influence of sowing date and spacing on growth …...(md. hasanuzzaman akand) associate professor...
TRANSCRIPT
INFLUENCE OF SOWING DATE AND SPACING ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF SWEET PEPPER
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND POSTHARVEST TECHNOLOGY
SHER-E-BANGLA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
DHAKA-1207
JUNE 2007
INFLUENCE OF SOWING DATE AND SPACING ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF SWEET PEPPER
BY
MONIRUL ISLAM
REGISTRATION NO. 26187/00481
A Thesis Submitted to the Dept, of Horticulture & Postharvest Technology Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural
University, Dhaka in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE
SEMESTER: JANUARY-JUNE; 2007
Approved by:
(Dr. Satya Ranjan Saha) Senior Scientific officer
Horticulture Research Centre BARI, Gazipur Supervisor
(Md. Hasanuzzaman Akand) Associate Professor Dept, of Horticulture and
Postharvest Technology Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka Co-supervisor
(Prof. Md. Ruhul Amin) Chairman
Examination Committee Department of Horticulture and Postharvest Technology Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207
Fax : 880-2-9261495 Tel 9252529 E.mail. direclor_hrc@yahoo. [email protected]
Supervisor Dated: June, 2007 Place: Joydepur, Gazipur
উদ্যানতত্ত্ব গবে ষনা কে ন্দ্র Horticulture Research Centre
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute Joydebpur, Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh
Certificate
This is to certify that the Thesis “INFULENCE OF SOWING DATA AND
SPACING ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF SWEER PEPPER” submitted to the
Department of Horticulture and Postharvest Technology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural
University, Dhaka, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER
OF SCIENCE in HORTICULTURE embodies the result of a piece of bona fide research
work carried out by MONIRUL ISLAM Registration no. 26187/00481 under my
supervision and guidance. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree
or diploma.
I further certify that, such help or source of information, as has been availed during
the course of this investigation has duly been acknowledged.
________________________________________________________________________
Dedicated to My
Beloved Parents
J
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Full word Abbreviation
Agro-Ecological Zone AEZ
And others et al.
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute BARI
Bangladesh Rice Research Institute BRRI
Centimeter cm
Coefficient of variation CV
Cultivar cv.
Days after Sowing DAS
Degree Celsius °C
Dry Weight DW
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test DMRT
Food and Agriculture Organization FAO
Fresh Weight FW
Gram g
Hectare ha
Hour hr
Hydrogen ion potentiality PH
Kilogram Kg
Meter m
Mean sum of square MSS
Millimeter mm
Murate of Potash MP
Non-Significant NS
Randomized Complete Block Design RCBD
Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University SAU
Triple Super Phosphate TSP
Ton per hectare t/ha
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT All the praises, gratitude and thanks are due to the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Allah who
enabled me to complete this thesis successfully.
I wish to express my sincere appreciation and profound gratitude to my reverend supervisor, Dr. Satya
Ranjan Saha, Senior Scientific Officer, (Plant 'Physiology Section, Horticulture (Research Centre,
(Bangladesh Agricultural (Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur for his constant guidance, keen interest,
immense advice and encouragement during the period of thesis work.
I wish to express my gratitude to my co-supervisor, Md. Hasanuzzaman Akand, Associate (Professor;
(Department of Horticulture and (Postharvest Technology, Sher-e-Bang!a Agricultural “University,
(Dhaka for providing me with all possible help during the period of thesis work and constructive
suggestion.
I am highly grateful to my honorable teacher (Professor Md. (Ruhul Amin, Chairman, Department of
Horticulture and (Postharvest Technology, SAU. I feel to express my sincere appreciation and
indebtedness to my esteemed teachers (Professor Md. Abdul Mannar Mia, (Professor A-K.-M.
Mahtabuddin, Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam, Md. Ismail Hossain, Dr.A.F.M. Jamaluddin and Md. Jahedur
(Rahman Department of Horticulture and (Postharvest Technology, Sher-e-Bang!a Agricultural
University, Dhaka for their valuable teaching, direct and indirect advice, encouragement and cooperation
during the whole study period.
I express my deepest sense of respect, gratitude to Md. Abdus Salam, Md. Siddique Alam, Scientific
Officer, Dr. Md. Abdul Hoque, Chief Scientific officer and Shaheda Aktar, Scientific assistant, Horticulture
(Research Centre, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur for providing me guidelines and
all possible help by which my experiment was successful
I thank to my friend Md. Abdur (Rahim, Khairul, Amin, Shahin, Sagor, Shahadat, Ataur, (Razzakj, Dalim
and Muktafor their help and inspiration in preparing my thesis.
I found no words to thanks my parents and my brothers for their unquantifiable love and continuous
support, their sacrifice never ending affection, immense strength and untiring efforts for bringing my
dream to proper shape. They were constant source of inspiration, zeal and enthusiasm in the critical
moment of my studies.
Dated: June, 2007 The Author
SAU, Dhaka-
INFLUENCE OF SOWING DATE AND SPACING ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF SWEET PEPPER
ABSTRACT
An experiment was carried out at the Horticultural farm of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur, during September 2006 to April 2007 to investigate growth and yield of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing. There were altogether 21 treatments comprising seven levels of sowing date viz. September 1, September 15, October 1, October 15, October 30, November 15, November 30 and three levels of spacing viz. 50x50 cm, 50x40 cm, 50x30 cm. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. Data were recorded on various parameters and statistically analyzed. The results of the experiment demonstrated that the majority of growth parameters and yield components were significantly increased at the earlier sowing (October 1). The plant spacing had significant variation in almost all the growth and yield components except pericarp thickness. Number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant, stem girth, number of fruits per plant, days to first harvest, fruit length, individual fruit weight, yield per plant were found to be significantly increased with the increasing of plant spacing but plant height at different stages, number of fruits per plot, days to 50% flowering, fruit breadth, yield per plot and yield per hectare were found to be significantly increased with the decreasing plant spacing. The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing also had significant effect on different growth and yield parameter and yield. The highest yield (19.36 t/ha) of fruit was recorded from the earlier sowing (October 1) with the closest spacing (50x30 cm) which also gave the highest benefit cost ratio (4.58). Considering the yield of fruits per hectare, cost of production and net return, the treatment combinations of October 1 sowing along with 50x30cm spacing appeared to be recommendable for the cultivation of sweet pepper.
IV
CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE NO. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS II
ABSTRACT III
CONTENTS IV
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF PLATES VIII
LIST OF APPENDICES IX
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3
CHAPTER III MATERIALS AND METHODS 24
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIUON 32
CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 67
REFERENCES 70
APPENDICES 77
LIST OF TABLES
v
Table Title Page No.
1 Doses and methods of application of manure and fertilizers for the production of sweet pepper
26
2 Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth
36
3 Main effect of sowing date on number of braches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper
40
4 Main effect of plant spacing on number of braches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper
40
5 Combine effect of sowing date and plant spacing on number of braches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper
41
6 Main effect of sowing date on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper
45
7 Main effect of plant spacing on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper
45
8 Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number fruits per plot and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper
46
9 Main effect of sowing date on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
52
10 Main effect of plant spacing on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
52
11 Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
53
Table Title Page No.
VI
12 Main effect of sowing date on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
58
13 Main effect of plant spacing on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
58
14 Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
59
15 Economic analysis of sweet pepper production as influenced by sowing date and plant spacing
66
LIST OF FIGURES
VII
Figure Title Page No.
1 Main effect of sowing date on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth
34
2 Main effect of plant spacing on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth
35
3 Main effect of sowing date on number of fruits per plot of sweet pepper
48
4 Main effect of plant spacing on number of fruits per plot of sweet pepper
49
5 Main effect of sowing date on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper 62
6 Main effect of plant spacing on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper 63
7 Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper
64
Plate Title Page No.
1 Effect of spacing on fruit size of sweet pepper 54
2 Effect of spacing on thickness of pericarp of sweet pepper 55
Appendix Title Page No.
I Monthly record of air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and sunshine hour of the experimental site during the period from September 2006 to April 2007
77
II The chemical analysis of the soil of the experimental field 78
III Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on plant height of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
79
IV Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
79
V Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number of fruits per plot and days to first harvest of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
80
VI Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
80
VII Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on individual fruit weight, yield per plant, yield per plot and yield per hectare of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
81
VIII Production cost of sweet pepper per hectare (A) Material cost (B) Non-material cost
(C) Overhead cost and total cost of production
82 83 84
IX Disease and insect pest infestation data during growing period of sweet pepper
85
IX
I Chapter Introduction
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum var.grossum L.) belongs to the family solanaceae
under the genus Capsicum. Sweet pepper and chilli, the Capsicum, are native to
Tropical South America. Especially Brazil is thought to be the original home of
peppers (Shoemaker and Teskey, 1955). It is now widely cultivated in Central and
South America, Peru, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Mexico, in almost all the European
countries, Honkong and India. Most of the peppers cultivated in temperate and
tropical areas belong to the botanical species Capsicum annuum, thought to originate
in Mexico and Central America (Andrews, 1984).
The genus Capsicum contains about 20 species. Now five domesticated species are
only recognized: Capsicum annuum, C. frutescens, C. chinense, C. baccatum and C.
pubescens. All cultivated species of Capsicum have 2n = 24 chromosomes (Greenleaf,
1986). Within C. annuum, a tremendous range in size, shape and mature colour of
fruits has been selected that now forms the basis for the types used in commerce
throughout the world (Andrews, 1984; Greenleaf, 1986).
The species annuum includes eleven groups (Farris, 1988) which can be divided into
two sub group Sweet and Hot peppers. The sweet pepper is relatively non-pungent
with thick flesh and it is the world’s second most important vegetables after tomato
(AVRDC, 1989).
Sweet pepper is used either green or red, and may be eaten as cooked or raw, as well
as in salad. It is also used for pickling in brine, baking and stuffing. The leaves are
also consumed as salad, soup or eaten with rice (Lovelook, 1973). It was also
discovered to be a good source of medicinal preparation for black vomit, tonic for
gout and paralysis (Knott and Deanon, 1967).
2
Capsicum has a little energy value. But the nutritive value of sweet pepper is high as it
contains 1.29 mg protein, 11 mg calcium, 870 I.U vitamins-A, 175 mg ascorbic acid.
0.06 mg thiamine, 0.03 mg riboflavin and 0.55 mg niacin per l00g edible fruit (Joshi
and Singh, 1975). The vitamin C content was found as high as 321 mg. Meanwhile,
Macrae et al. (1993) stated that green peppers, with a p-carotene equivalent to 180 jig
per 100 g contain approximately as much carotene as spinach.
Sweet pepper is a minor vegetable in Bangladesh and its production statistics is not
available (Hasanuzzaman, 1999). A small-scale cultivation is found in periurban areas
primarily for the supply to some city markets in Bangladesh. The crop has got high
export potentiality. Considering its high nutritive value and export potentiality, it is
imperative to take attempts for its successful cultivation in the country.
Successful cultivation of any crop depends in several factors. Sowing date and plant
spacing are of the important aspects for production system of different crops.
Optimum sowing or planting time and plant spacing ensures proper growth and
development of plant resulting maximum yield of crop and
economic use of land. Yield of sweet pepper has been reported to be dependent on the
number of plants accommodated per unit area of land (Duimovic and Bravo, 1979).
There are very few reports regarding the sowing date and spacing to cultivate the crop
under the agro-climatic conditions of Gazipur, Bangladesh. Considering the above
facts, the present experiment was undertaken with the following objectives:
i. To find out the appropriate sowing time
ii. To standardize suitable spacing for higher yield
iii. To find out the Benefit Cost ratio of sweet pepper cultivation in different
sowing date and spacing
4
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Sweet pepper is an important vegetable in many parts of the world. Sweet pepper
possesses mild flavour with little pungency. It is sensitive to various environment stimuli
eg. Temperature, humidity, light intensity and moisture for proper growth and yield.
Optimum sowing date and plant spacing are the important and uncontroversial factor for
maximizing the yield of a crop. However, compromises with the sowing date and plant
density are necessary to make the cultural practices easier and economic. Many research
have been conducted on various cultural aspects of sweet pepper in abroad but scan:y in
Bangladesh. The available literature related to the present study are reviewed here.
2.1 Effect of sowing time
Bevacqua and Vanleeuwen (2003) reported that Chile pepper (Capsicum annuum L.)
yields were highly variable and were strongly influenced by disease and weather. The
goal of two field experiments was to evaluate crop management factors, especially
planting date, that could contribute to improved and more consistent crop production.
Current practice in New Mexico is to direct seed the crop from 13 to 27 March. In the
first experiment, chile pepper was direct seeded on three planting dates, 13, 20, and 27
March 2000, without or with a fungicide treatment of pentachloronitrobenzene and
mefenoxam for the control of damping off. The results indicate planting date had no
effect on stand establishment or yield. Fungicide treatment, significantly reduced stand,
but had no effect on yield. In the second experiment, chile pepper was direct seeded on
six planting dates, 13, 20, 27 March and 3, 10, 17, April.2001, with or without an
application of phosphorus fertilizer, Pat 29.4 kg.ha'1, banded beneath the seed row.
During the growing season, this experimental planting suffered, as did commercial
plantings in New Mexico, from high mortality and stunting due to beet curly top virus, a
disease transmitted by the beet leafhopper. The results indicated that planting date had a
significant effect on crop performance. The best stand establishment and the highest yield
were associated with the earliest planting date, 13 March. This date also resulted in the
least viral disease damage. Phosphorus fertilizer had no effect on stand establishment or
yield. Chemical names used: Pentachloronitrobenzene (PCNB), Propanoic acid methyl
ester (Mefenoxam).
Russo (1996) found that planting date, fertilizer rate, and timing of harvest can affect
yield of Jalapeno and banana peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). Seedlings of the Jalapeno
'Mitla' and Long yellow wax 'Sweet Banana #504' were transplanted in April and July
1995 into beds fertilized with either a recommended or a higher rate. Fruits were
harvested either three times or once, the latter corresponding to the last of several
harvests. Significantly higher yields were produced from the July planting of both
cultivars and with once over harvesting. The recommended rate of fertilizer increased
yield of 'Sweet banana #504' and decreased that of' Mitla' compared to the higher rate.
Cebula (1995) conducted a field experiment in plastic tunnels near Nowy Sacz in 1993
and 1994 using six Capsicum cultivars. Plants were set out in late April or early May in
each year. Good light conditions in this area promoted early fruiting. Cultivars Oasis FI
and Spartacus F( gave the highest marketable yields of 7.66 and 7.20 kg/m2, respectively.
Average fruit weights were also high (310 and 255 g, respectively). Yields were higher
from planting in late April.
Trials of bell pepper cv. Pip were planted out at monthly intervals from 16 May 1990 and
15 April 1991 until July of both years on a Berow fine loam at Lane. Peppers were
harvested weekly. Marketable yields from the earliest planting were 20.6-21.7 t/ha and
from the later plantings were 2.8-8.6 t/ha. Sequential monthly plantings increased the
cumulative marketable yields to 39.5 t/ha in 1991. Replanting in June or July 1990 and
May to July 1991 produced lower yields than if the earliest planting had not been
replaced. The results indicated that sequential planting from early May in South Central
USA is a viable method of increasing the marketable yield of bell peppers (Russo, 1995).
Cebula (1992) conducted an experiment in greenhouse. Seeds of the glasshouse capsicum
cultivar Redgold Fi were sown on 6 dates in 2 successive years, at fortnightly intervals
between 22 or 29 November and 2 or 6 February. All seedlings were planted out in 9dm
3 containers at a similar stage of development. This stage was reached sooner as the
sowing date became later; the seedling production time ranged from 85-74 days for the
first sowing date to 56-57 days for the sixth.
6
The period between planting and the first harvest was also shortened; in the first year
there was a difference of 32 days and in the second a difference of 27 days between the
first and last sowings. As planting became later the total yields were reduced but the yield
decrease between the first and fifth planting dates did not exceed 24%. Overall, it was
considered that mid-March was the most favorable time for planting.
2.2 Effect of spacing
Aliyu (2002) conducted a field trials with pepper (iCapsicum annuum) cv. L5962-2
between 1991 and 1993 at Samam, Nigeria, to study the effect of N (0, 80, 160, 240 and
360 kg/ha), P (0, 22 and 44 kg/ha) and plant density (20000, 40000 and 60000 plants/ha)
on the growth and dry fruit yield. Using the classical approach, growth analysis indices
were derived at fortnightly intervals. Leaf area index and relative growth rate as well as
aerial phytomass showed a positive significant response to N application, whilst net
assimilation rate was significant only at 10 weeks after transplanting. The effects of P and
plant density on dry weights and growth analysis indices were less marked. Significant
increases in the yield both per plant and per hectare were obtained up to 240 kg N/ha.
Application of P at 22 kg P/ha was adequate for dry fruit yield. Although yield per plant
decreased with increasing density, the yield/ha increased up to 60000 plants/ha.
Arora el al. (2002) conducted a field experiments comprising of six plant densities and
four irrigation levels to study their effect on shoot-root growth and fruit yield in chilli cv.
HC-44 during 1994 and 1995. Among various levels of plant densities tested D5 (24
plants/plot) produced maximum dry weight of leaves, root length and root biomass
whereas D4 (60 plants/plot) produced maximum fruit yield (q/ha). Among the irrigation
levels tested 13 (ID/CPE ratio of 1.0) gave maximum diy weight of leaves and fruit yield
(q/ha) while 12 (ID/CPE ratio of 0.75) gave maximum root length and root biomass. The
interaction effect of plant density and irrigation levels showed that D4I3 (60 plants/pot
with irrigation level having ID/CPE ratio of 0.75) resulted in maximum yield of red ripe
fruits while least was recorded in D5I3 (24 plants/plant with ID/CPE ratio of 1.0).
A field experiment was conducted to study the effects of different nitrogen rates (0, 50,
100, 150, 200 and 250 kg ha'1) and plant spacing (25, 30, 35, 40, and 45 cm) on the
growth and yield of sweet pepper (Capsicum) cv. Yellow Wonder at the Agriculture
Research Station (North), Mingora, Swat, Pakistan, during spring 2001 (Faiza el al.
2002). Plant height (41.60 cm), number of branches (9.13), and yield ha'1 (30.82 t) were
recorded with the application of 150 kg N/ha. Maximum fruiting (18.20) was observed in
100 kg N ha'1. Plant spacing significantly affected plant height (41.00cm), number of
branches (7.78) and number of fruits (18.61) at 45 cm spacing, while minimum values of
these parameters were recorded when plants were spaced at 25 cm. Maximum (25.98 t)
and minimum (20.17 t) yield ha'1 were observed in plants spaced 35 and 45 cm apart,
respectively. The interaction between different levels of nitrogen and plant spacing
showed significant effect on most of the parameters. The results showed that better
performance in growth and yield were obtained
when plants were supplied with 150 kg N ha'1 and spaced at 35 cm under the climatic
conditions of Swat.
Viloria el al. (2001) conducted an experiment to determine the effect of different
levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium (NPK), and density of plants on pepper
vegetative growth. Four doses of NPK (0-0-0; 172-0-0; 137- 50-83 and 180-55-124
kg/ha) and two plant densities (6 and 8 plants/m2) were evaluated 36, 58, 80 and 102
days after transplanting. NPK at 180-55-124 kg/ha recorded the highest diameter,
fresh weight and dry weight of the stem. Fresh and dry weight of the leaves were the
highest with 137-50-83 and ISO- 551-124 NPK/ha. Dry and fresh weight decreased
with increasing plant density. Plant diameter and height, branching weight, and fresh
and dry weights of the leaves were a function of plant age and were demonstrated by
linear equations.
The effect of spacing and planting method on the yield of sweet pepper was studied in
an unheated plastic tunnel (Dobromilska, 2000). Sweet pepper transplants were
planted at a density of 50x40 cm, 50x50 cm and 50x60 cm, in single or double rows.
Plants grown at 50 * 40 cm in double rows produced the highest total fruit yields and
yields of first class fruits. However, the commercial quality of fruits (mean weight,
thickness of pericarp) was lower at the highest planting density.
8
Capsicum annuum var. grossum cv. California Wonder was sown at different densities
(60x30, 60x45 and 60x60 cm spacing) and was supplied with 4 N rates (0, 50, 100 and
150 kg/ha) and 3 P rates (0, 50 and 100 kg/ha) in a field study conducted at
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India . Leaf Area Index (LAI) was the highest at 60x45 cm
spacing. Net assimilation rate (NAR), relative growth rate (RGR) and crop growth rate
(CGR) increased as population densities increased and were the highest at 60x30 cm
spacing. Harvest index was the highest at 60x60 cm spacing. LAI, total chlorophyll
content and harvest index were the highest when 150 kg N/ha + 100 kg P/ha was
applied. NAR, RGR and CGR were not affected by N and P rates (Maya et al., 1999).
Kim et al. (1999) investigated the effect of planting density (2479-6198 plants/1000 m2)
on growth, yield and fruit quality of Capsicum (cultivars Pungchon (upright) and
Shinbaram (spreading), grown in tunnels. Seedlings were planted in 2-rows on a raised-
bed, either facing each other or alternating, and were spaced 20, 30, 40 or 50 cm apart.
Planting systems and distances did not significantly alter plant height, main stem length,
fruit length, fruit diameter or thickness of pericarp. However, increasing the distance
from 20 to 50 cm increased stem diameter. Planting distance, but not the planting pattern,
affected fruit number/plant. Total yield increased as planting density increased in
Pungchon, but not in Shinbaram. Some differences were found in fruit powder
chromaticity, ASTA colour and the concentrations of capsaicinoids and sugars, but no
consistent conclusion, ascribed solely to planting patterns and distances, could be drawn.
Since increasing planting density did not reduce fruit size or the quality of pepper
powder, it is an acceptable way to increase the yield of tunnel-grown Capsicum.
The effects of spacing’s (25x25, 35x35, 45x45 and 55x55 cm) and N fertilizers (0, 50, 75
or 100 kg/ha) on growth, yield and physical fruit quality of chilli cultivars Local Desi, NP
46 and Jwala were studied by Pundir and Porwal (1999) at Bikaner, Rajasthan, India,
during kharif 1995-96. They found that the cultivar Local Desi recorded the highest plant
height, plant DW, fruit weight and volume. However, cultivar NP 46 produced the
highest number of fruits/plant, fruit yield/plant and fruit yield/ha. Application of 100 kg
N in combination with 25 kg P and 50 kg K/ha recorded the highest number of
fruits/plant. Highest plant height, FW and DW, number of fruits and yield of fruits/plant
were recorded at the widest spacing (55x55 cm); the closest spacing (25x25 cm)
produced the highest fruit yield/ha. Fruit quality was also affected by spacing. The
interaction of spacings, fertilizers and cultivars was non significant with regard to
growth, yield and fruit quality attributes.
Znidarcic and Osvald (1999) conducted an experiment with the effects of plant density
and polypropylene covers on the marketable yield of bell peppers at the Experimental
Field of the Biotechnical Faculty in Ljubljana, Slovenia. Plants of cv. Soroksari were
transplanted at 4 densities of 21.8, 13.2, 10.9 and 6.6 1/2 • plants/m . All plants were
grown on soil covered with black PE film. The treatments consisted of covered plants in
comparison with an uncovered control. Mean daily air temperatures under the covers
were 2.3-5.8°C higher than outside temperatures. Covers were removed after 8 weeks
when mean daily maximum temperatures exceeded 32°C. Yield component analysis
indicated that fruit size was larger under covered treatments in comparison to uncovered
treatments at all plant densities. Total marketable yield/m was significantly higher under
cover. In addition, increasing plant density enhanced total marketable yield. The
interactions of cover and density were not significant for total marketable yield. The
strongest influence in terms of an earlier yield was the covered crop at the second harvest
on August 25. At this harvesting, the covered treatments had a 109% higher yield than
uncovered treatments. The total accumulated marketable yield under cover was 71.8%
greater than with no cover.
Ravanappa et al. (1998) investigated the effect of plant density (60x30, 60x45, 60x60,
75x30, 75x45, or 75x60 cm) on growth and yield of 3 green chilli (Capsicum) cultivars
(Nagavi, Kadrolli and Pusa Jwala) using factorial design at Dharwad, India, during
summer 1991 and Kharif season (monsoon) 1992. Significant cultivar and treatment
differences were noticed. The variety Nagavi produced the highest number of branches of
all orders, fresh weight and dry weight of plants, and the highest green fruit yield. The
highest plant density treatment (60x30 cm) produced the highest yield/ha, while the
lowest plant density treatment (75x60 cm) produced the highest DW, FW, number of
branches and yields/plant.
The same authors (Ravanappa el al., 1998a) indicated that, plant height and spread were
the greatest in Kadrolli and the lowest in the dwarf genotype Nagavi. Naqgavi, however,
gave the highest yields (91.73 q/ha in summer and q/ha in Kharif). Plant height was the
10
greatest and plant spread and girth were the least with the highest plant density. Yield
(q/ha) was also the highest with the highest plant density and decreased with decreasing
plant density.
Ravanappa et al. (1998b) observed significant cultivar differences with regard to root
parameters, flowering and yield. The highest yield in summer and kharif obtained from
Nagavi, which had the highest root weight. Kadrolli had the lowest yield. Among spacing
treatments, the closest planting resulted in the highest yield (87.5 q/ha in summer and
113.1 q/ha in Kharif), while the widest spacing resulted in better root length and weight.
Viloria et al. (1998) conducted a field trial in 1995 in Venezuela with Capsicum annuum
cv. Jupiter. Seedling of 35 days old were transplanted in raised beds (18x1.2x0.40 m),
filled with a mixture of soil, horse manure, sand and coconut fiber (2:1:1:1, by volume).
Plant spacing’s of 10, 15 and 20 cm were used, with rows 60 cm apart. Height and
diameter of main stem, height, fresh and diy weight of shoots, fresh and dry weight of
leaves, number of primary and secondary branches, and number of flower blossoms in
these branches were measured at 35 and 80 days after transplanting. With the reduction
of the planting distance from 20x60 to 10x60 cm, the values of the parameters evaluated
decreased significantly, except for stem heights. Age (days after planting ) was
statistically significant for all the variables except the height of the main stem, which
showed that the period between 35 and 80 days after transplanting is determinant on the
growth of the bell pepper plant structures. The responses of growth variables were
explained by multiple exponential and linear equations.
Maya et al. (1997a) conducted in field trials at Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, with
sweet pepper (iCapsicum anmium var. grossum) cv. California Wonder. Seedlings were
planted at spacings of 60 x 30, 60 x 45 or 60 x 60 cm supplied with 0, 50, 100 or 150 kg
N and 0, 50 or 100 kg P/ha. Plant height, dry matter production and yield per hectare at
the closest spacing of 60 x 30 cm. fruit yield and plant growth generally increased as N
and P application rates increased. The highest yield ( 12.13 t/ha) was achieved with a
plant spacing of 60 cm x 30 cm and with N and P application rates of 150 and l00 kg/ha,
respectively.
Maya et al. (1997b) observed that the effects of spacing and N and P on flowering, fruit
characters and quality in Capsicum cv. California Wonder in India. They found that
flowering was delayed by higher rates of N and P. The numbers of fruits/plant were
higher at lower plant densities and higher rates of N and P. Fruit length and girth and
pericarp thickness were higher at higher rates of N and P; the effect of spacing on these
characters was not significant. The closest spacing (60 x 30 cm) and higher rates of N and
P recorded higher fruit weight values. Quality parameters (ascorbic acid and TSS
contents) were not significantly influenced by spacing or N and P rates.
Pepperrocini pepper ( Capsicum anmium var. anmium cv. Golden Creek ) was grown at
the spacing’s of 7.5, 22.5, 30 and 45 cm to determine the effect of plant population on
growth and fruit yield in a 2 year field study (Motsenbocker, 1996). In 1992, pepper
plants grown at 15 cm in-row spacing had the lowest plant, stem and leaf DWs, while
plants at the lowest density (45 cm spacing ) had the highest plant, leaf and stem DWs,
and the largest leaf area (LA). Total yields of fruit count/ha were the highest for plants
grown at the 7.5 cm spacing, but fruit yield/plant was the lowest. In 1993, the lowest
plant and leaf DWs and LA and the highest LAI were obtained from plants at 7.5 cm in-
row spacing. Plants at the 45 cm spacing had the highest plant and leaf DWs and LA and
the lowest LAI. Pepper plants grown at the closest spacing produced the lowest early and
total fruit yields/plant, but the maximum yield of fruits/ha.
Srivastava (1996) reported the effects of N + P + K (200 +150+150; 250 + 200 + 200 or
300 + 250 + 250 kg/ha, respectively) and spacing (60x40; 60x50 or 60x60 cm) on the
growth and yield of Capsicum cv. Hybrid Bharat. First fruit set was also delayed in these
plants. The highest number of fruits/plant (10.66), fresh weight/fruit ( 128 g ), yield/plant
( 637.5 g ) and yield/ha ( 92.95 q ) were observed in plants treated with 250 kg N + 200
kg P + 200 kg K/ha. Days to 50% flowering, percentages of fruit set, number of
fruits/plant, fresh weight of fruits, yield/plant and yield/ha decreased with increasing
spacing. The interaction between fertilizer rate and spacing was significant only on the
number of days to first fruit set and percentage of fruit set.
12
Cebula et al. (1995) conducted an experiment in greenhouse. Capsicum annuum Plants
(vb. Bendigo FL) were spaced at 1.5. 3.0, or 6.0 plants/m and pruned to 4, 2 or 1
shoot(s)/plant, respectively to give a constant 6 shoots/m . Similarly, a shoot density of 8
shoots/m2 was produced from 2, 4 and 8 plants/m2 pruned to 4, 2 and 1 shoots/pant,
respectively. The number of leaves/plant was positively correlated with the number of
shoot(s)/plant. Limiting shoot number/plant, while proportionally increasing plant
population resulted in more effective coverage of soil by the canopy. The transmittance
of photosynthetically active radiation in the plant profile was more beneficial with plants
at a wider spacing, but with a higher number of shoots/plant. Early and total yields/unit
area increased with plant density; plants with 1 shoot at a density of 8 plants/m2 produced
the highest yield. There were no treatment effects on quality.
Jankulovski et al. (1995) reported that, three cultivars of peppers (Zelaten Medal, Bela
Dolga and L-10/34) were grown in 2-row strips or in ordinary rows at 4 different
spacings, equivalent to 11.1, 8.3, or 6.6 plants/m2 in all three cultivars, earliness and
yields were best with a plant density of 11.1 plants/m2 . The spacing recommended for
commercial production is 11.1 plants/m2 in 2- row strips, or 8.3 plants/m2 also in 2-
row strips.
Leskovar et al. (1995) conducted field experiments in Texas in 1993 and 1994 using 2
multiple virus resistant Capsicum annuum genotypes, TAM-Mild Jalapeno-1 and
TAM-Veracruz. They reported that, plant stands were established using either
transplant grown with overhead irrigation in Texas or with flood irrigation in Florida,
or by direct sowing. In row spacing’s were 10, 20 or 30 cm. in 1993, the percentage of
plants unaffected by transplant shock (assessed 20 DAP ) was significantly higher for
the Florida transplants (87%) than the Texas transplants (77%), but total green fruit
yields were similar. There were also a transplant shock (13%) compared with TAM-
Mild Jalapeno- 1 (25%). Transplants had significantly higher total average yield (17.2
t/ha) compared with direct sown plants (5.5 t/ha). Results were similar in 1994,
Overall, Veracruz had the highest yields in both the years, but total yields decreased
linearly with increased plant spacing.
Lorenzo and Castilla (1995) grew the plants of Capsicum annuum cv. Clovis at
densities of 2.0 and 3.2 plants/m2 in unheated plastic green house, during the autumn-
winter production cycle. The higher value of leaf area index (LAI) (5.01 compared
with 3.39) achieved with the higher plant density produced more efficient radiation
interception, resulting in significantly higher total yield (6.13 compared with 4.78
kg/m2), marketable yield ( 5.68 compared with 4.39 kg/m2 and top quality yield (3.82
compared with 3.04 kg/m2) than the lower plant density. A second experiment was
carried out to assess the effect of differences in photosynthetically active radiation
(PAR) received at different locations within the green house. Differences in PAT were
the greatest around the winter solstice, and were associated with differences in yields
at certain times during the production cycle.
Sontakke el al. (1995) conducted a field trial in Kharif ( monsoon ) 1990/91 at Parbhani,
Maharastra, India with Capsicum cultivars, Pusa Jwala and Pant C-grown at 30x45,
45^45 or 45x60 cm spacing, and was given 0-120 kg N/ha. Red dry chilli yield was the
highest in cv. Pusa Jwala. It increased with rate of N application, and it was the highest at
the 30x45 cm spacing.
Anez and Figueredo (1994) grew Capsicum plants on a sandy loam soil at between row
spacing’s of 0.40, 0.80 or 1.20 m (the in row spacing was 0.4 m in all cases) and were
supplied with 0, 150, 300 or 450 kg N/ha (100 kg P2O5 and 200 kg K20/ha were applied
in all treatments). N and K were applied in 2 split doses (15 and 60 days after planting).
Most plant growth parameters and the average weight of an undamaged fruit (11.55 g)
were not affected by treatments, but yields (t/ha and g/plant) generally increased as row
spacing decreased and were greater with than without N application.
Decoteau and Graham (1994) reported that, plant population densities under different
spacing’s ranged from 11,100 to 44,400 plants/ha in single row, and 11,100 to 88,900
plants/ha in double rows. In 1988 plants grown at the highest density (15 cm in-row
spacing, 44,400 plants/ha) produced fewer fruits/plants, but more fruits/ha than those
grown at lower densities. In 1989, yields with either a 15 cm in-row spacing in a single
row or a 30 cm in-row spacing in double rows (both with 44,400 plants/ha) were higher
than with other spacing’s. In general, less fruit weight was located in the lower part of the
plant canopy at higher plant population densities.
14
Jankulovski (1994) stated that when 2 varieties were grown at 5 densities, seed yield was
increased in both varieties by reducing the space available for each plant (increasing the
density) compared with the control (1400 cm /plant). At 800 cm2/plant the seed yield
increase was 22.4 and 17.9% in Kurtovka Kapija and Shorok Shari, respectively, and at
900 cm2/plant 18 and 17.8%. There was no significant difference from the control in seed
weight and germination.
Locascio and Stall (1994) conducted a study to evaluate the effects of plant spacing, row
arrangements and N application rate on Capsicum annuum cv. Keystone Resistant Giant.
Plants were grown on a sandy soil in raised polyethylene mulch beds during 2 years with
1 or 2 plant-rows on 1.22m beds or 2 or 3 plants-rows on 1.83 m beds with 2 in-row plant
spacing’s and 2 N rates. Marketable fruit production was similar for the 2 years. Yield
per plant was 30% higher with a 0.31m than 0.23m in-row spacing, yields/ha were
similar with both in-row spacing’s. Yields per plant also varied with bed arrangement and
were 50% higher with 1 row/1.22m bed than with 2 rows/1.22m bed or 3 rows/1.83m
beds. Plant populations were double with the latter arrangements with 0.31 m in-row
spacing. Thus, total yields were significant higher, with higher plant populations than
with lower plant populations. With 3 rows/1.83m bed, the marketable fruit yields/plant
were 19% lower for plants grown on the inside plant row than for plants grown on the
outside rows.
Mishriky and Alphonse (1994) reported that the effect of N application rates (20, 40 or
60 kg/feddan) to Capsicum (cv. California Wonder) grown at various plant spacing’s (30,
40 or 50 cm) were studied in fields trials during the 2 summer seasons of 1991-92.
Nitrogen was applied as ammonium sulphate in 2 equal doses, 3 and 6 weeks after
transplanting. Increasing the N rate significantly increased plant height, FW and
DW/plant, number and weight of fruits/plant and total fruit yield. The number of
branches and fruits/plant and yield/plant decreased with closer plant spacing, whereas the
total yield (kg/plot or tons/feddan) increased. Fruit yield was affected by a significant
interaction between N rates and plant spacing. The highest total yields increase (from
4.88 to 9.00 tons/feddan and from 5.71 to 9.62 tons/feddan in 1991 and 1992,
respectively) was obtained with an increase in N rate from 20 to 60 kg/feddan combined
with a decrease in plant spacing from 50 to 30 cm. Fruit N and P contents increased
significantly as the N rate increased to 60 kg/feddan, while Ca and Mg concentrations
were reduced at this high N rate. Fruit K content was not affected by the rate of N used.
There was no specific trend in fruit mineral content as a result of plant spacing, [lfeddan
= 0.42ha],
Petrevska (1993) carried out field trials with cv. Zlaten Medal to compare the effects of 8
spacings, allowing 5-25 cm2/plant i.e. 2000-4000 plants/m2, on seedling quality (6 size
and weight parameters). The widest spacing allowing 25 cm /plant gave the heaviest
seedlings, but a plant density of 620-800 m was best for production.
Ramamurthy et al. (1993) conducted a field trial in the Kharif (monsoon) season of 1987-
88 on red sandy clay loam soil of Bangalore, Karnataka, Capsicum annuum cv. Pusa
Jwala was grown alone in 40x45 or 60x30 cm spacing’s and Eleusine coracana was
grown alone at 30x 10 cm spacing or the 2 crops were intercropped with or without
protective irrigation. Grain yield of E. coracana was 3.51 t/ha when grown alone and
2.98 t/ha when intercropped. Green chilli yield was 8.21 and 8.34 t/ha when grown alone
at the 40x45 and 60x30 cm spacing’s, respectively, compared with 0.99 t/ha when
intercropped. The yields of both crops were increased by protective irrigation.
Sanchez et al. (1993) investigated the effect of plant size, as determined by plant density,
and fruit load variation on the production and quality of Capsicum annuum seeds. Six
week old seedlings of cv. Resistant Grant No. 4 were transplanted 15, 30, 45, or 60 cm
apart. Plants spaced 45 cm apart were not thinned or were thinned to 1 or 3 fruits/plant.
Plants grown at low densities produced larger fruits and seeds that germinated faster and
at low densities produced larger fruits and seeds that germinated faster and at higher
percentages than plants grown at higher densities.
Bracy et al. (1992) conducted an experiment during 1988-90, pepper {Capsicum) cv.
Jupiter plants were grown in the field on mulched beds at 4 plant spacing’s and 5 rates of
N fertilization (40, 80, 120, 160 or 200 lb/acre). Seedlings were planted 12 or 18 inches
apart, in single or double rows.
16
Preplan rates of N application were 40, 80 and 120 lb/acre. P2 02 and K20 were applied at
120 lb/acre. N at 80 lb/acre was added to half the plots as 2 side dressings at 4 and 6
weeks after planting. Three harvests were made each year and the peppers were graded
and sized. Yields of extra-large peppers were the greatest in all years (mean 868
bushels/acre) from plants receiving N at 40 or 80 lb/acre in total. Side dressing increased
the yield of extra-large peppers significantly at all pre-plant N rates. Marketable yield
was less affected than extra-large yield by N application. Plant spacing within the row did
not affect yield although planting in double rows gave higher yields than planting in
single rows.
Savic and Ilic (1992) conducted 2-year trials with cv. Soroksari maintaining the plant
spacing 15, 25, 30, 40 or 50 cm apart in rows 60 cm apart. They reported the closest
spacing (60 x 15 cm) produced the highest yield/ha (514.3 kg/ha) and lowest yield/plant
(0.463 kg), and the widest spacing produced the lowest yield/ha (351.6 kg/ha) and
highest yield/plant (1.054 kg).
A field experiment in the kharif season of 1981-82, 42-day old capsicum seedlings, cv.
California Wonder and Selection-16, were planted at 3 inter-row spacing’s (40, 50 or 60
cm) and 3 plant densities (40 000, 50 000 or 60 000 plants/ha). The 60-cm inter-row
spacing resulted in the highest number of fruits/plant (7.24), and fruit yield (172.45 q/ha).
The 40 000 plants/ha density resulted in the highest number of fruits/plant (7.83), fruit
yield/plant (340.40 g/plant) and ascorbic acid content (124.27 mg/100 g of green fruit),
whereas highest fruit yield (159.62 q/ha) was obtained with 50 000 plants/ha. This yield
did not differ significantly from that with 60 000 plants/ha (Gowde et al., 1990).
In a 2-year trials with the cultivar Arka Gaurav, the plants transplanted in early October
at 30, 40 or 50 cm apart with 50 cm between the rows, received N at 50, 100 or 200 kg/ha
and P205 at 50, 100 or 150 kg/ha. Singh and Naik (1990) reported that the highest net
returns were obtained at a spacing of 40x50 cm and when 50 kg N and 150 kg P205/ha
were applied.
Plants of the Capsicum cultivar Lady Bell was grown in a sandy loam soil in beds 22
inches wide and 4 inches high. Population densities ranging from 6300 to 31400
plants/acre were obtained by using single and double row beds with plant spacing’s of 10,
15, 20 and 25 inches. Seedlings were planted on 3 May and fruits were harvested on 11,
18 and 25 July. Stanley et al. (1990) observed significant differences in the total number
of fruits, total weight, marketable weight and total number of boxes/acre between single
and double row treatments. In double rows the total number of boxes of fruit/acre was
28% higher than in single rows. The different plant spacing also affected the various
parameters. Highest yields were observed when seedlings were planted in double rows
with a 10 inch spacing’s, at a density of 31400/acre.
Cebula (1989) conducted five trials between 1984 and 1988 with several Dutch cultivars
which were transplanted in the greenhouse in late February-early March when the
seedlings had 8-9 tine leaves. Ring culture was applied in all cases using plastic
containers with peat substrate placed directly on greenhouse soil. In trials 1-3 the spacing
was 80x30 cm (4.2 plants/m2) and in trials 4-5 it was 80x30, 80x40 or 80x50 cm (4.2, 3.1
and 2.5 plants/m2, respectively). The complex pruning and training techniques for each
trial are described. Intact plants served as controls. The results are discussed with
reference to the effects of the treatments on light penetration of the crop canopy and are
presented in numerous tables, graphs and histograms. The highest yield and good fruit
quality were obtained by spacing the plants at 80x30 cm and by pruning to leave 2
leading shoots and leaving 1 reproductive bud with 2 accompanying leaves on each tier
plus 1 leaf on the side shoot.
In a field experiment with Capsicum cv. California Wonder, application of different
levels of N, P and K and different intra-row spacing’s significantly influenced seed
yield/ha, 1000 seed weight and germination percentage. Dharmatti and Kulkami (1988)
reported that, treatments with 200 kg N/ha, kg P205/ha and 75 kg K20/ha and an intra-row
spacing of 45 cm gave the highest yields (97.25 kg/ha) of quality seeds. Picking 91 or
108 days after transplanting rather than after 128 days is recommended.
18
The effects of N application rate (0, 40, 80, 120 or 160 kg/ha) and plant spacing
(45><20, 45x30 or 45x40 cm) were studied in experiments on a sandy loam soil. Plants
received basal doses of P205 and K20 (each at 50 kg/ha) at planting. N was applied in 3
equal split doses at planting, at 30 days and at flowering. Manchanda et al. (1988)
reported that plant height, number of primary branches/plant and leaf area was the
greatest at the lowest planting density. Number of fruits/plant and fruit length increased
with decreasing planting density, but fruits yield (q/ha) decreased. Planting at 45x20 cm
gave the highest fruit yield (90.6 q/ha). Increasing rates of N increased plant height, the
number of primary branches/plant, leaf area, number of fruits/pant, fruit length and
breadth, and fruit yields. N at 160 kg/ha gave the highest fruit yield (115.4 q/ha).
Manchanda et al. (1987) conducted an experiment with the capsicum cv. California
Wonder, the plants, spaced at 45x20, 45x30 or 45x40 cm, received N at 40, 80, 120 or
160 kg/ha. The highest plant density and N rate gave the highest yield (115.4 q/ha) of
best quality fruits.
Ahmed (1984) conducted field trials over 2 seasons with capsicum cv. California
Wonder. The highest yield (8.7 t/ha) was obtained with 80 kg N/ha. Yields were higher
with closer spacing (70x30 cm) than with wider spacing (70x70 cm). Yield increases
were due to increase in number of fruits/plant rather in fruit size. Plant height, number of
branches/plant and leaves /plant were not affected by closer spacing or N application.
Sundstrom et al. (1984) reported that yields of Capsicum frutescens cv. Me Ilhenny
Select increased with an increase in N rate from 0 to 112 kg N/ha, and a decrease in in-
row plant spacing from 8 to 10 cm. the percentage of machine harvested red fruits in
relation to green and orange fruit removal was enhanced with 20 cm in-row spaced
plants. Plant height increase with an increase in N rate from 0 to 112 kg/ha, while plant
diameter decreased with a decrease in inrow spacing from 81 to 10 cm.
Srinivas and Hedge (1984) carried out field trials during the winter seasons of 1976-77
and 1977-78 at spacings of 50 x 30, 50 x 40, 50 x 50 cm. Cultivars California Wonder
and Selection-5 had higher dry matter contents than Selection-7, but the fruit percentage
of dry matter was highest in Selection-7.
In a 2 season trials, the cultivars California Wonder, Selection-5 and Selection- 7 were
grown at 50x30, 50x40, 50x50 cm (Srinivas, 1982). Data were tabulated on plant height,
number of shoots/plant, fruit size, fruit weight, earliness index and yields. Fruit yield
increased with plant density from 77.1 to
97.5 q/ha at 50 x 50 cm from 97.6 to 133.9 q/ha at 50 x 30 cm. The yields were similar in
all cultivars.
Ramachandran and Subbiah (1981) conducted trials with Capsicum cv. MDU- 1, plants
spaced at 30x20, 30x30, 30x40 cm received N at 40, 80, 120 or 160 kg/ha. The number of
shoots and fruits/plant and the weight of 100 fruits generally increased with rising N rates
but decreased with plant density. The highest yield/ha of diy fruits (2358.33 kg) was
obtained from plots with plants at 30x20 cm receiving 120 kg N/ha. ^
Szepesy (1976) showed that planting 15 cm apart in the row with 2 or 3 plants/hill or 20
cm apart with 3 plants/hill produced 25-63% higher yields than planting 30 cm apart with
2 or 3 plants/hill. The original row distance of 70 cm was reduced in the second
experimental year to 60 cm. the cvs. did not respond uniformly to close spacing but close
spacing did not reduce quality.
Sinha (1975) observed that capsicums were planted at 20x20, 20x30 and 40x40 cm and
the effects were compared of N at 35, 70 or 105 kg/ha in all possible combinations,
applied in split doses 10 days after transplanting and at the fruit setting stage. A single
dose of P205 and K20 at 35 and 21 kg/ha, respectively, was also applied after
transplanting. The highest yields were obtained with the closest spacing and the highest N
application rate, but vitamin C content was lowest with this combination. Conversely, the
highest vitamin C content but the lowest yields resulted from the widest spacing and the
lowest N rate.
20
In another, similar, trial in which GA at 25, 50 or 100 pp, greatly enhanced vitamin C
accumulation at higher N rates. The best treatment combination was 40x40 cm spacing,
which 70 kg/ha N and 50 ppm GA.
The cvs. Pesro, Yolo Wonder and Alpille were grown at spacing’s of 0.4x1, 0.5x1 or
0.6x1 m. Alpille out yielded the other cvs. in the production of first grade fruit at each
spacing. A single wire as sufficient to support Yolo Wonder plants, whereas Pedro
required 2 rows of wire at all spacing’s and Alpille 2 rows of wire at the closest spacing’s
(Perko, 1976).
Tanaka el al. (1974) reported that, cvs. Jack and King Capsicum plants were placed 1, 4,
9 or 6 plants/40 x 40 xl2 cm box and 100, 200, 400 or 600 g/1 N was applied (from
unspecified). With high N levels, there was some increase in fruit yield at closer spacings
compared with lower N levels and at wider spacing; this difference was much more
marked. Measurements of leaf area index, net assimilation rate and growth rate are
tabulated for king.
Density, planting pattern and row orientation all influenced light interception by
Capsicum plants, but only density affected the dry matter yield. Verheij and Verwer
(1973) reported that, yield density relations conformed to the pattern established for other
crops, the biological yield (dry matter/m2) was stable over a wide range of higher
densities but the proportion of dry matter recovered in the fruit, the individual fruit
weight, and the proportion of red fruit declined with rising density. The optimum density
for fruit production appeared to be rather lower than the minimum density required to
obtain ceiling biological yield. The results are compared with those from similar
experiments with Brussels sprouts.
Capsicum cv. Ikeda planted at spacing’s of 20, 35 and 50 cm between plants in row lm
apart (giving plant populations of 50,000, 28,571 and 20,000 plants/ha, respectively)
were treated with NPK at 60-52-50 kg/ha or double the rate and compared to unfertilized
control.
Silva et al. (1971), reported that the total weight and umber of fruits/plant and early
production were enhanced by fertilizer compared to no fertilizer, but the average fruit
weight was not altered. There was not significant difference between the 2 fertilizer
levels. Reducing the spacing increased the total number of fruits but reduced the number
of fruits/plant and average fruit weight.
Tanaka and Tokai (1972) observed that, when capsicums cvs. Kyomidori and King were
grown at densities of 1 to 16 plants/box (40x40x12 cm) the final plant and fruit fresh
weight were similar at all densities.
Kemp and Wesolowski (1972) conducted a two-year trial with Capsicums cv. Vinedale
where the effects of plant spacing of 12, 24 and 36 in square were compared on yield and
the incidence of aphid-bome virus diseases. As plant density increased, the total yield
rose from 1.85 to 3.75 to 11.8 t/acre, and the marketable yield from 1.1 to 2.35 to 8.6
t/acre. At the highest density, only 27% of the total yield was unmarketable, compared
with 37-40% at the lower densities. Losses due to virus infection were least (1.06%) at
the highest density. Differences in the time of fruit ripening were slight, plant size was
inversely related to plant density.
Rosenblum and Karstadt (1970) reported that, planting 30 cm apart gave the beat results
in wide plastic tunnels. Closer spacing appeared to cause excessive competition for light.
24
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used and methodology followed in the experiment are presented in this
chapter. A brief description of experimental site, plant materials, experimental
treatments, experimental design and layout, intercultural operation, data collection and
statistical analysis are included under the following heads:
3.1 Experimental site
An experiment was earned out at the Horticultural farm of the Bangladesh Agricultural
Research Institute (BARI), Joydebpur, Gazipur, during the Kharif and Rabi season
(September 2006 to April 2007). The experimental area is situated at 24.00°N latitude
and 90.25°E longitude at an elevation of 8.4 meters from the sea level (Anon., 1995).
3.2 Climate of the area
The area has sub-tropical climate. It is characterized by high temperature accompanied
by moderately high rainfall during Kharif season and low temperature in the Rabi
(October- March) season. The weather data including temperature, rainfall, humidity and
sunshine hour during the period of experiment are presented in Appendix I.
3.3 Soil
The soil of the experimental field was sandy clay loam in texture having a p" around 6.0.
The soil belongs to the Chita soil series of red brown terrace soil with in the AEZ number
28 (Brammer, 1971 and Shaheed, 1984). The soil was later developed by riverbed silt.
The chemical analysis of the soil was performed and its characteristics have given in
Appendix II.
25
3.4 Design and layout of the experiment
The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) having 2
factors with three replications. There were in total 63 (7x9) unit plots, each plot of 3x lm
were made and raised by 10 cm, which was separated by 0.50 m space. The blocks were
also separated by 0.50 m space.
3.5 Treatments
The treatments included 7 sowing times and 3 plant spacing. There were 21 treatment
combinations. The seeds were sown in seven dates at 15 days interval. The sowing date
and plant spacing are given below:
Sowing date
T1= sowing on 1 September, 2006
T2= sowing on 15 September, 2006
T3= sowing on 1 October, 2006
T4 = sowing on 15 October, 2006
T5 = sowing on 30 October, 2006
T6 = sowing on 15 November, 2006 and
T7 = sowing on 30 November, 2006
Plant spacing
S1 = 50x50 cm (12 plants/plot)
S2= 50x40 cm (14 plants/plot) and
S3= 50x30 cm (20 plants/plot)
3.6 Plant Materials Used
Capsicum annuum var. grossum cv. California Wonder, 10 g seeds were needed for
sowing. Seeds were soaked in water for 12 hour prior to sowing. Thirty days old
seedlings were obtained from the seedbed of the Horticultural farm of the Bangladesh
Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Jodebpur, Gazipur.
26
3.7 Land Preparation
The experimental land was prepared to obtain good tilth by several ploughing, cross
ploughing, as well as harrowing followed by laddering. Weeds and stubbles were
removed; larger clods were broken into small pieces and finally attained into a desirable
tilth to ensure proper growing conditions. The plot was partitioned into the unit plots
according to the experimental design as mentioned earlier (section 3.4). Recommended
doses of well decomposed cowdung and fertilizers were mixed with the soil of each
plot. Proper irrigation drainage channels were also prepared around the plots. Each unit
plot was prepared keeping 5 cm height from the drains.
3.8 Manure and fertilizer application
The Horticulture Research Centre of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute
recommended the following dose of manures and fertilizers till date to have a successful
production of sweet pepper (Saha, 2001).
Half of the quantity of cowdung was applied during final land preparation. The
remaining half of Cowdung, the entire quantity of TSP, ZnO, Gypsum and one third each
of urea and MP were applied during pit preparation. The rest of Urea and MP were
applied in two equal splits, 25 and 50 days after transplanting in the main field (Table 1).
Table 1. Doses and methods of application of manure and fertilizers for the production of sweet pepper
Elemental form Fertilizer form
Cowdung 10 t/ha
N-100 kg/ha Urea-217 kg/ha
P205-150 kg/ha TSP - 333 kg/ha
K20-120 kg/ha MP- 200 kg/ha
S-20 kg/ha Gypsum - 111 kg/ha
Zn-4 kg/ha ZnO - 5 kg/ha
27
3.9 Transplanting of sweet pepper seedlings
Thirty days old seedlings were transplanted on experimental plots at each planting time
with 2 cm depth providing spacing’s as per treatments. Planting
was done in the afternoon. One seedling was planted in each hole. After planting, the
bases of seedlings were covered with soil and then pressed by hand very carefully, so
that any part of root never destroyed during planting.
3.10 Intercultural Operations
The growing seedlings were always kept under careful observation. After planting the
seedlings, the following intercultural operations were accomplished for their better
growth and development.
3.10.1 Irrigation
Immediately after transplanting, the experimental plot was semi-flooded by irrigation.
The crop was irrigated when needed depending on the moisture status of the soil and
requirement of plants.
3.10.2 Gap filling
Plots with transplanted seedlings were regularly observed to find out any damage or dead
seedlings for its replacement. Gap filling was done as and when required.
3.10.3 Weeding
Weeding was necessary to keep the plots free from weeds, easy aeration and for
conserving soil moisture. When all plants were established in the plot, the soil around the
base of each plant was pulverized. 3.10.4 Top dressing The remaining two-third of urea and MP were applied as top dressing in each plot by
2 installments.
28
3.11 Plant protection measures
The established plants were affected by aphids, mites. Malathion @ 2 ml/1 water was
applied against aphids and other insects. Sweet pepper plants infected with
anthracnose and were controlled by spraying Bavistin @ 2 g/1 water at 15 days
interval. Few plants were found to be infected by bacterial wilt and Phytophthora
blight and controlled by spraying Admier and Ridomil Gold @ 2 g/1 of water and
uprooted.
3.12 Harvesting
First harvesting of green sweet pepper was done on 27 December, 2006, 15 January,
18 February, 5 March, 27 March, 11 April and 18 April, 2007 for the sowing date of 1
September, 15 September, 1 October, 15 October, 30 October, 15 November and 30
November, 2006 respectively. Harvesting was done by hand.
3.13 Data collection
In order to study the effects of the treatments on yield components, data in respect of
the following parameters were collected during the growth of plants and at harvesting
time of the crop. Five plants were randomly selected from each plot for data collection
on growth and yield characteristics.
3.13.1 Plant height (cm)
The height of plant was taken in centimeter (cm) from ground level to the tip of the
stem of the plant at 45, 60, 75, 90 days after sowing and during final harvest.
3.13.2 Stem girth (mm)
Girth of stem in millimeter (mm) was recorded for each of the randomly selected plant at
final harvest at the base portion of the plant with a slide calipers.
29
3.13.3 Number of branches per plant
At final harvesting, all the primary branches were counted from each of the selected
plants and their average value was taken as number of branches per plant.
3.13.4 Number of leaves per plant
The number of leaves per plant was counted from the selected plants and their average
was taken as the number of green leaves per plant. It was recorded during final harvest.
3.13.5 Fruit length (cm)
The length of the fruit was measured with a digital slide calipers in centimeter from the
neck of the fruit to the bottom of the fruit. It was measured from 3 selected fruits (large,
medium and small size) in each plot and their average was taken as the length of the
fruit.
3.13.6 Fruit Breadth (cm)
Breadth of the fruits were measured at the middle portion of 3 selected fruits (large,
medium and small size) from each plot with the digital slide calipers in centimeter and
their average was taken as the breadth of the fruits.
3.13.7 Pericarp thickness (mm)
Thickness of the flesh of 3 selected fruits (large, medium and small size) from each plot
were recorded with the help of digital slide calipers and the average of the three fruits
thickness taken at the middle portion of the fruit by cutting the same was taken to be the
flesh thickness of fruit.
3.13.8 Days to 50% flowering
Days to 50% flowering was recorded from the date of sowing (50% of the plants in a
plot when opened flowers fully).
3.13.9 Days to 1st harvest
Days to 1st harvest was calculated also from the date of sowing upto the attainment of
edible fruit maturity stage.
30
3.13.10 Number of fruits per plant
Fruits were collected at different dates from the selected plants and their average was
taken as the number of fruits per plant.
3.13.11 Number of fruits per plot
Fruits were collected at different dates from all plants per plot and per replications.
Number of fruits per plot from first harvest to final harvest was collected to get total
number of fruits per plot.
3.13.12 Individual fruit weight (g)
Mean fruit weight in gram was calculated from the 3 selected fruits weight and also
these fruits were taken to measure the size of fruit in respect of length and breadth.
3.13.13 Yield per plant (g)
Yield per plant was calculated in gram by a balance from the total weight of fruits per
selected plants harvested at different periods and was recorded.
3.13.14 Yield per plot (Kg)
Sweet pepper fruits collected from all plants within a plot were counted at each
harvest. Then it was pooled after final harvest. 3.13.15 Yield per hectare (t/ha)
Yield per hectare was calculated from the yield obtained in each of the experimental unit
and was expressed in tones per hectare.
31
3.14 Statistical analysis
The recorded data for different characters were analyzed statistically using ‘MSTAT-C’
program to find out the significance of variation among the treatments. The analysis of
variance (ANOVA) was performed by F-test, while the significance of difference
between the pairs of treatment means were evaluated by the Duncan's Multiple Range
Test (DMRT) test at 5% and 1% level of probability (Gomez and Gomez 1984).
3.15 Economic analysis
The cost of production was analyzed in order to find out the profitability of the
treatment combination. All the non-material and material input costs and interests on
running capital were considered for computing the cost of production. The interest on
running capital was calculated @ 13% per year for six months. The lease value of one
hectare of land was considered to be Tk.30000, and the price of sweet pepper at harvest
was considered to be Tk.60 per kilogram. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) was calculated as
follows:
Gross return per hectare (Tk) Benefit cost ratio (BCR) = -------------------------- ------------ 1— -------
Total cost of production per hectare (Tk)
I Chapter IV Results and Discussio
32
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present experiment was carried out to investigate the effect of sowing date and plant
spacing on growth, yield and yield components of sweet pepper. The results obtained in
the study have been described and discussed in this section.
4.1 Plant height
The main effect of sowing date on plant height of sweet pepper was significant (Figure
1). The main effect of sowing date indicated that the plant heights gradually increased
when recorded at different growth stages. Plants which were sown in September 1 to
October 15 attained the maximum height. The tallest plant (46.32 cm) was obtained from
October 1 sowing at final harvest which was statistically similar to those of October 15
(43.07 cm) and September 1 (42.92 cm) sowing respectively. Plants those were sown
after October 1 attained the minimum plant height. The minimum plant height (36.32
cm) at final harvesting stage was obtained from the November 15 sowing which was
statistical similar to those of October 30 and November 30 sowing.
The main effect of plant spacing was found to be significant on plant height at different
stage of plant growth (Figure 2). It was also found that the lowest spacing 50x30 cm
produced the plants with higher plant height at all stages of plant growth as compared to
other higher spacings. The closest spacing (50x30 cm) produced the tallest plant (42.99
cm) and the shortest plants (39.54 cm) were obtained from the widest spacing (50x50
cm) as comparable to that of 50x40 cm spacing at final harvesting stage.
33
This can be explained from the fact that in case of higher population density, penetration
of light was decreased which might have led to increase the endogenous auxin formation
and
enhanced the growth of dormant bud (Willey and Hearth, 1969).
The results of the present study for this character are in agreement with the findings of
Maya et al. (1997a) who stated that, plant height of sweet pepper was significantly
increased with close spacing. Viloria et al. (1998) and Manchanda et al. (1988) also
expressed similar opinion on plant height of sweet pepper.
The combined effect of sowing date and spacing indicated that at 45 and 60 days after
sowing were statistically significant on plant height but insignificant plants height
were found at 75 and 90 days after sowing (Table 2) along with at final harvesting
stage. The longest plant height (47.92 cm) was obtained from sowing date on October
1 with the spacing of 50x30 cm and the shortest plant height (34.62 cm) was found
from sowing on November 15 with the widest (50x50 cm) spacing.
34
Days after sowing
45 DAS -i—60 DAS -h- 75 DAS -1-90 DAS At final harvest
Figure 1. Main effect of sowing date on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth.
Note: T 1= September 01 T 2= September 15 T 3 = October 01 T 4 = October 15 T 5 = October 30 T 6 = November 15 T 7 = November 30
Plan
t hei
ght (
cm)
Different date of sowing
35
Plant spacing
4—50x50 cm 50x40 cm -A-50x30 cm
harvest
Days after sowing
Figure 2.Main effect of plant spacing on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth.
Plan
t hei
ght (
cm)
36
**Significant at 1% level of probability, NS Non significant In a column, means followed by common letters are not significantly different from each other at 1% level of probability by DMRT
Table 2. Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on plant height of sweet pepper at different stages of plant growth
Treatment Plant height (cm)
Sowing date Spacing (cm)
45 DAS 60 DAS 75 DAS 90 DAS At final harvest
September 01 (T,) 50 x 50 (S,) 50 x
40 (S2) 50 x 30
(S3)
10.22ef
11.27d
10.91de
16.56fg
17.74e
15.40h
24.48
27.00
27.10
28.91
29.97
31.15
41.91
42.95
43.90 September 15
(T2) 50 x 50 (S,) 50 x
40 (S2)
13.46bc
13.01c
22.04ab
22.23ab
24.61
24.97
27.82
28.02
38.78
40.68
50 x 30 (S3) 14.16b 22.59a 26.30 29.59 42.66 50 x 50 (Si) 13.74bc 20.22cd 23.36 25.27 45.37
October 01 (TO 50 x 40 (S2) 50 x
30 (S3)
14.22b
15.12a 20.43cd
21.21 be
23.70
24.56
25.38
27.08
45.66
47.92 50 x 50 (S,) 10.79de 16.02gh 20.22 23.12 42.84
October 15 (T4)
50 x 40 (S2) 11.16d 16.47fg 20.55 23.69 43.17
50 x 30 (S3) 11,24d 17.15ef 21.64 24.30 45.10 50 x 50 (S,) 7.85j 11.15k 16.43 22.47 38.64
October 30 (T5)
50 x 40 (S2) 8.18ij 12.61 ij 17.35 22.98 39.12
50 x 30 (S3) 10.86de 13.35i 20.34 23.75 41.92
November 15 (T6) 50 x 50 (S,) 50 x
40 (S2)
9.71 fg
10.51 de
16.51 fg
17.64e
18.89
19.49
24.61
25.76
34.62
36.73
50 x 30 (S3) 11.32d 19.68d 22.48 26.35 37.62
November 30 (T7) 50 x 50 (S,) 50 x
40 (S2)
8.2 lij
8.86hi
11.02k
12.02jk
16.05
17.51
19.68
20.47
34.64
36.41
50 x 30 (S3) 9.0 lgh 13.26i 19.07 21.08 41.84
Level of Sig. — ** ** NS NS NS
CV (%) — 3.07 2.72 5.02 7.33 7.27
37
4.2 Number of branches per plant
The effect of sowing date on the number of branches per plant of sweet pepper was
significant (Table 3). The maximum average number of branches (5.20) was recorded
in plants from the September 1 and October 1 sowings which were statistically similar
to those of September 15, October 15 and October 30 sowings. Minimum number of
branches (4.30) per plant was found at November 30 sowing which was statistically
similar to those of November 15 and September 15 sowing.
Number of branches per plant differed significantly by different spacing levels (Table
4). Maximum average number of branches (5.63) per plant was recorded from plants
of the widest spacing (50x50 cm). The lowest number of branches (4.12) per plant was
recorded from the closest spacing (50x30 cm) which was statistically different from
other treatments. The results of the present study for this character is in agreement
with the findings of Ravanappa et al. (1998) who reported that the lowest plant density
treatment obtained from the widest spacing (75x60 cm) produced the highest number
of branches per plant. This might be due to the plants of wider spacing could receive
more light, nutrients and other resources than the plants of close spacing.
The combined effect of sowing date and spacing on number of branches per plant was
significant (Table 5). The maximum number of branches (6.11) per plant was found
from October 15 sowing when plants were spaced by 50x50 cm. which was
statistically similar to that of treatment combinations of TjSi, T|S2, T2S|, T3Si; T5Si and
T6Si. The minimum average number of branches (3.21) per plant was found in
November 15 sowing when plants were spaced by 50x30 cm. which was statistically
similar to that of November 30 sowing with same spacing.
38
4.3 Number of leaves per plant
A significant variation in number of leaves per plant was observed in case of sowing
date (Table 3). October 1 sowing produced the maximum number of leaves per plant
(243.82) while it was the lowest (169.41) in November 30 sowing which was
statistically similar to those of October 30 to November 30 and September 1 sowing.
Plant spacing also showed significant influence on number of leaves per plant of
sweet pepper (Table 4). The maximum number of leaves per plant (204.39) was
recorded from 50*50 cm spacing. The minimum number of leaves per plant of sweet
pepper (182.51) was recorded from 50x40 cm plant spacing which was statistically
similar (185.97) to 50*30 cm plant spacing.
The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on number of leaves per plant
was also significant (Table 5). The maximum number of leaves per plant (274.13) was
obtained from October 1 sowing when plants were spaced by 50*50 cm which was
statistically different from other treatment combinations. The minimum number of
leaves per plant (146.92) was obtained from November 30 sowing when plants were
spaced by 50*40 cm spacing which was statistically similar to the treatment
combinations of T1S3, T2S3, T5S2, T6S[ and T7S3.
4.4 Stem girth (mm)
Stem girth of sweet pepper varied significantly due to different sowing date (Table 3).
It was found that the earlier sowing (September 1) produced plant with maximum
(15.30 mm) stem girth which was statistically different from the other treatments
whereas the minimum stem girth (13.01 mm) was recorded from November 15
sowing.
39
The stem girth of sweet pepper was found to be statistically significant due to different
plant spacing (Table 4). The widest spacing (50x50 cm) produced the maximum
(14.79 mm) stem girth and it was gradually decreased with decreasing plant spacing.
It was recorded the lower (12.08 mm) stem girth with the closest plant spacing (50x30
cm). The result of the present study for this character is in agreement with the findings
of Sundstrom et al. (1984). Kim et al. (1999) also expressed similar opinion on stem
diameter of Capsicum.
The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on stem girth of sweet pepper
was also significant (Table 5). The combined effect resulted that the earlier sowing
(September 1) with 50x40 cm spacing produced the highest (16.15 mm) stem girth
which was statistically similar to September 1, 15 and October 1 sowings with 50x50
cm spacing. Lower (11.61 mm) stem girth was obtained from the late sowing
(November 30) with the closest spacing (50x30 cm) which was statistically similar to
November 15 sowing along with same spacing.Table 3. Main effect of sowing date on number of branches per plant, number of
leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper Treatment (Sowing date)
No. of branches/plant No. of leaves/plant Stem girth (mm)
September 01 (Ti) 5.20a 174.15d 15.30a
September 15 (T2) 4.78ab 193.89bc 14.28b
October 01 (T3) 5.20a 243.82a 14.49b
October 15 (T4) 5.15a 198.43b 13.84c
October 30 (T5) 4.98a 176.09d 13.74c
November 15 (Te) 4.32b 180.91cd 13.Old
November 30 (T7) 4.30b 169.41d 13.48c
Level of significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
40
Table 4. Main effect of plant spacing on number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper
Treatment (Spacing)
No. of branches/plant No. of leaves/plant Stem girth (mm)
50 x 50cm (S,) 5.63a 204.39a 14.79a
50 x 40cm (S2) 4.79b 182.51b 14.48b
50 x 30cm (S3 ) 4.12c 185.97b 12.80c
Level of Significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
41
Table 5. Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper
Treatment No. of No. of Stem girth Sowing date Spacing (cm) branches/plant leaves/plant (mm) September 01
(T,) 50 x 50 (S,) 50
x 40 (S2)
5.47ab
5.80a 181,46e-i
184.06e-i
15.77a
16.15a 50 x 30 (S3) 4.33c 156.93 ij 13.35e-h 50 x 50 (S,) 5.54ab 214.67bcd 15.93a
September 15 (T2)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.67be 195.53c-g 13.97c-f
50 x 30 (S3) 4.13cd 171.46f-j 12.95gh 50 x 50 (S,) 6.06a 274.13a 15.47ab
October 01 (T3)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.80bc 217.53bc 14.65cd
50 x 30 (S3) 4.73cd 239.80b 13.99c-f 50 x 50 (SO 6.11a 209.67cd 14.17cde
October 15 (T4)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.63bc 187.30d-h 14.21cde
50 x 30 (S3) 4.70dc 198.33c-f 13.14fgh 50 x 50 (Si) 5.88a 184.33e-i 14.51 cd
October 30 (T5) 50 x 40 (S2) 4.67bc 156.53ij 13.78d-g
50 x 30 (S3) 4.40c 187.40d-h 12.93h 50 x 50 (S,) 5.47ab 167.67g-j 13.63e-h
November 15 (T6)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.27c 189.67c-h 13.80def
50 x 30 (S3) 3.21e 185.40e-i 11.61 i 50 x 50 (S,) 4.87bc 198.80c-f 14.04cde
November 30 (T7)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.67bc 146.92J 14.80bc
50 x 30 (S3) 3.37de 162.50hij 11.61 i
Level of Sig. — ** ** **
CV (%) — 7.60 6.01 2.46
42
4.5 Days to 50% flowering
Days to 50% flowering was found significantly effective by sowing date (Table 6).
Late sowing required significantly more time as compared to early sowing .The plants
of November 30 sowing took the highest period (116.56 days) for 50% flowering
which was statistically similar (115.22 days) to that of November 15 sowing and the
shortest period (97.89 days) took by the plant of September 15 sowing which was
statistically different from other treatments. This might be late sown plant required
more time for receiving favorable cool temperature which may induce flowering.
The plant spacing was found to influence significantly at 1% level of probability to the
days to 50% flowering (Table 7). Flowering occurred earlier (104.29 days) in plant
when grown as higher spacing (50x50 cm) but late flowering (110.93 days) occurred
in plant with closer spacing (50x30 cm) which was statistically similar (108.81 days)
to that of 50x40 cm spacing. The result is consistent with that of Srivastava (1996)
who reported that days to 50% flowering decreased with increasing spacing.
Days to 50% flowering was significantly influenced by the combined effect of sowing
date and plant spacing (Table 8). It was found that late sowing (November 30) took the
maximum period (124.00 days) along with the closest spacing (50x30 cm) for
obtaining 50% flowering which was statistically different from other treatment
combinations except late sowing (November 30) with 50x40 cm spacing. On the other
hand, earlier sowing (September 15) took the shortest period (91.33 days) when the
plants were spaced with the widest spacing (50x50 cm).
43
4.6 Days to first harvest
The significant variation was found for days to 1st harvest (Table 6). It was observed
that October 1 sowing required more time (156.78 days) as compared to other
sowings. The shortest period (125.89 days) was taken took by the plant of September
15 sowing which was statistically similar (129.56 days) to September 1 sowing.
The main effect of spacing was found to influence significantly at 1% level of
probability to days to 1st harvest (Table 7). It was observed that the first harvest was
earlier (136.72 days) at the closest spacing (50*30 cm). On the other hand, first
harvest was later (145.90 days) at 50*40 cm spacing.
Days to 1st harvest was significantly influenced by the combined effect of sowing date
and plant spacing (Table 8). It was found that when sowing was done on September 15
following 50*50 cm spacing, then the days to 1st harvest was earlier (103.00 days). It
was also found that October 1 sowing along with plant spacing 50*40 cm had the
highest period (164 days) for 1st harvest which was statistically similar to the treatment
combination of T3Si.
4.7 Number of fruits per plant
Among the yield contributing characters, number of fruits per plant is one of the
important characters. The number of fruits per plant showed significant difference
among the plant due to sowing date (Table 6). The highest average number of fruits
(8.69) per plant was found from the plants of October 1 sowing. The minimum
number of fruits (3.48) per plant being noticed in plants of November 30 sowing and
differed significantly from that of other sowing dates.
The number of fruits per plant varied significantly under different plant spacings
(Table 7). The highest average number of fruits (6.08) per plant was recorded from the
widest spacing (50*50 cm) which was significantly higher than those of other spacings
(50*40 cm and 50 * 30 cm). The lowest number of fruits (4.63) per plant was noted
under the closest spacing (50*30 cm). Reduced number of plants under wider spacing
44
undergone less inter or intra plant competition which caused an increased number of
fruits per plant. The results are in agreement with the report of Mishriky and Alphonse
(1994) who stated that the number of fruits per plant and yield per plant decreased
with closer plant spacing’s.
A significant combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing was also observed on
number of fruits per plant (Table 8). The highest average number of fruits (10.41) per
plant was found from the plants of October 1 sowing when plants were spaced by
50x50 cm. which was significantly different from of other sowings and spacing’s.The
minimum number of fruits (2.76) per plant being noticed in plants of November 30
sowing with closer spacing (50x30 cm). This was significantly different from other
sowings and spacing’s.Table 6. Main effect of sowing date on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per
plant and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper Treatment Sowing date Days to 50%
flowering No. of fruits/plant Days to 1st
harvest September 01 (Ti) 104.78b 5.13c 129.56e
September 15 (T2) 97.89c 4.99c 125.89e
October 01 (T3) 105.00b 8.69a 156.78a
October 15 (T4) 107.00b 6.41b 152.22b
October 30 (T5) 108.44b 4.66cd 148.11b
November 15 (T&) 115.22a 4.17d 143.67c
November 30 (T7) 116.56a 3.48e 135.OOd
Level of significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
45
Table 7. Main effect of plant spacing on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper
Treatment Spacing
Days to 50% flowering
No. of fruits/plant Days to 1st harvest
50 x 50cm (Si) 104.29b 6.08a 142.19b
50 x 40cm (S2) 108.81a 5.37b 145.90a
50 x 30cm (S3) 110.43a 4.63c 136.72c
Level of Significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
46
Table 8. Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number of fruits per plot and days to 1st harvest of sweet pepper
Treatment Days to 50% flowering
No. of No. of Days to 1st harvest
Sowing date Spacing (cm)
fruits/plant fruits/plot
September 01 (T.) 50 x 50 (Si) 50
x 40 (S2)
100.33h
106.00e-h
5.36dc
5.24de
64.33g-i
73.33f 145.67d
124.33gh 50 x 30 (S3) 108.00e-g 4.77eg 95.33d 118.67h 50 x 50 (S,) 91.33i 5.91cd 71.00fgh 103.OOi
September 15 (T2)
50 x 40 (S2) 101.33gh 4.88efg 68.33f-i 148.67cd 50 x 30 (S3) 10l.00gh 4.17f-i 83.33e 126.00gh 50 x 50 (S,) 109.67def 10.41a 125.20b 160.67ab
October 01 (T3)
50 x 40 (S2) 100.33h 7.83b 109.93c 164.00a
50 x 30 (S3) 105.00fgh 7.85b 157.00a 145.67b 50 x 50 (S,) 106.33e-h 7.52b 90.33de 155.33bc
October 15 (T4)
50 x 40 (S2) 106.67e-h 6.33c 88.66de 155.33bc
50 x 30 (S3) 108.00efg 5.37de 107.30c 146.00d 50 x 50 (S,) 104.67fgh 5.01def 60.13ijk 147.OOd
October 30 (T5) 50 x 40 (S2) 110.33c-f 4.83efg 67.67fi 150.33cd
50 x 30 (S3) 110.33c-f 4.13f-i 82.67e 147.00cd 50 x 50 (S,) 112.67cde 4.62e-h 55.54k 147.OOd
November 15 (T6)
50 x 40 (S2) 116.33bcd 4.52e-h 63.33h-k 142.00be
50 x 30 (S3) 116.67bc 3.38ij 72.67fg 142.00de
November 30 (T7)
50 x 50 (S,) 50
x 40 (S2)
105.00fgh
120.67ab
3.69h-i
3.98ghi
44.331
55.66k
136.67ef
136.67ef
50 x 30 (S3) 124.00a 2.7 6j 58.33jk 131.67fg
Level of Sig. - ** ** ** **
CV (%) - 2.58 7.40 4.36 2.40
47
4.8 Number of fruits per plot
Significant effect of sowing date was found on the number of fruits per plot (Figure 3).
The highest number (130.71) of fruits per plot was obtained in October 1 sowing and
differed significantly with the rest of sowing dates. The lowest number (52.77) of
fruits per plot was obtained from the November 30 sowing. The highest number of
fruits per plot at October 1 sowing might be due to favorable weather conditions
prevailed during this time.
The number of fruits per plot differed significantly among the different spacing level
(Figure 4). The highest number (93.80) of fruits per plot was produced by the plants in
plot of 50><30 cm spacing which was significantly different from other spacing’s. The
lowest number (72.98) of fruits was recorded in plot where plants were grown at
50x50 cm spacing which was comparable to that of the plots of 50x40 cm spacing. In
general, the closest spacing produced the highest number of fruits per plot. The highest
number of fruits per plot at closer spacing might be mainly due to higher plant
population per unit area.
The combined effect of sowing date and spacing on the number of fruits per plot was
found significant (Table 8). The highest number (157.00) of fruits per plot was
obtained in October 1 sowing at 50x30 cm spacing which was significantly different
from others. The lowest number (44.33) of fruits per plot was obtained in plants grown
on November 30 at 50x50 cm spacing which was also significantly different from
others.
48
Note: T 1= September 01 T 2 = September 15 T 3= October 01 T 4 = October 15 T 5= October 30 T 6= November 15 T 7= November 30
o a, lr ■** ’5 <£ «*- o o £
Figure 3. The main effect of sowing date on number of fruits per plot of sweet pepper
Different date of sowing
49
50x50cm 50x40cm 50x30cm
Plant spacing
Figure 4. Main effect of plant spacing on number of fruits per plot of sweet
pepper
4.9 Fruit length (cm)
A significant variation in length of fruit was observed due to both sowing date and plant
spacing. The earlier sowing (September 1) produced the longest fruits (6.54 cm). Later
sowing (October 30) produced the shortest fruits (5.25 cm) which was closely followed
by October 15, November 15 and November 30 sowings (Table 9 and Plate 1).
There was also significant variation in fruit length of sweet pepper due to plant
spacing’s (Table 10). Significantly longer fruit (5.97 cm) was obtained from the widest
plant spacing (50x50 cm). The closest plant spacing (50x30 cm) produced the shortest
fruits (5.45 cm) and the medium plant spacing (50x40 cm) produced the medium fruits
(5.67 cm). The result is in agreement with the report of Manchanda et al. (1988) who
reported that the number of fruits per plant and fruit length increased with decreasing
plant density.
The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing also caused significant variation
in fruit length of sweet pepper (Table 11). The longest fruits (7.16 cm) was produced by
the plant when grown in earlier sowing (September 1) with the widest spacing (50x50
cm). The minimum fruit length (5.00 cm) was recorded from the later sowing
(November 30) with the closest spacing (50x30 cm) which was statistically similar with
the treatment combination of T2S3, T4S1, T4S2, T5S|, T5S2, T5S3, TgS2, T6S3 and T7S2.
4.10 Fruit breadth (cm)
Fruit breadth was significantly influenced by sowing date (Table 9). The widest fruit
breadth (6.20 cm) was found at the October 15 sowing which was statistically similar to
that of October 1 (6.12 cm) and October 30 (6.13 cm) sowing. The lowest fruit breadth
(5.32 cm) was found in September 1 sowing which was statistically similar (5.49 cm) to
September 15 sowing.
51
The spacing level varied significantly in respect of fruit breadth (Table 10). The highest
fruit breadth (5.94 cm) was obtained in plants of 50x40 cm spacing which was
statistically similar (5.88 cm) to 50x30 cm spacing. The lowest fruit breadth (5.64 cm)
was recorded in the widest spacing (50x50 cm). The results of the present experiment
showed disagreement with the report of Kim et al. (1999) who stated that planting
systems and distances did not significantly alter plant height, main stem length, fruit
length, fruit diameter or thickness of pericarp.
The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing was found significant as to the
fruit breadth (Table 11). It was observed that the highest fruit breadth (6.70 cm) was
found at the October 30 sowing when the plant was spaced by 50x40 cm spacing which
was statistically similar to the treatment combinations of T3S3, T4S2 and T4S3. The lowest
fruit breadth (5.24 cm) was found in September 1 sowing when the plant was spaced by
50x40 cm which was statistically identical to all the treatments except the T3S3, T4S2,
T4S3 and T5S2-
4.11 Pericarp thickness (mm)
The main effect of sowing date was found insignificant at pericarp thickness (Table 9
and Plate 2) which ranged from 3.89 mm to 4.78 mm. The maximum thickness (4.78
mm) was obtained when the plant grown on September 1 and the minimum thickness
(3.89 mm) was found from November 15.
The plant spacing level did not vary significantly in respect of pericarp thickness, which
ranged from 4.19 mm to 4.50 mm (Table 10). The maximum thickness (4.50 mm) was
obtained in plant 50x50 cm spacing and the minimum thickness (4.19 mm) was
recorded in the closest spacing (50x30 cm). The combined effect of sowing time and
spacing did not differ significantly in case of pericarp thickness, which ranged from
3.51 mm to 5.07 mm (Table 11). The maximum thickness (5.07 mm) was found at the
September 1 sowing when the plant was spaced by 50x40 cm spacing. The minimum
thickness (3.51 mm) was found in November 15 sowing when the plant was spaced by
50x50 cm.
Table 9. Main effect of sowing date on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
52
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRTNS Non significant
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRTNS Non significant
Treatment Sowing date Fruit length (cm) Fruit breadth (cm) Pericarp thickness (mm)
September 01 (Ti) 6.54a 5.32c 4.78
September 15 (T2) 5.99b 5.49bc 4.58
October 01 (T3) 5.78b 6.12a 4.70
October 15 (T4) 5.44c 6.20a 4.55
October 30 (T5) 5.25c 6.13a 4.35
November 15 (T&) 5.47c 5.79b 3.89
November 30 (T7) 5.38c 5.67b 4.11
Level of significance ** ** NS
Table 10. Main effect of plant spacing on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
Treatment Spacing Fruit length (cm) Fruit breadth (cm) Pericarp thickness (mm)
50 x 50cm (Si) 5.97a 5.64b 4.50
50 x 40cm (S2) 5.67b 5.94a 4.46
50 x 30cm (S3) 5.45c 5.88a 4.19
Level of Significance ** ** NS
Table 11. Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper
♦♦Significant at 1% level of probability, NS Non significant In a column, means followed by common letters are not significantly different from each other at 1% level of probability by DMRT
Treatment Sowing date Spacing(cm)
Fruit length (cm) Fruit breadth (cm) Pericarp thickness (mm)
September 01 50 x 50 (S,) 7.16a 5.27e 4.22
(TO 50 x 40 (S2) 6.7 lab 5.24e 5.07 50 x 30 (S3) 5.75de 5.44cde 4.14 50 x 50 (S,) 6.56bc 5.41cde 4.98
September 15 (T2)
50 x 40 (S2) 6.01de 5.70cde 4.60
50 x 30 (S3) 5.42fgh 5.33de 4.15 50 x 50 (Si) 6.22cd 5.67cde 4.92
October 01 (T3)
50 x 40 (S2) 5.61 dfg 6.01bc 4.58
50 x 30 (S3) 5.56efg 6.68a 4.61 50 x 50 (S,) 5.27fgh 5.90bcd 4.86
October 15 (T4)
50 x 40 (S2) 5.37fgh 6.36ab 4.40
50 x 30 (S3) 5.67ef 6.36ab 4.39 50 x 50 (S,) 5.29fgh 5.67cde 4.80
October 30 (T5) 50 x 40 (S2) 5.03gh 6.70a 4.08
50 x 30 (S3) 5.33fgh 6.03bc 4.16 50 x 50 (S,) 5.53def 5.73cde 3.51
November 15 (T6)
50 x 40 (S2) 5.47fgh 5.82b-e 4.33
50 x 30 (S3) 5.40fgh 5.82b-e 3.82 50 x 50 (SO 5.75def 5.80b-d 4.19
November 30 (T7)
50 x 40 (S2) 5.37fgh 5.73cde 4.10
50 x 30 (S3) 5.00h 5.50cde 4.00
Level of Sig. - ** ** NS
CV (%) - 3.64 4.12 23.59
Plate 1. Effect of spacing on fruit size of Sweet pepper
55
September 1 50 x 50 cm
September 1 50 x 40 cm
September 1 50 x 30 cm
Plate 2. Effect of spacing on thickness of pericarp of sweet pepper
56
4.12 Individual fruit weight (g)
Individual fruit weight of sweet pepper was significantly influenced by sowing date
and plant spacing. The heaviest fruit (49.25 g) was obtained at September 15 sowing,
which was statistically similar (48.14 g) to October 30 sowing (Table 12). The lowest
fruit (37.57 g) weight was produced from the October 1 sowing, which was
statistically similar to September 1 and November 30 sowings (41.3 lg) and (41.28 g)
respectively.
Plant spacing also influenced the individual fruit weight (Table 13). The maximum
fruit weight (45.09 g) was obtained in the widest spacing (50><50 cm), which was
statistically identical to that of 50x40 cm plant spacing. The closest spacing (50x30
cm) performed the significantly least fruit weight (41.12 g). The result is in agreement
with the report of Verheij and Verwer (1973) who reported that the individual fruit
weight declined with increased plant density.
The combined effect of sowing dates and spacing on individual fruit weight was not
significant (Table 14).
4.13 Yield per plant (g)
Sowing date imposed significant difference in respect of yield per plant (Table 12).
October 1 grown plant showed the maximum yield (326.9lg) per plant, which was
significantly higher than all other treatments. October 15 grown plants produced
intermediate yield (287.64 g) per plant and the lowest yield (146.64 g) was recorded
from November 30 sowing plants. The difference in yield per plant among the sowing
date can be explained that the October 1 sowing plants received favorable
environment for growth and thus produced the highest number of fruit per plant which
led to the highest yield per plant.
57
Yield per plant was significantly influenced by spacing levels (Table 13). The
maximum yield (271.12 g) was recorded from the widest spacing (50x50 cm) and
differed significantly from that of the other spacings. The lowest yield (191.73 g) per
plant was obtained from the closest spacing (50x30 cm). The wider spacing facilitated
the plants to develop properly with less inter and intra plant competition for utilizing
the available resources resulting higher yield per plant. On the other hand, in higher
population density reduced yield per plant might be attributed to lesser fruit yield per
plant. The result of the present experiment is in agreement with the findings of
Ravanappa et al. (1998), who also obtained the highest yield with the lowest plant
density treatment of 75x60 cm.
The combined effect of sowing date and spacing on yield per plant was significant
(Table 14). The highest yield (388.63 g) per plant was obtained from October 1
sowing with 50x50 cm spacing, which was significantly different from other treatment
combinations. The lowest yield (108.52 g) per plant was found from the November 30
sowing with 50x30 cm spacing, which significantly differed from all the treatment
combinations.
Table 12. Main effect of sowing date on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
58
Treatment Sowing date Individual fruit weight (g)
Yield per plant (g)
Yield per plot (kg)
September 01 (Ti) 41.32cd 218.95d 3.29d
September 15 (T2) 49.25a 246.03c 3.65c
October 01 (T3) 37.57d 326.91a 4.90a
October 15 (T4) 44.74bc 287.64b 4.25b
October 30 ( T5) 48.14ab 225.20d 3.36d
November 15 (T6) 43.11c 185.3 le 2.73e
November 30 (T7) 41.28cd 146.64f 2.15f
Level of significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
Table 13. Main effect of plant spacing on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
Treatment Spacing Individual fruit weight (g)
Yield per plant (g)
Yield per plot (kg)
50 x 50cm (Si) 45.09a 271.12a 3.25b
50 x 40cm (S2) 44.69a 238.50b 3.34b
50 x 30cm (S3) 41.12b 191.73c 3.83a
Level of Significance ** ** **
** Significant at 1% level of probability measured by DMRT
59
♦♦Significant at 1% level of probability, NS Non significant In a column, means followed by common letters are not significantly different from each other at 1% level of probability by DMRT
Table 14. Combined effect of sowing dates and plant spacing on individual fruit weight, yield per plant and yield per plot of sweet pepper
Treatment Sowing date Spacing (cm)
Individual fruit weight (g)
Yield per plant (g)
Yield per plot (kg)
September 01 50 x 50 (S,) 40.30 237.48de 2.8 5j k
(T,) 50 x 40 (S2) 43.67 228.75e 3.20hi 50 x 30 (S3) 39.99 190.61 fg 3.81de 50 x 50 (S,) 48.98 289.80c 3.48g
September 15 (T2)
50 x 40 (S2) 51.36 250.67d 3.5 lfg
50 x 30 (S3) 47.43 197.62f 3.95cde 50 x 50 (S,) 37.21 388.63a 4.67b
October 01 (T3) 50 x 40 (S2) 38.51 301.64c 4.22c
50 x 30 (S3) 37.00 290.45c 5.80a 50 x 50 (S,) 45.08 339.34b 4.07cd
October 15 (T4)
50 x 40 (S2) 46.68 295.61c 4.13c
50 x 30 (S3) 42.48 227.97e 4.56b 50 x 50 (S,) 50.06 250.84d 3.01 ij
October 30 (Ts) 50 x 40 (S2) 48.83 236.02de 3.30gh
50 x 30 (S3) 45.53 188.20fg 3.76ef 50 x 50 (Si) 47.71 220.8 le 2.65k
November 15 (T6)
50 x 40 (S2) 43.42 196.4 If 2.75jk
50 x 30 (S3) 38.21 138.72i 2.78jk 50 x 50 (S,) 46.28 170.97gh 2.051
November 30 (T7) 50 x 40 (S2) 40.35 160.42h 2.241
50 x 30 (S3) 37.21 108.52j 2.171
Level of Sig. — NS ** **
CV (%) — 6.59 3.68 3.23
60
4.14 Yield per plot (kg) and per hectare
The main effect of sowing date was found to be significant at 1% level of probability
regarding yield per plot and per hectare (Table 12, Figure 5). October 1 grown plants
produced significantly higher yield (4.90 kg/plot and 16.33 t/ha). The lowest yield
(2.15 kg/plot and 7.19 t/ha) was obtained from later sowings (November 30), which
was dissimilar from the all sowing dates. Bevacqua and Vanleeuwen (2003) reported
that Chile pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) yields were highly variable and were
strongly influenced by disease and weather. They stated that the planting date had a
significant effect on crop performance. The best stand establishment and highest yield
were associated with the earliest planting date, 13 March. Russo (1995) reported that
the sequential planting from early May in South Central USA is a viable method of
increasing the marketable yield of bell peppers.
Plant spacing had significant effect on yield per plot and per hectare (Table 13, Figure
6). The closest spacing (50x30 cm) produced the maximum yield of fruit (3.83 kg/plot
and 12.78 t/ha) and the widest (50x50 cm) spacing showed the minimum (3.25
kg/plot) fruit weight per plot which was statistically similar weight of fruit per plot
where plant grown at 50x40 cm spacing. It was observed that the yield of fruits per
unit area was inversely related to the plant spacing i.e. the closer plant spacing
produced the higher yield of fruits per plot and per hectare. The higher yield of fruits
was mainly contributed by the higher plant population per unit area in closer spacing.
The result of the present experiment is in agreement with the findings of Manchanda et
al. (1988), and Ramachandran and Subbiah (1981). Mishriky and Alphonse (1994)
also obtained the highest yield (22.9 t/ha) from 30 cm plant spacing.
The yield per plot and per hectare was also influenced by the combined effect (Table
14, Figure 7). The highest yield (5.80 kg/plot and 19.36 t/ha) was recorded from the
treatment combination of October 1 sowing with 50x30 cm spacing which was
statistically dissimilar from all other treatment combinations. The lowest yield (2.05
kg/plot and 6.84 t/ha) was recorded from the treatment combination of November 30
61
sowing with 50><50 cm spacing which was statistically similar to the treatment
combinations of T7S], T7S2 and T7S3.
Note: T 1 = September 01 T 2 - September 15 T 3= October 01 T 4= October 15 T 5 = October 30 T 6= November 15 T 7 =November 30
Different date of sowing Figure 5. Main effect of sowing date on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper
>- 11
62
50x30cm
Figure
10.51 1050x50cm 50x40cm Plant spacing5. Main effect of plant spacing on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper
□ T1 DT2 HT3 HT4 BT5 □ T6 DT7
50x50cm 50x40cm 50x30cm
Plant spacing
Figure 7. Combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing on yield (t/ha) of sweet pepper
Note: T i = September 01 T 2 = September 15 T 3 — October 01 T 4 = October 15 T 5 = October 30 T 6 = November 15 T 7 = November 30
64
4.15 Economic analysis
Economic analysis was done with a view to comparing the cost and benefits under different
levels of sowing date and plant spacings (Table 15 and Appendix VIII). Materials (A), non
materials (B) and overhead cost were recorded for all the treatments of unit plot and
calculated on per hectare basis (yield/ha), the price of sweet pepper at the local market rates
seasonally was considered for estimating the gross return. It was observed that there was a
great variation in the cost of production due to different treatment combinations.
The highest cost of production (Tk.2,32,217/ha) was recorded in the closest spacing
(50><30 cm).The highest cost of production in closest spacing due to highest seedlings and
lab our costs. The minimum cost of production (Tk.2,12,474/ha) was recorded in the widest
spacing condition (50x50 cm). The gross return was also varied widely among the
treatment combinations and was mainly dependent upon the freshly harvested marketable
fruit. The highest gross return of (Tk. 10,64,800/ha) was obtained from the treatment
combination of October 1 sowing along with 50x30 cm spacing.
When economic aspect was considered, it was evident that the highest net return
(Tk.8,32,583/ha) was obtained from the treatment combinations of October 1 sowing when
plants were spaced by 50x30 cm. The highest net return in treatment combinations T3S3
might be due to the highest yield of fresh fruits per hectare.
Considering the yield of fruit per hectare, cost of production and the benefit cost ratio, the
treatment combination of October 1 sowing with 50x30 cm spacing could be recommended
for cultivation of sweet pepper under Gazipur conditions.
Table 15. Economic analysis of sweet pepper production as influenced by sowing date and plant spacing
Treatment combination
Yield (ton/ha)
Gross return (Tk./ha)
Total cost of production
(Tk./ha)
Net return (Tk./ha)
Benefit cost ratio (BCR)
Cost of sweet pepper (Tk./kg)
T, S, 9.5 6,17,500 2,12,474 4,05,026 2.90 65 t,s2 10.67 6,93,550 2,17,610 4,75,940 3.18 65
t,s3 12.70 8,25,500 2,32,217 5,93,285 3.55 65
t2s, 11.60 7,54,000 2,12,474 5,41,526 3.54 65 t2s2 11.69 7,59,850 2,17,610 5,42,240 3.49 65
t2s3 13.17 8,56,050 2,32,217 6,23,833 3.68 65
t3s, 15.55 8,55,250 2,12,474 6,42,776 4.02 55 t3s2 14.08 7,74,400 2,17,610 5,56,790 3.55 55
t3s3 19.36 10,64,800 2,32,217 8,32,583 4.58 55
t4s, 13.57 7,46,350 2,12,474 5,33,876 3.51 55 t4s2 13.79 7,58,450 2,17,610 5,40,840 3.48 55
t4s3 15.19 8,35,450 2,32,217 6,03,233 3.59 55
t5s, 10.03 5,51,650 2,12,474 3,39,176 2.59 55 t5s2 11.01 6,05,550 2,17610 3,87,940 2.78 55
t5s3 12.55 6,90,250 2,32,217 4,58,033 2.97 55
t6s, 8.83 5,29,800 2,12,474 3,17,326 2.49 60 t6s2 9.16 5,49,600 2,17,610 3,31,990 2.53 60
t6s3 9.25 5,55,000 2,32,217 3,22,783 2.39 60
t7s, 6.84 4,10,400 2,12,474 1,97,926 1.93 60 t7s2 7.51 4,50,600 2,17,610 2,32,990 2.07 60
t7s3 7.23 4,33,800 2,32,217 2,01,583 1.87 60
66
I
Chapter V
Summary and Conclusion
67
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The experiment was conducted to evaluate growth and yield of sweet pepper under
different sowing date and spacing at the Horticultural farm of the Bangladesh
Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Joydebpur, Gazipur, during September 2006
to April 2007.
There were two factors in the experiment namely, sowing date and plant spacings. The
levels of sowing date were September 1, September 15, October 1, October 15,
October 30, November 15 and November 30, 2006 and three plant spacings 50><50
cm, 50x40 cm and 50x30 cm were taken for the study. Thus, there were 21
combinations of sowing time and plant spacings. The experiment was laid out in a
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The unit plot
size was 3mxlm. Thirty days old seedlings were transplanted on experimental plots at
each planting time providing spacings as per treatments. Data were collected from five
randomly selected plants of each unit plot. Data were collected on plant height (cm),
number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant, stem girth (mm), days to
50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number of fruits per plot, days to first
harvest, fruit length (cm), fruit breadth (cm), pericarp thickness (mm), individual fruit
weight (g), yield per plant (g), yield per plot (kg) and yield of sweet pepper per hectare
(tonne). The collected data were analyzed by computer following MSTAT
programme, and the means were separated by DMRT.
Sowing date showed significant influence on all the growth and yield component
except pericaip thickness. It was evident from the results that significant increase in
the growth parameter and yield per plant were obtained with the earlier sowing
(October 1).
68
The highest yield per plant (326.91 g) was obtained from the earlier sowing (October
1) while the later sowing (November 30) produced the minimum yield (146.64 g) per
plant and in the same trend it was found that the earlier sowing (October 1) produced
the maximum yield (16.33 t/ha) whereas later sowing (November 30) recorded the
minimum yield (7.19 t/ha).
The plant spacing showed also significant influence on all the parameters except
pericarp thickness. Number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant, stem
girth, number of fruits per plant, days to first harvest, fruit length, individual fruit
weight, yield per plant were found to be significantly increased with the increase of
plant spacing but plant height at different stages, number of fruits per plot, days to
50% flowering, fruit breadth, yield per plot and yield per hectare were found to be
significantly increased with the decrease of plant spacing. However, the highest yield
per hectare (12.78 t/ha) was recorded from the closet spacing (50><30 cm) while the
minimum yield (10.99 t/ha) was recorded from the widest spacing (50x50 cm).
The combined effect of sowing date and plant spacing also had significant influence
on different growth and yield parameters and yield. The highest yield of fruit (19.36
t/ha) was recorded from the earlier sowing (October 1) with the closest spacing (50x30
cm).
Conclusion:
Considering the yield, cost of production (Tk.2,32,217/ha), net return (Tk.
8,32,583/ha) and benefit cost ratio (4.58) October 1 sowing with 50x30 cm spacing
was found to be the best for production of sweet pepper under the Horticultural farm
of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Gazipur conditions.
Recommendation:
October 01 sowing with 50x30 cm plant spacing is found to be the best sowing date
and spacing for sweet pepper cultivation in the greater Dhaka region. However, further
studies are needed to fine out the optimum sowing date and spacing for the production
of sweet pepper under different Agro-ecological Zones of Bangladesh.
I References
REFERENCES
Ahmed, M. K. 1984.Optimum plant spacing and nitrogen fertilization of sweet pepper in the Sudan Gezira. Acta Hort., 143:305-310.
Aliyu. 2002. Growth and yield of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) as affected by nitrogen and phosphorus application and plant density. Crop Research Hisar. 23(3): 467-475.
Andrews, J. 1984. Peppers, The Domesticates Capsicums. University of Texas Press, Austin, p. 321.
Anez, B. and Figueredo,C.1994.Growth and production of sweet pepper in response to different row spacings and nitrogen levels. Revista de la Facultad de Agronomia, Universidad del Zulia. 11(2): 113-125. [Cited from HORTCD, 410 of 751, 1989-2002/06]
Anonymous. 1995. Agro-climatological data. Agromet Division, Bangladesh Meteorological Department, Joydebpur, Gazipure. pp.35-65.
Arora, S.K., Jagat-Singh, Batra, B.R., Rakesh-Mehra, Jagdeep-Singh, Singh,J., Mehra, R., Singh, J. 2002.Effect of plant density and irrigation levels on shoot-root growth and fruit yield in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) cv. HC-44. Annals of Agricultural Research. 23(1): 136-140.
AVRDC. 1989. Tomato and Pepper Production in the Tropics. AVRDC, Taiwan. p585.
Bevacqua, R. F. and Vanleeuwen, D. M. 2003. Planting date effects on stand establishment and yield of chile pepper. American Society for HorticulturalScience.38: 357-360.
Boominathan, H., Mani, L. S., Rajamani, A. and Krishnamoorthy, A. 1971. A note on the spacing trial K.l Chillies (Capsicum annuum L.). Madras Agril. J., 58(6):520-522.
Bracy, R. P., Constantin, R. J. and Moser, E. B. 1992. Plant spacing and nitrogen maximize production of bell pepper. Louisiana Agric., 35(3): 16-17.
Brammer, H. 1971. Soil resources, soil survey project, Bangladesh. AGL: SF/Pck. 6. technical report. 3.p.8.
Cebula, S., Fernandez, M. R., Cuartero, J. and Gomez, G. M. L. 1995. Optimization of plant and shoot spacing in greenhouse production of sweet pepper. Acta Hort., 4(12):321-329.
Cebula, S. 1995.Effect of cultivar and planting date on the growth and yield of sweet pepper grown in plastic tunnels in a sub-montane region. Materialy ogolnopolskiej konferencji naukowej Nauka Praktyce Ogrodniczej okazji XXV-lecia Wydzialu Ogrodniczego Akademii Rolniczej Lublinie. pp. 545-548.
Cebula, S. 1992.The effect of sowing and planting dates on the growth and yields of sweet pepper in greenhouse conditions. Folia Horticulturae. 4(2): 15-23.
Cebula, S. 1989. The effect of pruning and spacing on some vegetative and generative processes in sweet capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.) under glasshouse cultivation. Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Rolniczej im Hugona Kollataja Krakowie,Rozprawa Habilitacyjna. 130 :p. 86. [Cited from HORTCD, 648 of 751, 1989-2002/06]
Dobromilska, R. 2000. The effect of the planting method and plant spacing on the growth, yield and biological value of sweet pepper cv. Mayata Fj. Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie Sklodowska. Sectio EEE, Horticultura. 8: 333-339.
Decoteau, D. R. and Graham, H. A. H. 1994. Plant spatial arrangement affects growth, yield and pod distribution of cayenne peppers. Hort. Sci., 29(3): 149-151.
Dharmatti, P. R. and Kulkami, G. N. 1988. Effect of nutrition, spacing and picckings on seed yield and seed quality in bell pepper. Seed Res., 16(2): 148-151.
Duimovic, M. A. and Bravo, M. A. 1979.Effects of nitrogen and spacing on the yiels and quality of bell pepper. Cience Investigation Agraria, 6(2):99-103 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 50(5):3242, 1980],
Farris, N. P. 1988.Perfect Peppers, Horticulture. U.S.A. Horticultural Limited Partnership. Pp. 60-62.
Faiza, A., Muhammad, I., Wadan, H.D. and Muzammil, S. 2002. Effect of different levels of nitrogen and plant spacing on the growth and yield of sweet pepper cv. Yellow Wonder. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture. 18 (3): 275-279.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A A. 1984. Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research (2nd edition). Int. Rice Res. Inst. A Willey Int. Sci. Pub. pp.28-192.
Gowde, M.K.J., Havanagi,G.V. and Prasad,T.R.G. 1990. Effect of spacing and plant density on yield and quality of bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Punjab Hort. J. 30 (1-4): 185-190.
Greenleaf, W. H. 1986. Pepper breeding. In: Bassett, M.J. (ed.) Breeding Vegetable Crops. Avi Publishing, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 67-134.
Hasanuzzaman, S. M. 1999. Effect of hormone on yield of Bell Pepper (<Capsicum annuum). MS Thesis, Department of Horticulture. Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.
Jankulovski, D., Martinovski, G. and Popsimono, G. 1995. Effect of growing spacing on the earliness and yield of peppers in plastic greenhouse Godisen Zbornik na Zemojodelshiot Fakulet Univerzitet, St. Kiril Metodij, Skopje, 40:123-12 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 67(2): 1345,1997].
Jankulovski, D. 1994. Effect of crop density on seed yield and quality in red peppQr(Capsicum annuum L.). Selekcija-i-Semenarstvo. 1(1): 143-145. [Cited from HORTCD, 441 of 751, 1989-2002/06]
Joshi, M. C. and Singh, D. P. 1975. Chemical Composition in bell pepper. Indian Hort. 20: 19-21.
Kemp, W. G. and Wesolowski, L. J. 1972. High density planting booster pepper profits. Canada Agric., 17(3): 6-8[Cited from Hort. Abstr., 43(5):2 87].
Kim, H., Pae, D., Choi, D., Jang, K. S., Cho-Jeoung, L., Kim, T., Kim, H. S., Pae, D. H., Choi, D. J., Jang, K. S., Cho, J. L. and Kim, T. 1999. Growth, yield and quality of tunnel-cultured red pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) as affected by plant spatial arrangement. J. K. Hort. Sci., 40(6): 657-661.
Knott, J. E. and Deanon, J. R. 1967. Eggplant, tomato and pepper. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia, Laguna, Philippones: University of Philippines Press, pp. 99-109.
Leskover, D. I., Boales, A. K., Ferrnandes-Munoz, R., Cuarters, J. and Gumz- Guillaman, M. L. 1995. Plant establishment systems affect yield of Jalapeno Pepper, Acta Hort., 412: 275-80.
Locascio, S. J. and Stall, W. M. 1994. Bell pepper yield as influenced by plant spacing and row arrangement. J. Amer. Soc. Hort.Sci., 119(5) : 899- 902.
Lorenzo, P. and Castilla, N. 1995. Bell pepper yield response to plant density and radiation in unheated plastic greenhouse. Acta Hort., 412:330-334.
Lovelook, Y. 1973. Various herbs spices and condiments. In: The vegetable Book. St Martin Press, New York. p.34.
Macrae, R., Robinson, R. and Sadler, M. 1993. Encyclopacdia of Food Science, Food Technology and Nutrition. Academic Press Ltd. Pp. 3496-3504.
Manchanda, A.K., Bhopal, S. and Singh, B. 1987. Effect of plant density and nitrogen on yield and quality of bell pepper {Capsicum annuum L.). Indian J. Hort., 44 (3-4): 250-252.
Manchanda, A. K., Bhopal, S. and Singh, B. 1988. Effect of plant density on growth and fruit yield of bell pepper {Capsicum annuum L.) Indian J. Agron., 33(4):445-447.
Maya, P., Natarajan, S. and Thamburaj, S. 1997a. Effect of spacing, N and P on growth and yield of sweet pepper cv. California Wonder. South Indian Hort., 45:( 1 -2): 16-18.
Maya, P., Natarajan, S. and Thamburaj, S. 1997b. Flowering, fruit characters and quality as influenced by spacing and N and P in sweet pepper cv. California Wonder. South Indian Hort., 45 (3-4): 125-127.
Maya, P., Natarajan, S. and Thamburaj, S. 1999. Effect of plant density and nutrients on certain physiological parameters in sweet pepper. South Indian Horticulture. 47(1-6): 237-238.
Mishriky, J. F. and Alphonse, M. 1994. Effect of nitrogen and plant spacing on growth, yield and fruit mineral composition of pepper {Capsicum annuum L.) Bull. Fac. Agric. Cairo Univ., 45(2): 413-431.
Motsenbocker, C. E. 1996. In-row plant spacing affects growth and yield of Pepperoncini pepper. Hort. Sci., 31(2):198-200.
Perko, J. 1976. Greenhouse capsicums: Spacing trials. Louisiana Agriculture, 35(3): 16-17 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 46(10):800,1976].
Petrevska 1993. Effect of crop density on the quality of capsicum {Capsicum annuum L.) transplants. Godisen Zbornik na Zemjodelskiot Fakultet na Univerzitetot vo Skopje. 38: 71-75. [Cited from HORTCD, 464 of 751, 1989-2002/06]
Pundir, J.P.S. and Porwal, R. 1999. Effect of spacings and fertilizers on growth, yield and physical fruit quality of chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars. Journal of Spices and Aromatic Crops. 8(1): 23-27.
Ramachandran, S. and Subbiah, K. K. 1981. Studies on the effect of plant density and graded levels of nitrogen on yield and yield components of chillies {Capsicum annuum). South Indian Hort., 29(4): 178-181.
Ramamurthy, V., Havanagi, G. V. and Nanjappa, H. V. 1993. Intercropping of chilli (Capsicum annuum) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana ) under dry land condition. Indian J. Agron., 38(2):283-285.
Ravanappa, U. G., Nalawadi and Sheelavantar, M.N. 1998. Influence of plant density on growth and yield of green chilli varieties. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci., ll(2):543-545.
Ravanappa, U. G., Nalawadi and Sheelavantar, M. N. 1998a. Influence of plant density on branching, dry matter production yield of green chilli varieties. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci., ll(3):733-736.
Ravanappa, U. G., Nalawadi and Sheelavantar, M. N. 1998b. Influence of plant density on root growth, flowering and yield of green chilli varieties. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci., 11(4): 1019-1022.
Rosenblum, J. and Karstadt, D. 1970. The effect of spacing on the yield of spring peppers grown for export. Hassaseh, 51(3): 249-251 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 42(2): 479, 1972].
Russo V. M. 1996. Planting date, fertilizer rate, and harvest timing affect yield of Jalapeno and Banana peppers. American Society for Horticultural Science, 31(7): 1097-1118.
Russo,V. M. 1995. Effect of sequential planting, plant replacement, and planting date on marketable yield of bell pepper, Capsicum annuum var. annuum L. Journal of Vegetable Crop Production. 1(1): 73-78.
Saha, S .R. 2001. Heat tolerance in sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum). Ph.D thesis.Department of Hort. BSMRAU, Salna, Gazipur, Bangladesh.
Sanchez, V. M., Sundstrom, F. J. and Lang, N. S. 1993. Plant size influences bell pepper seed quality and yield. Hort. Sci., 28(8):809-811.
Savic, V. and Ilic, Z. 1992. The effect of spacing on capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.) yield. Savremena Poljoprivreda. 40(1-2): 41-44. [Cited from HORTCD, 552 of 751, 1989-2002/06]
Shaheed, S. M. 1984. Soil of Bangladesh: General Soil Types. Soil Resources Development Institute (SRDI), Dhaka, Bangladeh.p.3.
Shoemaker, J. S. and Tesky, B. J. E. 1955. Practical Horticulture. John Willy and Sons, Inc. New York. p. 371.
Silva, R. F., Couto, F. A., Tigchelaar, E., Silva, J. F. and Oliveira, L. M. 1971. The effects of spacings and fertilizer levels on Capsicum ripe fruit production. Revista Ceres, 18(100): 448-464[Cited from Hort. Abstr., 42(4):919-20, 1972].
Singh, R. V. and Naik, L. B. 1990. Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and plant spacing on sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 19(1-2): 168-172.
Sinha, M. M. 1975. Effect of closer spacing and higher nutritional doses with and without gibberelic acid on yield and quality in chillies (Capsicum annuum). Prog. Hort., 7(l):41-49 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 46(6):499,1976],
Sontakke, M. B., Pardeshi, P. P., Mandge, A. S. and Shinde, N. N. 1995. Effect of graded levels of nitrogen and spacing on growth and yield of two cultivars of chillies (Capsicum annuum). J. Res. APAU, 23(2): 8-9 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 67(11): 235,1997].
Srinivas, K. 1982. Respones of Capsicum cultivars to plant spacing. Mysore J. Agril. Sci., 16(4):396-399.
Srinivas, K. and Hedge, D. M. 1984. Growth analysis of Capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.) cultivars in relation to plant spacing. Singapore J. Primary Indust., 12(2): 152-158.
Srivastava, A. K. 1996. Effect of fertilizer levels and plant spacings on flowering, fruit-set and yield of sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum var. grossum L.) cv. Hybrid
Bharat. Advan. Plant Sci., 9(2): 171-175.
Stanley, W. H., Teague, T. G. and Teague, P. W. 1990. Plant population density effects on economic yield of bell peppers. Proc. Annual Meeting Arkansas St. Hort. Soc., 110:154-159.
Sundstrom, F. J., Thomas, C. H., Edwards, R. L. and Baskin, G. R. 1984. Influence of N and plant spacing on mechanically harvested tabasco pepper. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 109(5): 642-645.
Szepesy, K. 1976. The optimal spacing for the szeged spice Capsicum cultivars. Rapport,
Sveriges Lantbruksuniversitet Avdelningen for Husdjurens Naringsfysiologi, 57: 8 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 76(4):304,1976],
Tanaka, H. and Tokai, H. 1972. The effect of plant spacing on the yield and other characteristics of capsicum: preliminary report. Bull. Fac. Agric. Tamagawa Univ., 12: 84-91.
Tanaka, H., Aruga, F., Kadota, J. and Watanable, M. 1974. Effect of spacing and nitrogen fertilizers on growth and yield of pimento. Fac. Agric. Tamagawa Univ., 14: 71-80 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 47(1):64, 1977].
Verheij, E. W. M. and Verwer, F. L. J. A. W. 1973. Light interception and yield of peppers grown under glass in relation to plant spacing. Acta Hort., 32:149-159.
Viloria, Z.A., Arteaga, R. L. and Radrigues, H. A. 1998. Effect of planting distance on bell pepper plant structures. Effecto de la distancia de siembra en las estructuras de la planta del pimenton. Agronomia Tropical, 48 (A):413-423 [Cited from Hort. Abstr., 69(8): 922, 1999].
Viloria, Z. A., Arteaga, L.T., Diaz, T. L T. and Arteaga, R. L. 2001. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting, Lima, Peru, 15-19 November 1999. Proceedings of the Interamerican Society for Tropical- Horticulture. 43: 24-29.
Willy, R. B. and Hearth, S. B. 1969. The quantitative relationship between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21: 181-321.
Znidarcic, D. and Osvald, J. 1999. The influence of plant density and covering on yield of bell peppers (Capsicum annuum L.). Zbornik Biotehniske Fakultete Univerze Ljubljani. Kmetijstvo. 73: 59-64.
I Appendices
Appendix I. Monthly record of air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and sunshine of the experimental site during the period from September 2006 to April 2007
*Air temperature (°c) ^Relative humidity (%) **Total Total Sunshine (hr) Year Month Maximum Minimum Mean 9 am 2 pm Rainfall
(mm) hr/day **hr/month!y
September 32.17 25.66 28.96 80.50 70.90 572.40 5.64 169.40 October 32.67 24.28 28.40 75.10 61.77 33.60 6.69 207.50
2006 November 29.97 19.30 24.64 72.70 58.06 0.00 6.75 202.50 December 27.37 14.31 20.84 70.90 44.25 0.00 7.04 218.50 January 24.84 11.58 18.21 74.16 49.25 0.00 6.25 193.80 February 27.18 15.91 21.54 75.53 53.25 177.40 6.45 180.80
2007 March 31.37 17.84 24.60 69.83 50.70 14.80 8.18 253.80 April 32.00 22.75 27.89 74.37 61.50 89.20 6.84 205.30
* Monthly average ** Monthly total Source: Plant Physiology Department of BRRI. Joydebpur, Gazipur.
Appendix II. The chemical analysis of the soil of the experimental field
78
Soil property Analytical data Critical point
pH 6.0 —
Organic matter 1.76 —
Ca 4.7 meq/100 ml 2.0
Mg 1.6 meq/100 ml 0.8
K 0.11 meq/100 ml 0.2
Total N % 0.080 0.12
P 13 μg/ml 14
S 17 μg/ml 14
B 0.36 μg/ml 0.2
Cu 1.3 μg/ml 1.0
Fe 114 μg/ml 10.0
Mn 13 μg/ml 5.0
Zn 1.6 μg/ml 2.0
79
Appendix III. Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on plant height of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
DAS = Days after sowing ** Significance at 1% level of probability * Significance at 5% level of probability
Appendix IV. Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on number of branches per plant, number of leaves per plant and stem girth of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean squares of plant height (cm)
45 DAS 60 DAS 75 DAS 90 DAS At final harvest
Replication 2 0.049 0.021 0.016 0.210 1.325
Factor A (Spacing)
2 8.168** 9.072** 33.320** 14.222* 65.012**
Factor B (Sowing date)
6 41.074** 131.606** 106.956** 96.274** 110.639**
A x B 12 1.000** 2.056** 1.493 0.262 3.056
Error 40 0.117 0.212 1.190 3.442 8.919
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean squares
Number of branches/ plant
Number of leaves / plant
Stem girth (mm)
Replication 2 0.002 8.883 0.011
Factor A (Spacing)
2 11.928** 2905.370** 24.126**
Factor B (Sowing date)
6 1.405** 5891.628** 5.024**
A x B 12 0.472** 898.264** 0.989**
Error 40 0.136 131.814 0.119
** Significance at 1% level of probability
80
Appendix V. Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number of fruits per plot and days to first harvest of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
1 Significance at 1% level of probability
Mean squares
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Days to 50% flowering
Number of fruits/ plant
Number of fruits / plot
Days to 1st harvest
Replication 2 1.175 0.039 12.732 0.968
Factor A (Spacing)
2 212.8731 10.918** 2738.072** 448.793**
Factor B (Sowing date)
6 372.080** 26.822** 5916.585** 1237.907**
A x B 12 59.141** 0.844** 174.548** 359.680**
Error 40 7.731 0.157 12.392 11.535
** Significance at 1% level of probability
81
Appendix VI. Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on fruit length, fruit breadth and pericarp thickness of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Fruit length ____ («n) ______ Fruit breadth
Mean squares Pericarp thickness (mm)(cm)
1 Significance at 1% level of probability
Replication 2 0.002 0.064 0.067
Factor A (Spacing)
2 1.442** 0.551** 0.621
Factor B (Sowing date)
6 1.856** 1.080** 0.748
A x B 12 0.349** 0.254** 0.338
Error 40 0.043 0.057 1.066
82
Appendix VII. Mean square values of analysis of variance of the data on individual fruit weight, yield per plant, yield per plot and yield per hectare of sweet pepper as influenced by sowing date and spacing
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean squares
Individual fruit weight (g)
Yield per plant (g)
Yield per plot (kg)
Yield (t/ha)
Replication 2 0.571 20918.917 3.048 1.031
Factor A (Spacing)
2 100.180** 33446.062**
2.060** 20.803**
Factor B (Sowing date)
6 151.583** 32944.973**
7.519** 84.240**
A x B 12 14.594 808.153** 0.255** 3.112**
Error 40 8.271 73.896 0.013 0.263
** Significance at 1% level of probability
83
Appendix VIII. Production cost of Sweet pepper per hectare (A) Material cost (Tk./ha) Treatment
combinations Seedling cost @ Tk 0.80/ seedling (Tk/ha)
Fertilizer and
manure cost
(Tk/ha)
Insecticide cost
(Tk/ha)
Irrigation cost
(Tk/ha)
Power tiller 3 times @ Tk.2250
Sub total (a) Tk./ha
T,S, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335 t,s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t,s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
t2s, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t2s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t2s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
T3S, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t3s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t3s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
t4s, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t4s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t4s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
t5s, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t5s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t5s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
t6s, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t6s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t6s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
t7s, 18,278 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 60,335
t7s2 21,324 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 63,381
t7s3 30,464 26,307 1,000 8,000 6,750 72,521
Sweet pepper seedling @ Tk. 0.80/seedling Cowdung @ Tk. 1500/ton. Gypsum @ Tk.4/kg. Urea @ Tk.7/kg. Zinc Oxide @ Tk. 70/kg. TSP@Tk. 18/kg. MP@Tk. 15/kg.
Appendix VIII. Contd.
84
(B) Non-material cost (Tk./ha) Treatment
combination Land
preparation Fertilizer and manure application
Seedling transplanting
Intercultural operation
Harvesting Sub total (b) (Tk/ha)
Total input cost (a) + (b)
T,Sj 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T,S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T,S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T2S, 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T2S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T2S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T3S, 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T3S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T3S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T4S1 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T4S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T4S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T5S, 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T5S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T5s3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T6S, 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T6S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T6S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361 T7S, 21,600 19,200 5,520 39,000 18,000 1,03,320 1,63,655 T7S2 21,600 19,200 6,480 39,000 18,600 1,04,880 1,68,261 T7S3 21,600 19,200 9,240 39,000 19,800 1,08,840 1,81,361
Labour cost @ Tk. 120/day
85
(C ) Overhead cost and total cost of production (Tk./ ha) Treatment
combination Cost of leasing of lha land for 6 months
Miscellane ous cost (5% of total input cost)
Interest on running capital for 6 months (13% of the total input cost)
Total Total cost of production (input cost + interest on running capital, Tk/ha)
T,S, 30,000 8,182 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
t,s2 30,000 8,413 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t,s3 30,000 9,068 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
t2s. 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
T2S2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
T2S3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
t3s, 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
t3s2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t3s3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
t4s, 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
T4S2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t4s3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
TsS, 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
t5s2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t5s3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
t6s, 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
t6s2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t6s3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
t7s, 30,000 8,002 10,637 48,819 2,12,474
T7S2 30,000 8,203 10,936 49,349 2,17,610
t7s3 30,000 8,798 11,788 50,856 2,32,217
Appendix VIII. Contd.
86
**Significant at 1% level of probability, In a column, means followed by common letters are not significantly different from each other at 1% level of probability by DMRT **Significant at 1% level of probability, In a column, means followed by common letters are not significantly different from each other at 1% level of probability by DMRT
** Significant at 1% level of Probability measured by DMRT NS Non significant
Appendix IX. Disease and insect pest infestation data during growing period of sweet pepper Treatment Average number of Average number of
Sowing date Spacing (cm) insect pest infested plants/plot
disease infected plants/plot
50 x 50 (S,) 3.66 7.66
September 01 50 x 40 (S2) 3.66 8.00
(Ti) 50 x 30 (S3) 5.00 9.66 50 x 50 (SO 4.33 8.33
September 15 50 x 40 (S2) 4.00 9.00
(T2) 50 x 30 (S3) 8.66 10.33 50 x 50 (SO 1.00 4.00
October 01 (T3)
50 x 40 (S2) 4.00 3.33
50 x 30 (S3) 3.00 3.33 50 x 50 (SO 1.66 4.66
October 15 50 x 40 (S2) 3.33 3.33
(T4) 50 x 30 (S3) 3.00 4.00 50 x 50 (SO 3.00 4.66
October 30 (T5) 50 x 40 (S2) 2.00 3.66
50 x 30 (S3) 5.33 4.33 50 x 50 (SO 4.33 5.33
November 15 (T6)
50 x 40 (S2) 1.33 3.66
50 x 30 (S3) 6.33 4.33 50 x 50 (SO 1.00 5.33
November 30 (T7) 50 x 40 (S2) 2.66 5.33
50 x 30 (S3) 5.33 6.66