Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia

Tadeos Shiferaw

doi:doi:10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia

Tadeos Shiferaw^*

Published in Advances in Applied Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 3)

Received: 20 July 2024 Accepted: 12 August 2024 Published: 20 September 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

To study the response of groundnut to different crop management practice six different crop management practices tested in three districts namely Godey, Gursum and Erer of Eastern Ethiopia. Treatments wereT₁ (Spacing 60 x 30 cm, P @ 80 kg/ha and twice weeding @ 15^th and 30^th DAE), T₂ (75 x 20 cm, P@ 60 kg/ha three times mechanical weeding), T₃ (Spacing 45 x 15 cm, 50 and 85 kg/ha twice weeding, T₄(Spacing at 75 x 30 cm, N and P applied @ the rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding once @ 25^th DAE), T₅ (Spacing 30 × 10 cm, FYM @ 12 ton/ha, N and P applied @ the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding @ 28 DAE). T₆(Spacing 30x 15cm, N and P applied at the rate of 80 and 130 kg/ha respectively, twice weeding and earthling up). Then the treatments were arranged in RCBD. Analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between each treatment across the locations on growth and seed yield of groundnut at (p<0.05). Maximum seed yield was obtained from T₆ followed by T₅ and T₃. Wider spacing and minimum use of P without N fertilizer at (T₁ and T₂) resulted in significantly low seed yield. T₅resulted in robust plant growth however; it resulted in reduced yield and yield components compared toT₆. Groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper combinations of crop management components as specified in T₆. Therefore, T₆ can be recommended as an integrated crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia.

Published in	Advances in Applied Sciences (Volume 9, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
Page(s)	62-70
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Groundnut, Crop Management, Practices, Optimization

1. Introduction

Groundnut (Arachish ypogaeaL.) is the fourth most important oilseed crop in the world. It is used as oilseed, food and animal feed all over the world. It is relatively recent to Ethiopia and it was introduced to Ethiopia in the early 1920s from Eritrea to Hararghe by the Italian travelers

[1]

Groundnut is an important lowland oilseed crop in Ethiopia

[2]

. According to central statistical agency

[3]

it is the second lowland oil crops following sesame both in terms of area and in production. The area under groundnut production increased from about 12,600 ha in 1993 to 84,237.01 ha in 2019 with estimated annual production of more than 157,000 tones

[3, 4]

. Despite its importance and steady increase in production area yield of groundnut in Ethiopia ranges 750-1790 kg/ha and it is still far below the world average

[5]

Ethiopia has high potential for groundnut production

[1]

. Particularly eastern lowland districts of Somali regional state believed to have great potential for groundnut production. Regardless of the potential of Ethiopia in general and Somali region in particular production and productivity of groundnut is very low

[5, 6]

. In fact, there have been some efforts to improve groundnut productivity in Ethiopia however; the yield improvement was not satisfactory as compared to world average.

Many factors are responsible for the low groundnut yield in Ethiopia ranging from backward way of cultivation up to shortages of input and improved technologies. In general low groundnut yield is mainly due to the problems associated with poor crop management practices

[6, 7]

. Therefore, efforts should be made to improve cropping practices to enhance groundnut production and productivity through integrated crop management approaches.

Mostly crop management research studies on various crop involves levels of a single or at best a few, factors keeping other possible yield-determining factors constant

[8]

. Therefore, combining different components of agronomic practices in an integrated approach will make the application very simple and effective. An integrated crop management approach involving proper integration of multiple crop management components in to single package. Several recent studies have reported greater yield improvement with integrated crop management compared with testing individual factors.

[9]

indicated that crop yield potential can be increased through the use of appropriate combinations of agronomic practices. Similarly.

[10]

argued that testing single component of management practices independently may not capture the impact a holistic package would have on enhancing rice grain yield.

[11]

stressed the effectiveness of holistic or integrated approach instead of focusing on independent components crop management practice.

Information on proper agronomic practice for maximum grain yield are limited for groundnut grown under eastern lowland areas of Ethiopia. Despite works on varietal improvements and some other works on agronomic factors, there is insufficient information on how to integrate several components. Therefore, the objective of the study was to investigate the response of groundnut to different crop management practices under three agro ecologies of Somali regional state of Ethiopia.

2. Material and Method

2.1. Description of Study Area

The field experiments were conducted during 2022cropping season in three districts located in Somali regional state of eastern Ethiopia. General characteristics of experimental sites described in Table 1 below.

Table 1. General characteristics of study locations.

Soil characteristics		Study locations/Districts
Soil characteristics		Godey	Erer	Gursum
Geo lactation	Long	43.56.55	41:22:00	42:47:00
Geo lactation	Lat	5.94	9:33	9:20
Mean [°C] Temperature		31	24.8	20.82
RF. mm		325	890	588
Elevation m.a.s.l		289	1180	1446
Soil pH		7.45	8.1	7.72
Total nitrogen (N)%		0.13	0.19	0.73
Available Phosphorus (AP)(ppm)		10	5.65	8.18
Available Potassium (AK) (ppm)		729.3		3.5
Organiccarbon%		0.92	0.78	0.52
Exchangeable sodiummeq/100g		5.79	2.1	0.01
CECeq/100g		46.6	23.4	21. 25
Soil texture		clay loam	sandy clayloams	Sandy loam

Sources:

[12, 13, 14, 15]

2.2. Treatment and Experimental Design

Filed experiment consisted of six different groundnut crop management treatment were evaluated in three districts namely in Godey, Gursum and Erer locations. The detail of each crop management practice treatments were indicated in the Table 2. Groundnut seed variety Babile-3 was used for the study and planting and plot management was performed according to the requirement of each treatment. Each plot had 3x3.2m and there was 1.5 and 1 m between block and plots respectively. The experiment was carried out in RCBD with three replication.

Table 2. Treatment detail.

Code	Treatment detail
T₁	Spacing 60 x30cm between row and between plants respectively, Papplied at the rate 80 kg/ha and weeding was performed at twice 1^st mechanical weeding at 15^tDAE and 2^nd hand weeding at 30 DAE.
T₂	Spacing 75 x 20 cm between row and between plants respectively, Papplied at the rate of 60 kg/ha. Three times mechanical weeding at 15, 30 and 45DAE.
T₃	Spacing 45 x 15 cm between row and between plants respectively. N and P applied at the rate of 50 and 85 kg/ha; twice weeding i.e.1^sthand weeding at 15 DAE and 2^nd mechanical weeding at 45 DAE.
T₄	Spacing at 75 x 30 cm between row and between plants respectively, N and P applied at rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding performed at 25^thDAE.
T₅	Spacing 30 × 10 cm, between row and between plants respectively. FYM incorporated at the rate of 12 ton/ha 30 days before sowing. N and P applied at the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding done at 28DAE.
T₆	Spacing30x 15cm between row and between plants respectively, N and P applied at the rate of 80and 130 kg/ha respectively at planting and twice weeding i.e. firs hand weeding at 15 DAE, 2^ndmechanical weeding and earthing up at35 DAE.

DAE; days after emergence

2.3. Method of Data Collection and Analysis

2.3.1. Crop Phonology and Growth Parameters Measurement

Days to emergence and days to 50% flowering were recorded when 50% plants in the plots emerged and started producing flowers respectively. Days to 75%physiological maturity was determined when about75% plant pods showed dark discoloration (indicating maturity) and foliage turned to yellow. Number of primary branches per plant was taken at 75% maturity of groundnut from 10 plants per plot and number of primary branches was counted directly.

2.3.2. Yield Components and Yield

Yield components such as number of pods per plant was recorded after randomly taking ten plants per plot pods manual counted. Number of seeds per pod and100 seeds weight were determined by randomly taking ten plants per plot seed per pod manually counted 100 seed weight was measured after randomly taking 100 seeds per plot and weighed in sensitive balance. Dry pod yield was measured after harvesting and sun drying the whole pods from each plots and weighted at plot level and converted to kilograms per hectare. Shelling percentage was recorded by taking samples of about 200 g mature pods per net plot manually separating the seeds from the pods and was determined as:

Shelling % = \frac{Weight of shelled x 100}{Total pod weight}

Grain yield (kg/ha): It was determined as shelling percentage multiplied by dry pod yield and was adjusted to moisture content of 10%.

2.3.3. Methods of Data Analysis

Data on yield and yield components were collected from the field and subjected for analysis of variance using R version 3.2.4, 2016

[16]

. Significant differences among mean values were compared using list significant test (LSD) at p<0.05.

3. Result and Discussion

3.1. Crop Phonology and Growth Parameters

The results indicated that different combinations crop management practice did not affect phenological parameters of groundnut including days to 50% emergence (DTo 50%E), days to 50% flowering (DTo50%F) and days to 75% maturity (DTo75%M). The result in table 3 also revealed that there was no difference on crop phenology due to treatment across locations observed.

Table 3. Crop phonology.

	Locations
	Godey			Gursum			Erer
Treatment	DT50%E	DT50%F	DTM	DT50%E	DT50%F	DTM	DT50%E	DT5%F	DTM
T₁	13.37^ns	40.44^a	135.00^a	14.22^ns	39.07^a	145.00^ns	14.05^ns	41.40^ns	142.33^ns
T₂	13.17^ns	39.78^a	135.00^a	13.84^ns	40.41^a	144.00^ns	13.81^ns	40.74^ns	142.33^ns
T₃	13.33^ns	36.22^a	135.00^a	13.67^ns	40.26^a	147.00^ns	12.63^ns	40.92^ns	142.33^ns
T₄	13.96^ns	38.78^a	135.00^a	13.81^ns	40.44^a	145.00^ns	13.03^ns	40.22^ns	142.33^ns
T₅	13.6^ns	44.78^b	139.66^b	13.25^ns	42.45^b	147.00^ns	13.58^ns	41.78^ns	142.00^ns
T₆	13.6^ns	39.81^a	135.00^a	13.74^ns	40.47^a	143.00^ns	13.74^ns	41.80^ns	142.00^ns
LSD	ns	1.7297	ns	ns	1.57	ns	ns	ns	ns
CV	14.18	16.16	22.24	17.14	10.77	12.16	9.74	11.13	19.84

DT50%E=days to 50% emergence; DT50%F= days to 50% flowering; DTM days to maturity. Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p <0.05. LSD=Least Significant Difference (P≤0.05); CV=Coefficient of Variation; ns=Non Significant

Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) yield and yield related traits of groundnut in 2022 main cropping season.

SV	df	DTE	DTF	DTM	NPrBr	NPG/P	NP/P	NS/P	HSW	TPD	SLP	SDY
Block	2	1.70^ns	2.07 ^ns	0.27^ns	0.59^ns	21.04 ^ns	2.476 ^ns	0.07^ns	205.267	134620	132.86ns	272550 ^ns
Treatment	2	6.53^**	8.29^**	22.51^*	39.33^**	133.32^**	235.501^**	0.38^*	125.012^**	1286083^**.	43.11ns	1418171^**
Location	5	3.98^*	42.60^**	29.12^**	4.21^**	327.33^**	404.803^*	0.05^ns	313.212^**	407264^**	0.39ns	19579^ns
Trt*Loc	10	1.13^ns	2.71^*	6.97^***	2.38^*	15.08^*	14.750^*	0.07^ns	3.700	46987^*.	2.46ns	9099^ns

SV; Source of variations, Trt.*Loc.; treatment* Location, df; degree of freedom, DT50%E; days to 50% emergence, D50%F; days to 50% flowering, DTM; days to 90% physiological maturity, NPrBr; number of primary branch/plant; NPG/P; number of pegs/plant, NS/P; number of seed/pod, NP/P; number of pods/plant, HSW; hundred seed weight, TPD; total dry pod yield kg/ha, SLP; shelling percentage, SDY; seed yield kg/ha

Groundnut didn’t significantly responded to different combinations crop management practices across three locations and within the locations as well. This might be due the fact that these crop Phenological parameters totally influenced mainly by plants genetic makeup rather than crop management treatments. It showed that as long as minimum growth requirement is available the plant can geminate, flower and mature on its natural durations. Current result on the effect of agronomic practices on crop phenology corroborates with

[6, 15, 17]

3.2. Effect of Different Agronomic Practices on Yield and Yield Components

3.2.1. Number of Primary Branch (NPrBr)

The result on the effect of agronomic practice on number of primary branch per plant (NPrBr) presented in Table 5. The result revealed that primary branch production of groundnut significantly at (p<0.05) affected by different combinations of crop management practices. The result indicted that highest primary branches per plant was recorded from T₆ followed by T₅and T_3.The rest of treatments i.e. T₁, T₂and T₄were produced lower NPrBr compared to T₆, T₅and T₃ as well.

The increase in NPrB at T₅ and T₆ could be resulted due to availability of N and P along with combination other essential crop management practices including optimum spacing and weed removal. Current finding corroborates with

[17, 18]

who reported that, spacing at 30×15 cm, twice weeding and fertilizer application resulted in highest number of branches per plant. At T₁ and T₂ despite wider spacing due to limited availability of N fertilizer might have resulted in lower number of branches compared to T₆, T₅and T₃. Thisshows that in real field condition groundnut require substantial amount of N and P fertilizer along with twice weed removal at least at 21 to 42 days after planting for its vegetative growth

[19-22]

3.2.2. Number of Peg Per Plant (NPG/P)

The result on the effect of crop management on number of peg per plant presented in Table 5 according to the result crop management practice significantly affected NPG/P at (p<0.05). The highest NPG/P was recorded from T₃ followed by T₆ and T₅. The lowest NPG/P was recorded from T₂, T₄ and T1 respectively regardless of locations.

In current study groundnut significantly responded to combinations of crop management practices in NPG/P parameter. The result revealed that the response is high onT₆whereplant spacing at 30 x 15 cm, N and P fertilizers applied at the rate of 80and 130 kg/ha respectively and weeded two times. At T₆ NPG/P increased by 22.21% compared to wider spaced, weeded twice and only P fertilizer received plots such as T₁ and T_2.Similarly NPG/P obtained T₆was also greater than T₅ by about 18% on average across three locations. Therefore this increase in NPG/P at T₆could be resulted from proper combination of main crop management practice such as spacing, appropriate level of N and P application and correct weed removal. Similar result reported that groundnuts significantly responds when it spaced at 30x20 cm

[23]

weeded at least 2-3 times

[24]

and N fertilizer applied at above 80 kg/ha

[25]

Table 5. Yield and yield components.

	Locations
	Godey			Gursum			Erer
Treatments	NPrBr	NPG/P	NP/P	NPrBr	NPG/P	NP/P	NPrBr	NPG/P	NP/P
T₁	11.16^a	40.77^a	29.08^a	12.19^a	45.53^a	37.74^a	12.86^a	43.59^a	33.35^a
T₂	11.93^a	39.95^b	29.15^a	13.22^ab	45.70^a	34.98^a	13.88^ab	44.36^a	33.68^a
T₃	13.06^b	50.91^c	43.57^b	14.2^8b	58.90^b	45.13^b	14.61^b	52.24^b	40.45^b
T₄	11.93^a	39.45^b	31.35^a	12.66^a	44.77^a	39.02^c	12.66^a	42.12^a	33.35^a
T₅	14.40^bc	43.59^cd	37.19^bc	16.46^c	46.07^a	38.53^acd	17.08^c	48.07^c	35.19^ab
T₆	13.97^b	52.34^ce	44.94^d	14.21^b	59.81^c	47.27^e	14.21^b	53.04^b	42.44^b
LSD_0.05	2.12	2.307	5.86	1.1924	3.65	4.39	1.61	2.83	5.1862
CV	10.21	17.12	8.82	6.17	19.84	9.32	12.14	21.29	7.16

NPrBr=number of primary branches per plant; NPG/P= number of peg per plant; NP/P=number of pod per plant. Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p <0.05. LSD=Least Significant Difference (P≤0.05); CV=Coefficient of Variation; ns=Non Significant

3.2.3. Number of Pod Per Plant (NP/P)

Crop management practices significantly affected number of pod per plant (NP/P) at p<0.05. The result on (NP/P) in Table 3 revealed that maximum (NP/P) was recorded from T₃ followed by T₆ Table 5. NP/P increased at T₃ and T₆ by 36.5% as compared toT₁ and T₂, T₄ and increased by 20% as compared to T_5.The result of NP/P obtained at Gursum location little bit greater than both Godey and Erer location.

Optimum intra row spacing, application of N fertilizer and twice weeding might contributed to significant increase in NP/P recorded at T₃ and T₆. The result of this study corroborate with previous reports on effect of spacing, N fertilizer application and weed removal

[17, 23, 24]

. On T₁ and T₂despite there was wider spacing; since N fertilizer was not included on both treatments they registered low NP/P. This contradicts with

[22]

who reported that widest spacing gave the highest percentage pod formation, while the least percentage pod formation was found in the closest spacing. The close intra row distance along with reduced N fertilizer application and single hand weeding might be responsible for reduced NP/P at T₄. This result agrees with

[23]

how reported the lowest number of NP/P obtained at narrow intra row spacing below 15 cm and once weeding

[17]

3.2.4. Number of Seed Per Pod (NS/P) and 100 Seed Weight (HSW)

The results in Table 6 revealed that there was a significant difference between treatments on the number of seed per pod, 100 seed weight at (p< 0.05). It indicated that, average highest number of seed per pod was recorded from T₆ followed by T₃ (Table 6). The lowest NS/P was receded from T1, T2, T5 and T4 respectively. At T₆NS/P increased by27.41% on average as compared to T1, T2, T5 and T4. The treatments also affected HSW parameter. Groundnut treated with relatively better crop management practices at T₆ and T₃had resulted in significantly higher weight of 100 seeds at (p< 0.05) (Table 6). HSW recorded from T₆followed by T₃was higher than all other treatments. On average the lowest HSW was recorded fromT₁, T₂, T₅ and T₄respectively. At T₆HSW increased by almost 30% compared to T₁and T₂ and increase by 20% as compared to T₄and T₅.

Groundnut significantly responded to different combinations of crop management practices on NS/P and HSW. More pronounced result of NS/P and HSW was recorded from T₆ and T₃. An integrated effect of intra row spacing, good supplementation of N and P fertilizer along with twice weeding might contributed for better NS/P and HSW at T₆andT₃. This corroborates with

[21]

who reported that, the increasing nitrogen levels increased number of pod per plant, weight of pods, and number of seeds per plant of groundnut. The result also agrees with

[19-25]

who reported groundnut significantly responded to weeding at 3 and 6 WAP and application of 45 kg P/ha. At T₁ and T₂the result obtained on NS/P and HSW was low despite their wider inter and intra row spacing. This contradicts with

[26]

who reported increased NS/P and HSW at wider spacing. This indicates that groundnut responds not only for plant population but also other growth factors such as nutrient and weed management. Moreover in closed spacing if the crop is supplied with important nutrients like N and P and appropriate weeding it can avoid competition as the same time produces remarkable results.

3.2.5. Shelling Percentage (SLP)

Analysis of variance revealed that different combinations crop management practices i.e. spacing, fertilizer application and frequency of weed removal on shelling % was significant at (p <0.05). The result in Table 4 revealed that the highest value of shelling% was recorded from T₆ followed by T₃ while the lowest was recorded from T₁, T₅, T₂ and T₄ respectively. At T₆ shelling% was increased by about 6.11, 8.05, 10.51, 12.43% as compared to T₁, T₅, T₂ and T₄ respectively.

The result in Table 6 clearly indicated that groundnut significantly responded to different combinations of crop management practices. Parameters such as number of seed per pod and seed weight mainly contributed for shelling percentage parameter of the groundnut. The increment observed on T₆ compared to other treatment could be due to the contribution of increased application N and P fertilize along with twice weeding. Moreover, at T₆ the effect of closed spacing was minimized by the application of N and P fertilizer and frequent weeding this helped the crop to produce better shelling%. In current study wider spaced (T₁ and T₂) but with no or relatively small quantity of N and P fertilizer application and single or twice weeding did not increased shelling.

3.2.6. Total Pod (TPD) and Seed Yield (SDY)

The result in Table 6 reviled total dry pod yield of groundnut significantly affected by different combinations of crop management practices at p < 0.05. Hence the highest total dry pod yield was recorded from T₆ followed by T₃ andT_5.On the other hand, T₁, T₂and T₄ comparatively resulted in lesser amount of total dry pod yield. Dry pod yield of groundnut increased by around 43.41% compared to T₁ and T₂. Similarly, T₆ increased pod yield by 36.47 and 26.17% as compared to T₄ and T₅. More over T₆ showed considerable increment in dry pod yield which dry pod increased by 20% as compared to T₃.

Significantly higher dry pod and seed yield recorded at T₆ which could be attribute to best combinations of spacing, weeding frequency and N and P fertilizer application. Current finding is in agreement with

[19]

who reported twice weeding at 3 and 6 WAP plus 45 kg P/h increased pod yield of groundnut. Increase in pod yield of groundnut due to P and N fertilizer application also reported. Increase in the values of yield attributes in groundnut were observed with increasing the N level up to 45-60 Kg kg/ha

[25]

Total pod and seed yield showed reduction due to reduced plant population at 60 x 30 cm and 75 x 20 cm spacing compared to relatively close spaced treatments such as T₆. The result contradicts with

[27]

who reported greatest increased yield and yield components when groundnut spaced at 75 x 25 cm and 70 x 25 cm. In current study low yield at wider spaced plots defiantly resulted from low application rate of fertilizer mainly N fertilizer and low plan population per unit of area. Therefore, wider spacing and frequent weeding alone may not be enough to get maximum yield of groundnut indicting the requirement of proper combinations of growth factors. The combined effect of adequate growth resources and optimum plant population per unit area along with early weed removal lead the crop to produce better yield and yield components

[18, 22, 28].

Similar reports are also available on the advantage of proper combinations of agronomic practices on groundnut and other crops

[23, 28, 21]

Table 6. Yield and yield components.

Treatments	Locations
	Godey					Gursum					Erer
	NS/P	HSW	TPD	SLP	SDY	NS/P	HSW	TPD	SLP	SDY	NS/P	HSW	TPD	SLP	SDY
T₁	1.3^a	42.7^a	2881.2^a	58.9^a	1689.4^a	1.5^a	55.0^a	3181.4^a	56.7^a	1745.0^a	1.44^a	49.8^a	3028.1^a	56.4^a	1886.3^a
T₂	1.3^a	45.3^ab	2908.5^a	56.2^a	1610.6^a	1.2^a	54.6^a	3107.4^a	56.3^a	1715.6^a	1.44^a	50.0^ab	3004.1^a	56.9^a	1972.6^ab
T₃	1.8^b	55.8^c	4136.1^b	60.7^b	2524.6^b	1.8^b	58.3^b	4431.0^b	62.0^b	2753.6^b	1.86^c	56.2^c	4097.7^b	61.0^b	2595.6^c
T₄	1.5^cd	48.7^d	3178.4^c	55.3^c	1745.1^a	1.6^c	54.9^a	3328.1^a	56.1	2279.8^a	1.58^ab	49.2^a	3339.6^c	58.5^a	2078.0^ab
T₅	1.6^d	47.3^dc	3694.1^d	57.7^a	2206.4^bc	1.7^bd	53.3^c	4043.2^c	59.8^cb	2491.7^c	1.72^d	51.1^bd	3419.6^c	58.8^b	2426.5^d
T₆	1.8^b	59.8^e	5003.7^e	62.8^c	2769.2^c	1.9^e	63.8^bc	5260.4^c	65.7^d	3272.3^c	1.91^cd	59.5^e	4858.4^d	63.2^b	3096.9^e
LSD	0.21	2.25	381.53	2.24	274.34	0.11	1.84	483.51	2.81	341.46	0. 14	1.781	224.45	2.48	159.44
CV	8.85	8.11	13.14	22.8	20.17	12.14	9.24	16.13	18.85	10.12	7.81	9.19	10.11	20.14	9.18

NS/P= Number of seed per pod; HSW=hundred seed weight; TPD= total pod yield; SLP=shelling parentage; SDY= seed yield. Means with the same letter in each column are not significantly different at p <0.05. LSD=Least Significant Difference (p≤0.05); CV=Coefficient of Variation; ns=Non Significant

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

Current study revealed that, groundnut responds substantially for proper combination of important crop management practices such as spacing, weeding frequency, N and P fertilizer applications. The highest number of pods as well as weights of pods and total seed yield was achieved in T₆. Therefore, it can be concluded that the groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper integration of crop management practices as specified in T₆. Hence, T₆ can be recommended as best crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia. However, further study may be needed to more optimize and integrate crop management practices in more suitable and feasible manner.

Abbreviations

CV	Coefficient of Variation
df	Degree of Freedom
DT50%E	Days to 50% Emergence
D50%F	Days to 50% Flowering
DTM	Days to 90% Physiological Maturity
HSW	Hundred Seed Weight
LSD	Least Significant Difference
ns	Non Significant
NPrBr	Number of Primary Branches Per Plant
NPG/P	Number of Peg Per Plant
NP/P	Number of Pod Per Plant
Locat	Location
HSW	Hundred Seed Weight
NS/P	Number of Seed Per Pod
SLP	Shelling Percentage
SDY	Seed Yield kg/ha
SoRPARI	Somali Region Pastoral and Agro Pastoral Research Institute
SV	Source of Variations
TPD	Total Dry Pod Yield
SLP	Shelling Parentage
SDY	Seed Yield
Trt.	Treatment
WAP	Weeks After Planting

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Federal Republic of Ethiopia Ministry Science of and Higher Education Jigjiga University for funding the research project and Somali Region Pastoral and Agro Pastoral Research Institute (SoRPARI) for providing research stations.

Author Contributions

Tadeos Shiferaw is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The Federal Republic of Ethiopia, ministry of science and higher education, Jigjiga University.

Data Availability Statement

The author want to declare that he can submit the data at whatever time based on your request. The data used for the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Meresa, H., Assefa D., &Tsehaye, Y. Response of groundnut (ArachishypogaeaL.) genotypes to combined application of phosphorus and foliar zinc fertilizers in Central Tigray, Ethiopia. Environmental System Research. (2020), 9(30): 2-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-020-00193-2
[2]	Wedajo, G., &Wondewosen, S. Performance evaluation of ground nut varieties in lowland areas of South Omo, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Research Studies in Science, Engineering and Technology. (2017), 4(2): 6-8.
[3]	CSA (Central Statistic Agency of Ethiopia). Statistical report on area and production country forecast of major crops: Agricultural sample enumeration surveys, various issues, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2020.
[4]	CSA (Central Statistic Agency of Ethiopia). Statistical report on area and production country forecast of major crops: Agricultural sample enumeration surveys, various issues, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2019.
[5]	Demelash, B., &Yasin, G.. Participatory variety selection of groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) in TarichaZuriya district of Dawuro Zone, southern Ethiopia. Heliyon. (2022), 8(3): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09011
[6]	Getachew, B., Nigussie D., Tamado T., & Sharma, J. J. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and vermicompost on groundnut yield in Babile District, eastern Ethiopia. Oil Crop Science. (2019), 4(2): 75-89. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.2096-2428.2019.02.002
[7]	Gebreselassie, R., Dereje A. & Solomon, H. Effect of integrated agronomic managementpractices on yield and yield components of groundnut in Abergelle, Tigray, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. (2017), 12(35): 2722-2728. http://dx.doi/10.5897/AJAR2015.10590
[8]	Kadambot S., Johansen N., Turner J., Hashem S., Salem A.. Innovations in agronomy for food legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, (2012) 32(1) 45-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0021-5
[9]	Baoyuan, Z., Xuefang S., Dan W., Zaisong D., Congfeng L, Wei M., & Ming, ZIntegrated agronomic practice increases maize grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency under various soil fertility conditions. The Crop Journal. (2019), 7(4): 527-538, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2018.12.005
[10]	Jianquan Qin, S.M. Impa, Qiyuan T, Shenghai Y., Jian Y., Yousheng T., Krishna S. Jagadish, V..Integrated nutrient, water and other agronomic options to enhance rice grain yield and N use efficiency in double-season rice crop. Field Crops Research. (2013), 48, 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.04.004
[11]	Ladha, J. K., Kumar, V., Alam, M. M., Sharma, S., Gathala, M. K., Chandna, P., Saharawat, Y. P. and Balasubramanian, V. Integrating Crop and Resource Management Technologies for Enhanced Productivity, Profitability and Sustainability of the Rice-Wheat System in South Asia. In: Ladha, J. K., Yadvinder, S., Erenstein, O. and Hardy, B., Eds., Integrated Crop and Resource Management in the Rice-Wheat System of South Asia, International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, (2009), 69-108.
[12]	Mahamed, B., & Mishra, B. Characterization and evaluation of some soils of Gode in Eastern Ethiopia as affected by salinity and alkalinity induced by irrigation canal: A Case Study. Open Access Journal of Environmental and Soil Science. (2021), 6(1): 738-749. https://doi.org/10.32474/OAJESS.2021.06.000227
[13]	Sultan, W., Korchoke C, Supakij N., &Somjate, J. Prediction of soil loss in the northern part of Somali Region of Ethiopia using empirical soil erosion models. J. (Nat. Sci.) (2007), 41: 109-122.
[14]	Dahir, Y., Derege T., &Tadeos, S.. Variability of soil chemical properties in lower Wabishebele Sub-Basin in Somali Region South-eastern Ethiopia, as influenced by land use and land cover. African Journal of Agricultural Research.(2022), 18(2): 153-161, https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2021.15840
[15]	Tesfahun, M., Yemane T., &Yemane, G. Response of two chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) varieties to rates of blended fertilizer and row spacing at Tselemti District, Northern Ethiopia. Advances in Agriculture, 2018; 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5085163
[16]	R version 3.2.4 Revised (2016-03-16 r70336) -- "Very Secure Dishes" Copyright (C) 2016 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing Platform: i386-w64-mingw32/i386 (32-bit).
[17]	Ahmed, N., & Mona, E.. Influence of weeding frequency and plant population on yield and yield, s components of Groundnut (ArachishypogaeaL.) in North Kordofan of Sudan. Bioresearch Bulletin, 2011, 5: 322-328.
[18]	Essilfie, M. Influence of row spacing and NPK fertilizer on the growth and yield of two groundnut (ArachishypogaeaL.) varieties under rain-fed condition in the transitional zone of Ghana. International Journal of Agricultural Research, (2020), 15(1): 28-40. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2020.28.40
[19]	Dzomeku, I. K., Baba S., Abdulai M., Mohammed A. M., & Abduiali, A. L. Groundnut (Arachishypogaea L.) response to phosphorus and weed management in the guinea savannah zone of Ghana. Tropicultura, (2019), 37(1): 1-14. https://doi.org/10.25518/2295-8010.253
[20]	Shiva, K., Radder M., Malligawad H., &Manasa, V. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus levels and ratios on yield and nutrient uptake by groundnut in northern transition zone of Karnataka. Bioscan (2014), 19(4): 1561-1564.
[21]	Waghmode, B., Mahadkar V., Kambale S., &Navhale, D.. Effect of plant population and fertilizer doses on yield attributes, yield and economics of summer groundnut. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, (2017), 6(11): 2670-2675. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.611.314
[22]	Kwadwo, S., Joseph S., Ibrahim Y., &Kwabena, A. Yield response of groundnut (Arachishypogaea) to weeding regime and plant spacing. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, (2016), 6(6): 65-73.
[23]	Yasir, E., Ahmed M., Salih E., Elsheikh, Elgailani A., Tarig A, AbdelatifS., Omer A. New narrow inter-row spacing for maximizing groundnut yield under rain-fed conditions of north Kordofan State, Sudan. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences. (2018), 4(12): 31-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.20431/2454-6224.0412004
[24]	Osundare, B. Assessment of soil fertility and groundnut (Arachishypogeae) yield performance under different weeding regimes. Global Journal of Agricultural Sciences, (2012), 11(2), 123-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/gjass.v11.2.9
[25]	Mekdad, A. A. A., El-Enin, M. M. A., Rady, M. M., Hassan, F. A. S., Ali, E. F., Shaaban, A. Impact of level of nitrogen fertilization and critical period for weed control in peanut (Arachishypogaea L.). Agronomy, 2021, 1-18. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050909
[26]	Desmae, H., Sako D., &Konate, D. Optimum plant density for increased groundnut pod yield and economic benefits in the semi-arid tropics of West Africa. Agronomy, (2022) 12(6): 2-19. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12061474
[27]	Onat, B., Halil B., Leyla G., &Halis, A. The effects of row spacing and plant density on yield and yield components of peanut grown as a double crop in Mediterranean environment in Tturkey. Turk Journal of Field Crops, (2017). 22(1): 71-80. https://doi.org/10.17557/TJFC.303885
[28]	Dolie, S., &Nongmaithem, D. Influence of spacing and weed management practices on weed, growth and yield of groundnut (ArachishypogaeaL.). Journal of Crop and Weed, (2020). 16(3): 256-259. https://doi.org/10.22271/09746315.2020.v16.i3.1397

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Shiferaw, T. (2024). Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Advances in Applied Sciences, 9(3), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Shiferaw, T. Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2024, 9(3), 62-70. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Shiferaw T. Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Adv Appl Sci. 2024;9(3):62-70. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13,
  author = {Tadeos Shiferaw},
  title = {Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia
},
  journal = {Advances in Applied Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {62-70},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aas.20240903.13},
  abstract = {To study the response of groundnut to different crop management practice six different crop management practices tested in three districts namely Godey, Gursum and Erer of Eastern Ethiopia. Treatments wereT1 (Spacing 60 x 30 cm, P @ 80 kg/ha and twice weeding @ 15th and 30th DAE), T2 (75 x 20 cm, P@ 60 kg/ha three times mechanical weeding), T3 (Spacing 45 x 15 cm, 50 and 85 kg/ha twice weeding, T4(Spacing at 75 x 30 cm, N and P applied @ the rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding once @ 25th DAE), T5 (Spacing 30 × 10 cm, FYM @ 12 ton/ha, N and P applied @ the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding @ 28 DAE). T6(Spacing 30x 15cm, N and P applied at the rate of 80 and 130 kg/ha respectively, twice weeding and earthling up). Then the treatments were arranged in RCBD. Analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between each treatment across the locations on growth and seed yield of groundnut at (p6 followed by T5 and T3. Wider spacing and minimum use of P without N fertilizer at (T1 and T2) resulted in significantly low seed yield. T5 resulted in robust plant growth however; it resulted in reduced yield and yield components compared toT6. Groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper combinations of crop management components as specified in T6. Therefore, T6 can be recommended as an integrated crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia

AU  - Tadeos Shiferaw
Y1  - 2024/09/20
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
T2  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JF  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JO  - Advances in Applied Sciences
SP  - 62
EP  - 70
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1514
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
AB  - To study the response of groundnut to different crop management practice six different crop management practices tested in three districts namely Godey, Gursum and Erer of Eastern Ethiopia. Treatments wereT1 (Spacing 60 x 30 cm, P @ 80 kg/ha and twice weeding @ 15th and 30th DAE), T2 (75 x 20 cm, P@ 60 kg/ha three times mechanical weeding), T3 (Spacing 45 x 15 cm, 50 and 85 kg/ha twice weeding, T4(Spacing at 75 x 30 cm, N and P applied @ the rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding once @ 25th DAE), T5 (Spacing 30 × 10 cm, FYM @ 12 ton/ha, N and P applied @ the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding @ 28 DAE). T6(Spacing 30x 15cm, N and P applied at the rate of 80 and 130 kg/ha respectively, twice weeding and earthling up). Then the treatments were arranged in RCBD. Analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between each treatment across the locations on growth and seed yield of groundnut at (p6 followed by T5 and T3. Wider spacing and minimum use of P without N fertilizer at (T1 and T2) resulted in significantly low seed yield. T5 resulted in robust plant growth however; it resulted in reduced yield and yield components compared toT6. Groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper combinations of crop management components as specified in T6. Therefore, T6 can be recommended as an integrated crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia.

VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Tadeos Shiferaw

Departemnt of Plant Sciences, Collage of Dryland Agriculture, Jigjga University, Jigjiga, Ethiopia; Crop Research Directorate, Somali Region Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Research Institute (SoRPARI), Jigjiga, Ethiopia

Biography: Tadeos Shiferaw Woldegiorgis (B.Sc., M.Sc. Assistant professor) he had his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from Haramaya. He is currently working in Jigjiga University at collage of dryland agriculture in plant science department teaching graduate and under graduate students. A part from teaching he is engaged in research and community services activities in Jigjiga University. He is also a senior researcher at Somali region pastoral and agro pastoral research institute (SoRPARI) crop research directorate. His research interest including, integrated crop management, integrated pest management, and dryland agriculture.

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9327-6406

Download PDF

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Shiferaw, T. (2024). Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Advances in Applied Sciences, 9(3), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Shiferaw, T. Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2024, 9(3), 62-70. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Shiferaw T. Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia. Adv Appl Sci. 2024;9(3):62-70. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13,
  author = {Tadeos Shiferaw},
  title = {Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia
},
  journal = {Advances in Applied Sciences},
  volume = {9},
  number = {3},
  pages = {62-70},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aas.20240903.13},
  abstract = {To study the response of groundnut to different crop management practice six different crop management practices tested in three districts namely Godey, Gursum and Erer of Eastern Ethiopia. Treatments wereT1 (Spacing 60 x 30 cm, P @ 80 kg/ha and twice weeding @ 15th and 30th DAE), T2 (75 x 20 cm, P@ 60 kg/ha three times mechanical weeding), T3 (Spacing 45 x 15 cm, 50 and 85 kg/ha twice weeding, T4(Spacing at 75 x 30 cm, N and P applied @ the rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding once @ 25th DAE), T5 (Spacing 30 × 10 cm, FYM @ 12 ton/ha, N and P applied @ the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding @ 28 DAE). T6(Spacing 30x 15cm, N and P applied at the rate of 80 and 130 kg/ha respectively, twice weeding and earthling up). Then the treatments were arranged in RCBD. Analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between each treatment across the locations on growth and seed yield of groundnut at (p6 followed by T5 and T3. Wider spacing and minimum use of P without N fertilizer at (T1 and T2) resulted in significantly low seed yield. T5 resulted in robust plant growth however; it resulted in reduced yield and yield components compared toT6. Groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper combinations of crop management components as specified in T6. Therefore, T6 can be recommended as an integrated crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Optimization of Groundnut Crop Management Practicesin Somali Regional State, Eastern Ethiopia

AU  - Tadeos Shiferaw
Y1  - 2024/09/20
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
T2  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JF  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JO  - Advances in Applied Sciences
SP  - 62
EP  - 70
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1514
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20240903.13
AB  - To study the response of groundnut to different crop management practice six different crop management practices tested in three districts namely Godey, Gursum and Erer of Eastern Ethiopia. Treatments wereT1 (Spacing 60 x 30 cm, P @ 80 kg/ha and twice weeding @ 15th and 30th DAE), T2 (75 x 20 cm, P@ 60 kg/ha three times mechanical weeding), T3 (Spacing 45 x 15 cm, 50 and 85 kg/ha twice weeding, T4(Spacing at 75 x 30 cm, N and P applied @ the rate of 46 and 90 kg/ha respectively and hand weeding once @ 25th DAE), T5 (Spacing 30 × 10 cm, FYM @ 12 ton/ha, N and P applied @ the rate of 25 and 46 kg/ha respectively and mechanical weeding @ 28 DAE). T6(Spacing 30x 15cm, N and P applied at the rate of 80 and 130 kg/ha respectively, twice weeding and earthling up). Then the treatments were arranged in RCBD. Analysis of variance showed that there were statistically significant differences between each treatment across the locations on growth and seed yield of groundnut at (p6 followed by T5 and T3. Wider spacing and minimum use of P without N fertilizer at (T1 and T2) resulted in significantly low seed yield. T5 resulted in robust plant growth however; it resulted in reduced yield and yield components compared toT6. Groundnut seed yield was remarkably influenced by proper combinations of crop management components as specified in T6. Therefore, T6 can be recommended as an integrated crop management practice for groundnut to current study areas and other similar lowland districts of eastern Ethiopia.

VL  - 9
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download