Premium
Teff [ Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)] rainfed yield response to planting method, seeding density, and row spacing
Author(s) -
Mihretie Fekremariam,
Tsunekawa Atsushi,
Bitew Yayeh,
Chakelie Gobezie,
Derebe Bitwoded,
Getahun Wudu,
Beshir Omer,
Tadesse Zelalem,
Asfaw Mitiku
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.1002/agj2.20462
Subject(s) - sowing , transplanting , eragrostis , seeding , agronomy , straw , yield (engineering) , mathematics , grain yield , biology , materials science , metallurgy
Teff [ Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)] grain yield is low due to lack of improved management practices. We evaluated grain yield and cost of planting methods (broadcast, row, and transplanting), row spacing (10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 cm), and seeding densities (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 kg ha −1 ) for teff in the 2012 and 2013 cropping seasons at the Adet Agricultural Research Center farm in northwest Ethiopia. Transplanting (1,675 kg ha −1 ) resulted in 34 and 75% greater grain yield ( P < .05) than row (1,247 kg ha −1 ) and broadcast planting (958 kg ha −1 ), respectively. Row planting gave greater (30%) grain yield than broadcasting. Seeding density did not significantly influence grain yield in broadcast or row planting. Row spacing significantly influenced grain yield under row planting but did not significantly influence grain yield under transplanting. Regression analysis indicated grain yield increased as seeding density increased from 2.5 to 10 kg ha −1 , then declined at greater seeding densities for both broadcast and row planting. Grain yield declined sharply as row spacing increased from 15 to 30 cm for both transplanting and row planting. Partial‐budget analysis showed that although teff transplanting gave the greatest grain yield, it was not economical due to low straw (biomass) yield and high cost of labor. Row planting at a spacing from 10 to 15 cm at 15 kg seed ha −1 was the most economically effective teff production method, with a net benefit of $1,640 ha −1 .