 <.0001
RSquare 0.999002
RSquare Adj 0.998603

Appendix F3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance K concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 255036000 63759000 .
Error 10 0 0 Prob > F
C. Total 14 255036000 .
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix F4: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Mg concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 7289.0667 1822.27 74.2772
Error 10 245.3333 24.53 Prob > F
C. Total 14 7534.4000 <.0001
RSquare 0.967438
RSquare Adj 0.954414

Appendix F5: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Zn concentration of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.11830227 0.029576 1365.026
Error 10 0.00021667 0.000022 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.11851893 <.0001
RSquare 0.998172
RSquare Adj 0.997441

94
Appendix G1: Vertsol: Analysis of variance N uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 9612.3254 2403.08 512.5223
Error 10 46.8873 4.69 Prob > F
C. Total 14 9659.2127 <.0001
RSquare 0.995146
RSquare Adj 0.993204

Appendix F2: Vertsol: Analysis of variance P uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 564.68319 141.171 36829.06
Error 10 0.03833 0.004 Prob > F
C. Total 14 564.72153 <.0001
Rsquare 0.999932
RSquare Adj 0.999905

Appendix F3: Vertsol: Analysis of variance K uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 32617.634 8154.41 19255.07
Error 10 4.235 0.42 Prob > F
C. Total 14 32621.869 <.0001
RSquare 0.99987
RSquare Adj 0.999818

Appendix F4: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Mg uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 58.428945 14.6072 2290.798
Error 10 0.063765 0.0064 Prob > F

95
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
C. Total 14 58.492710 <.0001
Rsquare 0.99891
RSquare Adj 0.998474

Appendix F5: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Zn uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00008048 0.000020 8312.397
Error 10 0.00000002 0.000000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00008050 <.0001
Rsquare 0.999699
RSquare Adj 0.999579

Appendix G1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance N uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 6022.9893 1505.75 1160.201
Error 10 12.9783 1.30 Prob > F
C. Total 14 6035.9676 <.0001
RSquare 0.99785
RSquare Adj 0.99699

Appendix G2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance P uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 44.437473 11.1094 5227.356
Error 10 0.021252 0.0021 Prob > F
C. Total 14 44.458725 <.0001
RSquare 0.999522
RSquare Adj 0.999331

96
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Appendix G3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance K uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 22217.834 5554.46 15362.98
Error 10 3.615 0.36 Prob > F
C. Total 14 22221.449 <.0001

RSquare 0.999837
RSquare Adj 0.999772

Appendix G4: Nitosol Analysis of variance Mg uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 32.334720 8.08368 2329.404
Error 10 0.034703 0.00347 Prob > F
C. Total 14 32.369423 <.0001
Rsquare 0.998928
RSquare Adj 0.998499

Appendix G5: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Zn uptake of tef straw

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00004851 0.000012 3550.01
Error 10 0.00000003 0.000000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00004854 <.0001
Rsquare 0.999296
RSquare Adj 0.999015

97
Appendix: H1: Vertsol: Analysis of variance N concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 1.4665733 0.366643 366.6433
Error 10 0.0100000 0.001000 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1.4765733 <.0001
RSquare 0.993228
RSquare Adj 0.990519

Appendix H2: Vertsol: Analysis of variance P concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 154880.93 38720.2 2581.349
Error 10 150.00 15.0 Prob > F
C. Total 14 155030.93 <.0001

RSquare 0.999032
RSquare Adj 0.998645

Appendix H3: Vertsol: Analysis of variance K concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 2100000.0 525000 .
Error 10 0.0 0 Prob > F
C. Total 14 2100000.0 .
Rsquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

98
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Appendix H4: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Zn concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 0.01670307 0.004176 666.3457
Error 10 0.00006267 0.000006 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.01676573 <.0001
RSquare 0.996262
RSquare Adj 0.994767

Appendix I1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance N concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 1.6115600 0.402890 616.6684
Error 10 0.0065333 0.000653 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1.6180933 <.0001
RSquare 0.995962
RSquare Adj 0.994347

Appendix I2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance P concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 372993.07 93248.3 7992.709
Error 10 116.67 11.7 Prob > F
C. Total 14 373109.73 <.0001
RSquare 0.999687
RSquare Adj 0.999562

99
Appendix I3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance K concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 150000.00 37500.0 .
Error 10 0.00 0.0 Prob > F
C. Total 14 150000.00 .
RSquare 1
RSquare Adj 1

Appendix I4: Nitosol Analysis of variance Mg concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 9673.7333 2418.43 180.4801
Error 10 134.0000 13.40 Prob > F
C. Total 14 9807.7333 <.0001
RSquare 0.986337
RSquare Adj 0.980872

Appendix I5: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Zn concentration of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 0.00800040 0.002000 234.3867
Error 10 0.00008533 0.000009 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00808573 <.0001
RSquare 0.989446
RSquare Adj 0.985225

100
Appendix J1: Vertsol: Analysis of variance N uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 12676.677 3169.17 1862.248
Error 10 17.018 1.70 Prob > F
C. Total 14 12693.695 <.0001
RSquare 0.998659
RSquare Adj 0.998123

Appendix J2: Vertsol: Analysis of variance P uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 215.47753 53.8694 4864.201
Error 10 0.11075 0.0111 Prob > F
C. Total 14 215.58828 <.0001
RSquare 0.999486
RSquare Adj 0.999281

Appendix J3: Vertsol: Analysis of variance K uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 898.45157 224.613 6794.307
Error 10 0.33059 0.033 Prob > F
C. Total 14 898.78216 <.0001
RSquare 0.999632
RSquare Adj 0.999485

Appendix J4: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Mg uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

101
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 23.030162 5.75754 5072.641
Error 10 0.011350 0.00114 Prob > F
C. Total 14 23.041512 <.0001
RSquare 0.999507
RSquare Adj 0.99931

Appendix J5: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Zn uptake of tef grain

RSquare 0.790544
RSquare Adj 0.706761

Appendix K1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance N uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 10275.749 2568.94 2494.535
Error 10 10.298 1.03 Prob > F
C. Total 14 10286.047 <.0001
RSquare 0.998999
RSquare Adj 0.998598

Appendix K2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance P uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 126.77277 31.6932 5664.027
Error 10 0.05596 0.0056 Prob > F
C. Total 14 126.82873 <.0001
RSquare 0.999559

102
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
RSquare Adj 0.999382

Appendix K3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance K uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 364.66268 91.1657 5073.215
Error 10 0.17970 0.0180 Prob > F
C. Total 14 364.84238 <.0001
RSquare 0.999507
RSquare Adj 0.99931

Appendix K4: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Mg uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 14.996594 3.74915 4387.651
Error 10 0.008545 0.00085 Prob > F
C. Total 14 15.005139 <.0001
RSquare 0.999431
RSquare Adj 0.999203

Appendix K5: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Zn uptake of tef grain

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00027303 0.000068 1.2733
Error 10 0.00053608 0.000054 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00080911 0.3431
RSquare 0.337449
Rsquare Adj 0.072428

Appendix L1: Vertsol: Analysis of variance total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

103
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 39652.967 9913.24 1271.949
Error 10 77.937 7.79 Prob > F
C. Total 14 39730.905 <.0001
RSquare 0.998038
RSquare Adj 0.997254

Appendix L2: Vertsol: Analysis of variance P total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 1189.4216 297.355 25248.22
Error 10 0.1178 0.012 Prob > F
C. Total 14 1189.5394 <.0001
RSquare 0.999901
RSquare Adj 0.999861

Appendix L3: Vertsol: Analysis of variance K total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 39747.976 9936.99 22843.4
Error 10 4.350 0.44 Prob > F
C. Total 14 39752.326 <.0001
RSquare 0.999891
RSquare Adj 0.999847

Appendix L4: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Mg total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 132.32273 33.0807 4207.351
Error 10 0.07863 0.0079 Prob > F
C. Total 14 132.40136 <.0001
RSquare 0.999406

104
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
RSquare Adj 0.999169

Appendix L5: Vertsol: Analysis of variance Zn total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 0.00055016 0.000138 2.5630
Error 10 0.00053664 0.000054 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00108681 0.1037
RSquare 0.506219
RSquare Adj 0.308706

Appendix M1: Nitosol: Analysis of variance N total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Model 4 32001.962 8000.49 3509.091
Error 10 22.799 2.28 Prob > F
C. Total 14 32024.762 <.0001
RSquare 0.999288
RSquare Adj 0.999003

Appendix M2: Nitosol: Analysis of variance P total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 319.17465 79.7937 10543.35
Error 10 0.07568 0.0076 Prob > F
C. Total 14 319.25033 <.0001
RSquare 0.999763
RSquare Adj 0.999668

105
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio

Appendix M3: Nitosol: Analysis of variance K total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 28159.955 7039.99 17481.42
Error 10 4.027 0.40 Prob > F
C. Total 14 28163.982 <.0001
RSquare 0.999857
RSquare Adj 0.9998

Appendix M4: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Mg total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 91.328887 22.8322 5650.86
Error 10 0.040405 0.0040 Prob > F
C. Total 14 91.369292 <.0001
RSquare 0.999558
RSquare Adj 0.999381

Appendix M5: Nitosol: Analysis of variance Zn total uptake of tef plant

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Ratio
Model 4 0.00049374 0.000123 2.3225
Error 10 0.00053147 0.000053 Prob > F
C. Total 14 0.00102522 0.1276
RSquare 0.4816
RSquare Adj 0.274239

106