Research Article of American Journal of Agricultural Research
Effect of between plants space on Seed yield potential of cow pea at Dilla sub- station, Southern Ethiopia
Worku B Margia A. and Bangu B
Hawassa agricultural research center, livestock Research work process, P.O. box 2126 Hawasssa
The study was conducted in Dilla substation with objective of identifying optimum between plant space for optimum seed yield and quality seed. Planting one high yielding which is in seed multiplication status was used as experimental material. Four different between plant space( 10 cm, 20cm, 30cm and 40cm with constant between row space(40cm) were used as experimental treatments in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. Plot size was 3 x 2m with an inter-row spacing of 40cm and 1m between replication and plots. Dry matter herbage yield has shown significantly higher in between plant space of 20cm than other treatments (30 and 40 cm) at (p<0.05) which is in contrary to seed yield. Seed yield has showed statistically significant variation at 30cm than at 20 and 10 cm between plants spaces at (p<0.05). Hence, there will be two recommendation options for smallholder producers. To secure feed shortage and increased herbage production 20cm between plant space where as increased seed yield and further researches spacing under intercropping condition in different cereal crops should be conducted to fill the existing knowledge gap and thereby to utilize efficiently existing resources and plaster feed shortage gap.
Keywords: plants space on Seed yield potential, cow pea at Dilla sub- station, Southern Ethiopia
How to cite this article:
Worku B Margia A. and Bangu B. Effect of between plants space on Seed yield potential of cow pea at Dilla sub- station, Southern Ethiopia. American Journal of Agricultural Research, 2019,4:30.
1. Agza B, Binyam K, Solomon Z, Eskinde A, Ferede A (2012). Animal feed potential and adaptability of some cowpea (vigna unguiculata) varieties in northwest lowlands of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 1(11), pp. 478 – 483
2. Akinlade JA, Smith JW, Raji AM, Busari AA, Adekunle IO, Adewumi MK (2005). Effect of Two Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) Fodder Cultivars as Supplements on Voluntary Intake, Milk Yield and Manure Production of Bunaji Cows. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics. Volume 106, No. 2, 105– 112
3. Alemayehu M (1997). Conservation based forage development for Ethiopia. Self Help Development International and Institute for Sustainable Development. Berhanena Selam Printing Press, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
4. Angne, M.N., Patil, R.A., Mahadkar, U.V. And Khanvilkar, S.A., 1993, Response of cowpea to nitrogen, phosphorus and stand geometry. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 18(1): 121-122.
5. Armara Macimiliam Galwab and Prof. Peter Kamau, 2017. EFFECT OF SPACING ON GRAIN YIELD AND ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS OF COWPEA. International Journal of Climatic Studies, Vol.1, Issue No.1, pp. 24-35
6. Ayana E, Estefanos T, Ashenafi M, Abubeker H (2013). Advanced evaluation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) accessions for fodder production in the central rift valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development Vol. 5(3), pp. 55-61
7. Ebro A, Nsahalai IV, Yami Umunna NN (2004). Effect of supplementing graded levels of forage legumes on performance of crossbred calves fed tef (Eragrostis tef) straw. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 26:107-102.
8. Goenaga R, Gillaspie AG, Quiles A (2011). Field performance of cowpea genotypes grown under virus pressure in puerto rico. African Crop Science Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 97 – 103
9. Gwanzura T, Ng’ambi JW and Norris D (2012). Nutrient composition and tannin content of forage sorghum, cowpea, lablab and mucuna hays grown in Limpopo province of South Africa. Asian J. Anim. Sci. 5(12):1-7 071 E3 J. Agric.Res. Develop.
10. Hindrichsen I K, Osuji P O, Odenyo A A, Madsen J and Hvelplund T (2001), Effects of supplementation with four multipurpose trees and Labalab purpureus on rumen microbial population, rumen fermentation, digesta kinetics and microbial protein supply of sheep fed maize stover ad libitum. TSAP Proceedings Vol. 28. pp 98-119
11. Ibrahim MM, Rafiq A, Sultan M, Akram, Goheer MA (2006). Green fodder yield and quality evaluation of maize and cowpea sown alone and in combination. J. Agric. Res. 44:15–21.
12. Odion EC, Asiribo OE, Ogunlela VB, Singh BB, Tarawali SA (2007). Strategies to improve and sustain food production capacity in the savanna: The role of leguminous fodder crops in maintaining soil fertility and health. J. Food Agri. Environment. 5:338-344.
13. Rao NK, Shahid M (2011). Potential of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] and guar [Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.] as alternative forage legumes for the United Arab Emirates. Emir. J. Food Agric. 23 (2): 147-156
14. Seyoum B, Zinash S (1995). Chemical composition, in vitro digestibility and energy values of Ethiopian feed stuffs. In: Proceeding of the Third National Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
15. Turk KJ, Hall AE, Asbell CW (1980). Drought adaptation of cowpea. I. Influence of drought on seed yield. Agron. J. 72:413:420.
16. Yadav, G.L., 2003, Effect of sowing time, row spacing and seed rate on yield of cowpea under rain fed condition. Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 16 (2): 157-158. Crop Science 18: 29-34.
17. Yayneshet T, Eik LO, Moe SR (2009). The effects of enclosures in restoring degraded semi-arid vegetation in communal grazing lands in northern Ethiopia. Journal of Arid Environments, 73: 542-549.
This work and its PDF file(s) are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.