Influence of blended NPSB fertilizer on nodulation and yield performance of Rhizobium inoculated common bean varieties in acidic soil, western Ethiopia

Figures & data

Figure 1. Monthly total rainfall (mm), relative humidity (%), mean minimum and maximum temperature (°C) of Bako research station during 2020.

Table 1. Soil properties of the experimental site before sowing.

Soil characters	Value	Rating	Range	References
Chemical analysis
Soil pH (1:2.5 H2	5.03	V/St/acid	4.5–5.5	Bruce and Rayment (1982)
OM (%)	1.55	Low	1.0-1.7	Charman and Roper (2007); Charman and Roper (2007)
OC (%)	0.90	Low	0.6–1.0
TN (%)	0.14	Low	0.1–0.15	Havlin et al. (1999)
Av P (mg kg^−1)	9.84	Low	<.0	Holford and Cullis (1985)
Ex.Ca (meq/100 g) soil	4.70	Low	2.0–5.0	Metson (1961)
Ex. Mg (meq/100 g) soil	0.87	Low	0.3–1.0	Metson (1961)
CEC (cmol kg^−1)	8.90	Low	6.0–12.0	Metson (1961)

Table 2. Mean square of variance for different nodulation and yield associated traits as influenced by the main and interaction effects of inoculated common bean variety and NSPB fertilizer rate at Bako area. 2019.

Sources of variation	df	TNPP	ENNPP	NFWPP	NDWPP
Block	2	27.66	31.73	4.70	0.10
Common bean varieties (V)	2	633.39**	707.86**	54.12**	0.824**
NPSB blended fertilizer rat (F)	3	514.86**	551.94**	113.9**	1.73**
FxV	6	47.26*	54.45^NS	10.13^NS	0.07^NS
Error	22	12.93	22.34	6.53	0.06
CV (%)		11.1	15.2	30.5	27.4

Where * and **, significant and highly significant at 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively, NS = Non-significant., CV = coefficient of variation, df = Degrees of freedom.

Figure 2. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on total number of nodules/plant (left) and effective number of nodules/plant (right) of inoculated common bean varieties at Bako, western Ethiopia.

Figure 3. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on nodules fresh weight/plant (left) and nodules dry weight/plant (g) (right) of inoculated common bean varieties.

Table 3. Mean square of ANOVA for yield and yield component parameters as influenced by rhizobium inoculated common bean variety and NPSB blended fertilizer rate at Bako, 2020.

		Mean square
Source of variation	DF	PPP	PL	SPP	HSW	BM	SY	HI
Block	2	0.08	0.60	0.26	68.13	3.02	3.12	0.02
V (common bean variety)	2	4.8**	0.07	0.02	16.83	2.77NS	370,905**	6.9**
F (NPSB fertilizer rate)	3	7.6**	0.03	0.06	127.16	65.12**	2,548,353**	9.35**
FxV	6	0.4*	0.01	0.12	35.99	1.92NS	34,622*	0.34**
Error	22	0.08	0.06	0.09	42.64	0.96	13,106	0.11
LSD (0.05)		0.48	NS	NS	NS	0.83	193.851	0.6
CV (%)		5	3.3	5.7	6.1	6.88	5.5	2.3

Where, * and **, significant and highly significant at 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively, NS: Non-significant. LSD: Least significant difference, CV: coefficient of variation, DF: Degree of freedom, FxV: Interaction of blended fertilizer rate with rhizobium inoculated common bean varieties, PP: Pod per plant (number), PL: Pod length (cm), SPP: Seed per pod (number), HSW: Hundred seed weight (g), BM: Above ground biomass yield (t ha⁻¹), SY: seed yield (kg ha⁻¹), and HI: Harvest index (%).

Figure 4. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on the number of pods per plant of inoculated common bean varieties.

Figure 5. The interaction plot of inoculated common bean varieties and NPSB blended fertilizer levels on pod length (cm) of common bean.

Figure 6. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on number of seeds/pod of inoculated common bean varieties.

Figure 7. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on hundred seeds/weight (g) of inoculated common bean varieties.

Figure 8. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on crop stand count of inoculated common bean varieties.

Figure 9. The interaction plot of inoculated common bean varieties and NPSB blended fertilizer on biomass yield (t/ha).

Figure 10. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on seed yield (kg/ha) of inoculated common bean varieties.

Figure 11. The effect of NPSB blended fertilizer on harvest index (%) of inoculated common bean varieties.

Table 4. Partial budget analysis of the effects NPSB rates on common bean varieties at Bako.

TRT No	Variety	NPSB rate	Yield (kg ha^−1)	Adj.Yield (kg ha^−1)	TVC	Gross return (Birr ha^−1)	Net benefit (Birr ha^−1)	MRR (%)
1	Local	0	1509.76	1358.784	0	40763.52	40763.52	0
2	Loko	0	1524.31	1371.879	0	41156.37	41156.37	43.65
3	Nasir	0	1384.93	1246.437	0	37393.11	37393.11	D
4	Local	50	2117.35	1905.615	900	57168.45	56268.45	1722.77
5	Loko	50	2293.86	2064.474	900	61934.22	61034.22	2252.3
6	Nasir	50	2328.45	2095.605	900	62868.15	61968.15	2356.07
7	Local	100	2524.71	2272.239	1650	68167.17	66517.17	2861.517
8	Loko	100	2651.66	2386.494	1650	71594.82	69944.82	3242.367
9	Nasir	100	2996.14	2696.526	1650	80895.78	79245.78	4275.807
10	Local	150	2066.46	1859.814	2400	55794.42	53394.42	D
11	Loko	150	2310.3	2079.27	2400	62378.1	59978.1	D
12	Nasir	150	2778.3	2140.56	2400	64216.8	61816.8	D

Note: 30 birr = cost of common bean/kg, TCV = Total costs that vary, straw local selling price = 2 Birr kg⁻¹ MRR = Marginal rate of return, D = Dominated; 14 birr kg⁻¹= Cost of blended fertilizer.

Bruce RC, Rayment GE. 1982. Analytical methods and interpretations used by the agricultural chemistry branch for soil and land use surveys. soil chemistry – laboratory manuals. Brisbane: Queensland Dept. of Primary Industries.

 Google Scholar

Charman PEV, Roper MM. 2007. Soil organic matter. In: Charman PEV, Murphy BW, editors. Soils – their properties and management. 3rd ed. Melbourne: Oxford University Press; p. 276–285.

 Google Scholar

Havlin JL, Beaton JD, Nelson WL, Tisdale SL. 1999. Soil fertility and fertilizers: An introduction to nutrient management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Pp. 499.

 Google Scholar

Holford ICR, Cullis BR. 1985. Effects of phosphate buffer capacity on yield response curvature and fertilizer requirements of wheat in relation to soil phosphate tests. Aust J Soil Res. 23:417–427.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Metson AJ. 1961. Methods of chemical analysis for soil survey samples. Soil Bureau Bulletin No. 12, New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 12:168–175.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All the data used in preparing this research paper is freely available and accessible as part of the article in a data repository known as FAIRsharing.org in https://figshare.com/ data repository with DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.17033258.