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. hrcdirector@gmail.com

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