Girma Et Al

Girma et al

Greener Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol. 7 (9), pp. 255-262, November 2017.

ISSN: 2276-7770  

Research Article

Manuscript Number: 110917164

 

(DOI: http://doi.org/10.15580/GJAS.2017.9.110917164)

 

Response of Applied Phosphorus Fertilizer
Rate and Plant Spacing for Potato (Solanum tuberosum
 L.) Production on
Nitisols in Central Highland of Ethiopia

 

Girma Chala*1, Abebe
Chindi2 and Zeleke Obsa 2

 

1,2Holeta Agriculture Research
Centre, EIAR, P.O.Box 31, Holeta, Ethiopia

Abstract

 

The use of low phosphorus fertilize rate as well as
inappropriate plant spacing are one of the main factors constraining potato
production in Ethiopia. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted during the
2015 and 2016 main growing season in Welmera and Ada’a Berga district in the
central highland of Ethiopia. The experiment was aimed at determining the
effect of phosphorus fertilizer rates and plant spacing on yield and yield
components of potato. The treatments consisted of five phosphorus fertilizer
rate and four levels of plant spacing (65 cm x 30 cm, 75 cm x 30 cm, 85 cm x 30
cm and 95 cm x 30 cm). The experiment was laid out as a randomized complete
block design in a factorial arrangement and replicated three times. Analysis of
the results revealed that phosphorus fertilizer and plant spacing significantly
affected leaf area index, marketable tuber number, total tuber numbers, total
yields, specific gravity and tuber dry matter. However, days to follower and
days to maturity significantly affected by phosphorus fertilizer but did not
affect by plant spacing. Increasing or widening plant spacing significantly
reduced total as well as unmarketable tuber yields whereas decreasing or
narrowing it significantly increased this yield parameter. On the other hand,
increasing plant spacing significantly increased marketable tuber yields. In
conclusion, the phosphorus fertilizer and plant spacing produced the highest
tuber yields (ton ha-1) as well as marketable tuber yield in
response to planting at phosphorus fertilizer in the form of P2O5 115kg
ha-1 and spacing of 85 cm between rows and 30 cm between plants
for Belete variety was advisably.

 

Keywords: phosphorus fertilizer, plant spacing, potato.

Post-review Rundown

    View/get involved,
click
 [Post-Review Page]

References

 

Abebe, T., Lemaga, B., Mwakasendo, J A.,
Nzohabonayoz,Z., Mutware, J., Wanda, K.Y., Kinyae, P.M., Ortiz, O., Crissman,
C., Thiele, G. 2010. Markets for fresh and frozen potato chips in the ASARCA
region and the potential for regional trade: Ethiopia, Tanzania, Rwanda, Kenya,
Burundi and Uganda. Working Paper. International Potato Centre (CIP). Lima,
Peru, 44p.

 

Annad, S. and K. S. Krishnappa, 1989. Dry
matter accumulation and  nutrient uptake by potato cv.Kufri Badsha h
as  affected  by deferent levels of N and K in sandy loam soil. Mysore
Journal of Agricultural Sciences
.23: 65-70

 

Dechassa N., M. K. Schenk and N.
Steingrobe. 2003. Phosphorus Efficiency of Cobbage (Brassica oleraceae L.
var.capitata), Carrot, Carrot (Daucus carota L.), and Potato (Solanum
tuberosum
 L.). Plant and Soil, 250: 215-224.

 

ECSA,  2009. (Ethiopia Central of
Statistical Agency Anlaysis), Agricultural sample survey: Report on area and
production of crops, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. Pp. 126.

 

Ewing, E.E., 1997.Potato. In:
H.C.Wien(ed). The physiology of vegetable crops. UK, Cambridge. Pp. 295-344.

 

FDRE (The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia) 2011. Five Year Plan for Growth and Transformation (2011-2015). Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia: Ministry of Finance and Economic Development.

 

Gildemacher, P.R., W. Kaguongo O. Ortiz
Tesfaye Abebe, Gebremedhen Woldegiorgis. Wagoire,R.Kakuhenzire, P.M. Kinyae
M.Nyongesa P.C. Struik and C. Leeuwis 2009. Improving potato production in
Kenya,Uganda and Ethiopia: A System Diagnosis. Potato Research 52:173–205.

 

Haverkort, A.J., D. Uenk, H. Veroude and M. Vander Waart,
2012.
 Relation­ships between ground cover,
intercepted

solar radiation, leaf area index and
infrared reflectance of potato crops. Potato Research. 34: 113–121

 

Kleinkopf,G.E., D. T.Wester mananM.J. Willie, 1987.Specific gravity
o
Russet Burbank potatoes. American Potato Journal. 64: 579-587.

 

Lung’aho,
C., B. Lemaga, M. Nyongesa, P. Gildermacher, P. Kinyale, P. Demo, and J.
Kabira, 2007. Commercial           seed
potato production in eastern and central Africa. Kenya
Agricultural  Institute
. 140p.

 

Ngungi, D.N., 1982.
Agronomic concept of  potato with reference to increasing the potential
yield under tropical condition. In potato seed  production  for
Tropical Africa, (ed.) Nganga, S. and shiderler, F. CIP, Lima. Peru. PP. 13-16.

 

Perrenoud S. 1983. Potato-Fertilizers for
yield and quality. International Potash Institute, Bulletin No.8. Berne,
Switzerland.84p.

 

Singh, T.P. and K.B.
Singh, 1973. Association of grain yield and its components in segregations of
green gram. Indian J. Genetics. 33: 112-117.

 

Solomon, Yilama, 1985. Review of potato
research in Ethiopia. PP. 294 – 307. In: proceedings of 1st Ethiopian
Horticultural work shop. 20-22 February 1985, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

 

Tai, G. C., G. Misere, Alley  and L.
P. McMillan, 1985. GRAVA –O –TATER: A computer apparatus for measuring specific
gravity. American  Potato Journal. 62: 403-408.

 

Tekalign, Tsegaw, 2005. Response of potato
to paculobutrazol and manipulation of reproductive growth under tropical

conditions. PhD thesis..PP 2-3.

 

Thompson,  R. and  W.J. Kelly,
1983. Vegetable crops. 5th ed.  MC  Graw Hill Book
Co. Inc.,  New York pp. 372-404.

 

White, P. J., Bradshaw, J.E., Finaly, M.,
Dale B. and Ramsay, G. 2009. Relationships between yield and mineral
concentrations in potato tubers. Hort Science 44: 6-11.

 

William,  M.A. and G.W. Woodbury,
1968. Specific gravity dry matter relationship and reducing sugar changes
affected by potato variety, production area and storage. American
Potato Journal
. 45(4): 119-131.

 

Wurr, D. C. E., 1992. Some
effects of seed size and spacing on the yield and grading of two main crop
potato varieties. Journal of Agricultural SciencesCambridge.82:
37-45.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *