Average Height of the Plant (cm)

Table 2 shows the average height of hot pepper. Among the treatments, Treatment 4 got
the highest plant height which was applied with mixture of vermi tea and guano tea having a
mean of 18.23 cm, followed by Treatment 3 with the mean of 17.42 cm, Treatment 2 with a
mean of 15.49cm, and Treatment 1 was the shortest with a mean of 14.1 cm.

Addition of bat guano tea to the organic fertilizer from vermicompost tea significantly
increased the stimulating effect of vermicompost tea on plant growth and development of both
model crops - winter rye and potato. This effect can be partially related to the increased
amounts of plant-available mineral nutrients from guano tea (Karlsons et al., 2015).

Treatment Treatment
Replication Total Mean
Treatment

1 2 3

1 14.28 12.78 15.24 42.3 14.1

2 16.14 15.89 14.44 46.47 15.49

3 18.49 16.17 17.59 52.25 17.42

4 17.54 18.10 19.06 54.7 18.23

Grand Total 195.72

Grand Mean 16.31

 Analysis of Variance shows that the computed F value is 9.662 which is greater than the
Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments on the average height of the plant.

Table 2a. Analysis of Variance on the average height (cm) of the plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 31.441 10.480 9.662 4.07 7.59

Error 8 8.678 1.085
Total 11 40.119

hs = highly significant

cv = 6.39%

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments. Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 were not significant to treatment 3 while
Treatment 4 is significant.

Table 2b. DMRT Table on Treatments of Table x (Plant height)

DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

T1 (Controlled) 14.1 a
T2 (Vermi Tea) 15.49 ab
T3 (Guano Tea) 17.42 bc
T4 (Mixture of Vermi Tea
and Guano Tea) 18.23 c
a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance

Average Number of Days to First Flower

The data presented in Table 3 shows the average number of days to first flower. It shows that Treatment
2, Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 was the earliest to bear flowers with a mean of 32 days and Treatment 1
were the latest to bear flowers with a mean of 33 days.

Table 3. Average number of days to first flower

Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 34 32 33 99 33

2 32 32 32 96 32

3 32 32 33 97 32

4 33 32 32 97 32
 Grand Total 389

Grand Mean 32

Analysis of Variance (Table 3a) shows that the computed F value is 1.267 which is lesser than the
Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference among the four
treatments on the average number of days to first flower.

Table 3a. Analysis of Variance on the average number of days to first flower

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 1.583 0.528 1.267 4.07 7.59

Error 8 3.333 0.417
Total 11 4.917

ns = not significant

cv = 1.99%

Average Number of Fruits per Plant

Table 4 shows the average number of fruits per plant. Result shows that Treatment 3 had the highest
number of fruits per plant with a mean of 50 pieces, followed by Treatment 4 with a mean of 43 pieces,
Treatment 2 with a mean of 36 pieces and Treatment 1 had the lowest number of fruits with a mean of 33
pieces.

It appears that the intake of guano tea significantly influenced the number of fruits per tomato plant (P
<0.0001). The increased in number of fruits could be attributed to the ability of guano tea to promote
vigorous growth, increase meristematic and physiological activities in the plants due to supply of plant
nutrient and improvement in the soil properties, thereby, resulting in the synthesis of more photo
assimilates which is used in producing fruits (Ali et. Al., 2019).

Table 4. Average Number of Fruits per plant

Treatment Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

1 2 3

1 34 32 32 98 33

2 37 35 36 108 36

3 51 49 51 151 50

4 43 42 43 128 43

Grand Total 485

Grand Mean 41

Analysis of Variance (Table 4a) shows the computed F value is 182.972 which is greater than the
Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant difference among the four
treatments on the average number of fruit.

Table 4a. Average Number of Fruits per Plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
 5% 1%

Treatment 3 548.917 182.972 182.972 4.07 7.59

Error 8 8.000 1.000
Total 11 556.917

hs = highly significant at 5% and 1% level

cv = 2.47 %

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among the four
treatments. Treatment 1 and 2 were not significant to Treatment 4 while Treatment 3 is significant.

Table No.4b. DMRT Table on Treatments of Table x (Number of Fruits per Plant)

DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

T1 (Controlled) 33 a
T2 (Vermi tea) 36 b
T3 (Guano tea) 50 d
T4 (Mixture of Vermi tea
and Guano tea) 43 c
a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance

Average Number of Days to First Harvest

Table 5 shows the average number of days to first harvest. The result shows that Treatment 3
had the shortest days to first harvest with a mean of 89 days, followed by Treatment 2 and
Treatment 4 with a mean of 90 days and the longest days to first harvest was Treatment 1 with a
mean of 91 days.

Average 5. Average number of days to first harvest

 Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 89 90 93 272 91

2 89 92 89 270 90

3 89 89 88 266 89

4 92 88 90 272 90

Grand Total 1080

Grand Mean 90

Analysis of Variance (Table 5a) shows that the computed F value is 0.724 which is lesser than
the Tabular F at 5 % and 1 %. This result implies that there is no significant difference among
the four treatments on the average number of days to first harvest.

Table 5a. Analysis of Variance on the average number of days to first harvest

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 6.333 2.111 0.724 4.07 7.59

Error 8 23.333 2.917
 Total 11 29.667

ns = not significant

cv = 1.90 %

Average Weight (g) of Yield per Treatment

Table 8 shows the average weight of fruit per treatment. The result shows that Treatment 3 got
the highest weight gain in grams with a mean of 121.43 grams, followed by Treatment 4 with a
mean of 90 grams, Treatment 2 with a mean of 70.48 grams and lastly, Treatment 1 with a
mean average of 32.45 grams.

A study conducted in Turkey during 2014-2015 revealed that application of Bat Guano has
significantly increased the total yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) (Aydin Can, Unal & Onur Can.,
2019).

Results of study on Wheat crop demonstrated that Bat Guano proved to be more effective than
farmyard manure by increasing thousand grain weight by 6%, number of spikes in m2 by 66%,
stem yield by 87%, grain yield by 35%, plant height by 8.4% and hectoliter weight by 5%
(Karagöz and Hanay .,2017).

Table 8. Average Weight (g) of fruits per treatment

Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 86.3 61.43 55.71 203.57 65.86

2 82.86 65.71 62.71 211.43 70.48

 3 135.71 114.29 114.29 364.29 121.43

4 81.43 107.14 81.43 270 90

Grand Total 1,049.29

Grand Mean 86.94

Analysis of Variance (Table 8a) shows that the computed F value is 9.718 which a greater than
the Tabular F at 5 % and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant difference
among the four treatments on the average weight of fruit.

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 5509.594 1836.531 9.718 4.07 7.59

Error 8 1511.923 188.990
Total 11 7021.517

hs = highly significant at 5 % and 1 % level

cv = 15.73 %

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among the four
treatments. Treatment 1, Treatment 2 and Treatment 4 were not significant while Treatment 3 is
significant.

Table No.8b. DMRT Table on Treatments of Table x (Number of Fruits per Plant)
 DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

T1 (specify what is your T1) 67.81 a

T2 (specify what is your T2) 70.43 a
T3 (specify what is your T3) 121.43 b
T4 (specify what is your T4) 90.00 a
a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance

Number of Branches

Table 3 shows the number of branches per plant. The result shows that Treatment 3 had the
greatest number of branches with a mean of 8, followed by Treatment 2 and Treatment 4 with
the same mean of 7 and the lesser number of branches is Treatment 1 with a mean of 6.

Table 3. Number of Branches per plant

Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 6 5 7 18 6

2 8 7 6 21 7

3 8 8 7 23 8

4 8 6 6 20 7
 Grand Total 82

Grand Mean 7

Analysis of Variance (Table 3a) shows that the computed F value is 1.576 which is lesser than
the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference among the
four treatments on the average number of branches.

Table 3a. Analysis of Variance on number of branches per plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 4.333 1.444 1.576 4.07 7.59

Error 8 7.333 0.917
Total 11 11.667

ns = not significant

cv = 14.01 %

Average Branches Diameter (dm)

Table 4 shows the branches diameter per plant. The result shows that Treatment 3 had the
greatest branches diameter with a mean of 3.08dm, followed by Treatment 4 with a mean of 2.8
and Treatment 2 with a mean of 2.51dm and the smallest branches diameter is Treatment 1 with
a mean of 2.42dm.
Table 4. Average Branch Diameter (dm)

Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 2.91 1.98 2.38 7.27 2.42

2 2.54 2.58 2.41 7.53 2.51

3 3.21 3.06 2.98 9.25 3.08

4 2.84 3.15 2.41 8.4 2.8

Grand Total 32.45

Grand Mean 2.70

Analysis of Variance (Table 3a) shows that the computed F value is 0.270 which is lesser than
the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference among the
four treatments on the average number of branches.

Table 4a. Analysis of Variance on the branches diameter of plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 0.809 0.270 2.858 4.07 7.59

 Error 8 0.755 0.094
Total 11 1.563

ns = not significant

cv = 11.36 %

Length of Fruits

Table 7 shows the length of fruit per plant. The result shows that Treatment 4 had the longest
length of fruit with a mean of 5.68 cm, followed by Treatment 2 with a mean of 5.66 cm,
Treatment 2 with a mean of 5.27 cm and the shortest length of fruit was Treatment 1 with a
mean of 4.94 cm.

Table 7. Average length (cm) of fruit

Treatment Treatment

Replication Total Mean

Treatment

1 2 3

1 5.72 4.47 4.57 14.76 4.92

2 5.82 4.74 5.26 15.82 5.27

3 5.57 5.38 6.02 16.97 5.66

 4 5.61 5.96 5.48 17.05 5.68

Grand Total 64.6

Grand Mean 5.38

Analysis of Variance (Table 7a) shows that the computed F value is 1.576 which is lesser than
the Tabular F at 5 % and 1 %. This result implies that there is no significant difference among
the four treatments on the average length of fruit.

Table 7a. Analysis of Variance on the length of fruit

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 4.333 1.444 1.576 4.07 7.59

Error 8 7.333 0.917
Total 11 11.667

ns = not significant

cv = 14.01 %

Bahar Aydin Can1, Mesude Unal2, Onur Can (2019): The Effects of Different Bat Guano Tea
Treatments on the Yield Quality in Lettuce Growing. International Journal of Agriculture and
Wildlife Science (IJAWS) doi: 10.24180/ijaws.481660.
Garane Ali, Koussao Some, Jeanne Nikiema, Mamoudu Traore, Mahamadou Sawadogo. Etude
du comportement de neuf cultivars de tomatoes (Solanum Lycopersicum L.) dans differentes
zones agro-ecologiques du Burkina Faso pendant I’hivernage. Journal of Animal & Plant
Sciences. 2019; 40(3):6656-6673. ISSN:2071-7024.
Karlsons A., Osvalde A., Andersone-Ozola U., Ievinsh G. (2015) Vermicompost tea from
municipal sewage sludge affects growth and mineral nutrition of winter rye (Secale cereale)
plants. Journal of Plant Nutrition. (in press)
Kevser Karagöz and AbdurrahmanHanay (2017): Effects of bat guano on some yield
param6eters of wheat. Academia Journal of Environmetal Science 5 (11): 200-206, November
2017 DOI: 10.15413/ ajes.2017.0609 ISSN: ISSN 2315-778X ©2017AcademiaPublishing