.

MEKELLE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF DRY LAND AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE

DEPARTEMENT OF DRYLAND CROP AND HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE

PROGRAM: DRY LAND CROP AND HORTICULTURAL SCINCE

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT NITROGEN FERTILIZER LEVEL ON GROWTH

AND DEVELOPMENT OF BARLEY(HORDEOUM VULGARE L.)

PREPARED BY TEMESGEN GASHAW

ID NUMBER ;CDANR/UR/78873/07
SUBMITTED TO; ADVISOR; INSTRACTOR MOHAMMED MEBRHTU

SUBMITTED DATE, 2009

MEKELL, ETHIOP

TABLE CONTENT
Content
page
Introduction
. 1
1.2 Back
ground
.. 1
1.3 statement of the
problem
.2
1.4
justification
2
2
objective
3
2.1 General
objective
3
2.2 specific
objective
3
2.3
hypothesis
..4
3 Literature
review
.5
3.1 barley production in
Ethiopia5

3.2 role different fertilizer on growth and development of barley

..6
3.4effect of nitrogen fertilizer level on plant growth and development
parameter..6
4 method of data
collection
..7
4.1discription of the study
area.8
4.2 experimental
material
9
4.3 Experimental design and treatment
.10
5 result and
discussion
11
5.1
result
..11
5.1
DISCUSSION
12
5.2DAY TO EMERGENCY 50%..
..13
5.3 Day to head
50%.................................................................................................................. 13
5.4 leaf length of
barley.
.14
5.5 no_ of effective and none effective
tiller14
5.6 plant
height
..15

5.7 number of spike

length
15
6 conclusion and
recommendation
16
6.1
conclusion
..16
6.2
recommendation
..17
6.3
references
.18
Appendix

19

ABSTRACT

Barley (hordeum vulgrea L.) is one of the most important food crop produce in the
world. It assumed the fourth position in the total cereal production in the world after
wheat, rice and maize. The major problem barley crop suffers from minimum and
maximum nitrogen fertilizer application on the growth and development of barley
decreased.

Due think that Different nitrogen fertilizer application has limited barley production
in accordance of this field experiment was conducted at demonstration site of
Denssa Wereda, and aimed to investigate the effect of different nitrogen fertilizer
level on barley production. Comprised of four treatments and for replicated at each
time the result of revealed that
Different nitrogen fertilizer level had significant influence of growth and
development of barley.
The area debated to barley production in Ethiopia over the past 25 years has
flocculated. It was around o.8 million hector in the late of 1970s, and rose to more
than one million hector in late of 1980s. Different nitrogen fertilizer level had
significant influence of growth and development of barley.
Fertilizer is involved in cell multiplication in a given rise to increase the size and
develop leaf and stem.
Nitrogen is an integral component of many essential plant compounds such as
amino acid, which are building block of all proteins including enzyme, nucleic acid
and chlorophyll (brady and well, 2002).
Generally day to emergency 50%, day to heading50%, number of effective tiller analysis result
none significant different among testament one, two, three and four. While plant height, spike length,
leaf length was significantly different.

Finally, barley was well growth and development better at 100k.g of nitrogen
fertilizer per hector, but further research was recommended according to soil
analysis.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First, I would like to thanks to the almighty my GOD who made all things are
completely by practical attachment and it gives me accurate pleasure and my thank
extend to my earnest and sincere and gratitude and supported to my advisor,
instructor Muhammad and mister Eshetu in wereda extension give me a valuable
and constructive comments. Finally I would like to thank my family who helped me
by giving different materials when I need.

1
1.1

INTRODUCTION
BACK GROUND

Barley (hordeum vulgrea L.) is one of the most important food crop produce in the
world. It assumed the fourth position in the total cereal production in the world after
wheat, rice and maize .Many country grow barley as commercial crop. Russia,
Canada, Germany, Ukraine, and France are the major barley producer accounting
for nearly half of the total world production (Edeny and Tipples, 1997).
Besides, barley ranks fourth in the worldwide production all cereal (FAO, 2004). In
Ethiopia, barley is ranked fifth of all cereal based on production. On the other hand
in Ethiopia it is the highest level of barley consumption occur .The production of

barley by and large has been below one million ton per year for most of the past 25
years. Except during the year when the area under barley increase above one
million hector. However barley is one of the most important stable food crop
produced in highland area of Ethiopia the grain of barley used to prepare of different
stuff. Such as Injera, qolo, local drink like tela, beer, and wine. The straws also used
as animal feeding specially during dry season.it adapted wide environmental
condition mature, soon and high yield potential (Hailu and vanleur, joop, 1996).
Besides that barley is a primary use of making alcohol beverage. In 2005 barley was
grown in more than 100 countries worldwide with total barley grain yield per hector
with production level at around 2.4 ton per hector. Generally barley is the most
important stable in Ethiopia and other African countries.

1.1

statement of the problem

The major problem barley crop suffers from minimum and maximum nitrogen fertilizer
application on the growth and development of barley decreased. From the minimum

nitrogen fertilizer application has many factors. Like yield reduced, plant height
lost, quantity of yield also reduced and lately maturity etc. While the maximum
nitrogen fertilizer application have many effect s such as yield quality and quantity
also decreased, soil fertility and degradation of soil and soil acidity and nutrient
requirement up take also reduced .In general barley is the most stable food crop in
amhara region particularly in denssa wereda (FTC) which grow by most farmers and

also reduce productivity due to the inappropriate application of nitrogen fertilizer on

barley production.

1.2

justification

Due to most of the farmer do not apply optimum amount of nitrogen fertilizer
application growth and development of barley is decreased We suggest or
recommended that the farmer applies nitrogen fertilizer on optimum amount
fertilizer are applied. In denssa wereda the farmer uses repeated in organic nitrogen
fertilizer application the result also decrease soil fertility (Natasha, 2004). So in
order to choose the best fertilizer was needed to access farm knowledge.

1.3

objective of the study

1.3.1general objective

To evaluate the effect of nitrogen fertilizer on the growth and development of

barley.

1.3.2specific objective
To evaluate the effect of nitrogen fertilizer growth and development.
To determine the optimum rate of nitrogen fertilizer method applied 0n barley
production.

1.3.3hypothesis
Null hypothesis: there is no significance difference on growth and development of
barley at the different level.

Alternative hypothesis: there is significance difference among different fertilizer

application of barley production.

2 MATERIALS AND METHOD

2.1 description of study area
This study was conducted in amhara region south zone of many specific site of
denssa town, where is 520k.m far from mekelle. The attitude range of that town is
2000mm to 2700mm above sea level. The main crop of that area which grown in
denssa wereda are barley, wheat, bean, line seed, and maize are the most
important agricultural crop.

2.2 used materials

In order to conduct the experiment from sowing to harvesting was obtained field
experiments are used:
seed of barley
nitrogen fertilizer (urea)
hand hoe (prepared the soil)
meter (for measuring plant height, spike length, plot area, plot size, and row
spacing)
rope (for measuring field design)
balance (for measuring weight of seed and urea)

2.3 experimental design and treatment

The experiment with layout random complete block design (RCBD) four treatment
and four replication the treatments are shown below
Treatment one . Without
nitrogen fertilizer (urea)
Treatment two 50k.g of
nitrogen per hector
Treatment three .. 100k.g
of nitrogen per hector
Treatment four .. 150k.g
of nitrogen per hector
the size of each plot 1.5
meter
the distance between the plot 10cm
the distance between the row 20cm
the distance between replication . 0.75 cm
Area of single plot .. 3m2

 Total area of the experiment 90.75m2

The experiment was single factor of the experiment (RCBD) this treatment was
assigned randomly each plot.

Literature review

3.1 Barley production in Ethiopia

The area debated to barley production in Ethiopia over the past 25 years has
flocculated. It was around o.8 million hector in the late of 1970s, and rose to more
than one million hector in late of 1980s. it then decline and remained between o.8
and 0.9 million hector until the beginning of third millennium. The production of
barley by and large has been below one million ton per year for most of the past 25
years. Except during the year when the area under barley increase above one
million hector. Zemede Asfaw (1996) record up to 12 distinct morph type from
single barley field. Ethiopian seed enterprise has no significantly emphasize the
multiplication and distribution of seed improved barley variety.
The average production of Ethiopian seed enterprise improved maize, barley and
wheat verities in the period of 2000-2007 where 55194, 51395 and 40 quintal per
annum. Zemede Bishaw, Yonas Seblu and barley of simane, 2008 said that 1
quintal= 100k.g.

3.2 Role of different fertilizer on barley growth and development

Especially the stalk of green and grass giving the leaf dark green color play a part of
manufacturing of protein import many compounds in the plant, including certain
type of basic acid and hormone of barley (hordeum vulgarae).

3.3

Effect of nitrogen nutrition on growth and development of

barley

Nitrogen is an integral component of many essential plant compounds such as

amino acid, which are building block of all proteins including enzyme, nucleic acid
and chlorophyll (brady and well, 2002). According to Desta Beyene (1987), said that
soil fertility status is dynamic and variable from locality and its difficult to end up
amendment studies were under take at different time and place.

3.4 effect of nitrogen fertilizer level on plant

growth and development parameter
Plant height was significantly affected by different level of nitrogen fertilizer
application. In line with this Rashid et al (2007) indicated that plant height was
linearly increased with increasing nitrogen fertilization. The maximum plant is
100cm was recorded from the application of nitrogen fertilizer while the minimum
plant height is 60cm.
Taye Bekele et al (1996) and Welduyesus sinebo (2005) reported that the yield of
barley increased with increasing nitrogen fertilizer application at different locations.
The maximum day of barley 110 were recorded from planting which received 0k.g
per hector similar results were reported by Kernich and Halloran (1996) observed
that nitrogen fertilizer application considerable influenced of the duration of
fertilizer.

3 Data collection
Data was collected by measuring and counting on the following
parameter:Day to emergency 50%, day to heading50%, leaf length, number of effective tiller, none effective
tiller , number of leaf, plant height and spike length 0f the barley plant. Day to emergency was
recording visually from 3 to 10 day are recording in our emergency time. Day to heading was
recording from 60 to 75 day interval on heading time was recording. Leaf length:-was recorded as
the length of the plant in (cm) from the node or internode of the main stem to tip of the plant was
recording number of per plant:-was counting from leaf the tillers of the barley plant. Number of
effective tiller:-was counting on single seed counting can grow many effective and non-effective
tiller are recording from the total one. Plant height:-was recorded as the length of the plant in cm
from the base of the main stem to the tip of the excluding of the spike.

3.1 Data analysis

The collected data was recording data was analysis using Duncans multiple test are
used analysis variance produce was employed.

RESULTS AND DISSCUTION

Result
Table 1 mean square for day to emergency ,day head, leaf length, number
of leaf, number of effective tiller none effective tiller ,spike length and
plant height
SV
REP
TRT
ERROR

DE
5.79
58
0.11
58
0.13
58

DH
51.93
67
0.809
7
0.474
6

LL
258.6
20
6.210
8
0.969
2

NET
6.162
5
O.O7
58
0.191
7

NL
28.388
96
0.3756
3
0.0439
6

NNET
11.778
96
0.2356
2
0.0800
7

SPL
19.450
92
0.3790
9
0.0217
8

PH
880.99
06
20.112
3
0.8917

Table2: Effect of different nitrogen fertilizer level on growth and

development of barley.
Nitrogen level

LL

NL

NNET

PH

Treatment one
Treatment two
Treatment
three
Treatment
four
CV5%
LCD

21.90a
23.65b
24.22b

6.275a
6.472a
6.625a

2.350a
2.500ab
2.725ab

76.20a
77.55a
79.83b

Spike
length
50.025a
5.100a
5.502b

24.77b

7.000b

2.900b

81.20b

5.660b

4.2
1.575

3.2
0.3345

10.8
0.4526

1.2
1.511

2.8
0.2361

4.1

DICUSSION

4.2

DAY TO EMERGENCY 50%

Day to emergency generally took 3 to 10 days, statically analysis there is no

significant different days of emergency for the factor of nitrogen level.
Table 3 mean square of day emergency affected by different nitrogen fertilizer
level growth and development of barley.
SV
REP
TRT

D.F
3
3

SS
17.38775
0.3475

MS
5.7958
0.1158

V.r
42.67
0.85

F.pr
0.500

ERROE

1.2225

0.1378

During the germination the seedling mostly depend of the nitrogen fertilizer level.
Because this parameter are none significant variation may not observed on days
to emergency by nitrogen fertilizer application. This is inconformity with finding
shrive statava etal,(1996).who reported that plant depend mostly on stored food
than external nutrient germination .

4.3 DAYS TO HEADING

Analysis of variance for days to heading plant revealed none significant different
p>0.05 between the treatment .numerically control treatment (0 fertilizer) was
short head barley plant than nitrogen fertilizer .More detail Show the table
Table 4
SV
REP
TRT
ERR0R

Mean values day to emergency

D.F
3
3
9

SS
155.8101
2.4291
4.2712

MS
51.9367
0.8097
0.4746

V.r
409.44
1.71

F.pr
0.235

4.4 Plant Height

In contrast the treatment which receive nitrogen fertilizer have taken significance
difference than control fertilizer the maximum plant height (100cm)and the
minimum plant height was(60cm). There was significance different (p-value <0.05)
among the treatment of plant height .This idea the opposite this person Rashid et al
(2007). The presence and absence of nitrogen fertilizer application the plant height
of barley may be varies .On the other hand ,Rashid et al(2007)indicated that plant
height was linearly increased with increased different level of nitrogen fertilizer
.More detail below the table.

Source.v
Rep
Trt
Error

D.f
3
3
9

SS
2642.9719
60.3519
8.0256

MS
880.9906
20.1173
0.8917

V.R
987.75
22.56

F.pr
<0.001

4.5 Spike Length

Analysis of variance showed that the spike length was significantly difference
among the treatment .The maximum spike length of the plant was recorded in T3
at(100kgN/ha).while the minimum spike length of the plant records in T1
at(0kgN/ha).

4.6 Number of leaf

Number of leaf was significantly difference among the treatment .The maximum
number of leaf(7)and also the minimum is(6.275).

4.7 Leaf Length

Such Analysis
of variance show that the leaf length of the plant was significance
different among treatments. As T1=0kgN/ha is highly significance different
compared with the treatment 4(150kgN/ha).

4.8 Effective tiller

The analysis of variance showed that non significance difference among the
treatment ( p-value>0.05).The heights number of effective tiller was
recorded at the nitrogen level of 100kgN/ha ,which was not statically different
of nitrogen level than 0kgN/ha .Application of 46kgP/ha with the highest nitrogen
rate seemed to the most favorable for number of effective tiller .Masood et
al(1999)reported that increasing number of effective tiller with increasing nitrogen
level. could be attributed to the well accepted role of nitrogen fertilizer level on the
growth and development of barley.

4.9 Non-effective tiller

Non-effective tiller was recording significantly difference on the application of
different nitrogen fertilizer level. Among the maximum number of non-effective tiller
is 100kgN/ha and the minimum one is 0kgN/ha. The interaction between nitrogen
fertilizer levels was also significantly affected growth and development of barley.

Conclusion and recommendation

Conclusion
In conclusion our result indicated that there was non-significantly different
(p<0.05) among the treatment of day of heading, day to emergency and
number of effective tiller of barley. But leaf length, number of none effective
tiller and spike length show that statically significant different and also plant
height have highly significant different.

Recommendation

In generally it can recommended that the treatment 3(100k.g nitrogen

fertilizer) can be used for barley this is used to best growth and
development on barley plant height, spike length, number of effective tiller,
leaf length day to emergency, day to heading, and none effective tiller
relatively compare with other treatments. In the study this experiment the
highst average plant height was obtained by treatment 4 or nitrogen
fertilizer 150k.g N /ha than other treatments. Since the experiment was
conducted for one season and location .In addition to further practical
attachment should be strength and to understand on the effect of different
nitrogen fertilizer level on growth and development of barley.

1 Nitrogen is an integral component of many essential plant compounds such as

amino acid, which are building block of all proteins including enzyme, nucleic acid
and chlorophyll (brady and well, 2002).
2 According to Desta Beyene (1987), said that soil fertility status is dynamic and
variable from locality and its difficult to end up amendment studies were under
take at different time and place.
3 Many country grow barley as commercial crop. Russia, Canada, Germany,
Ukraine, and France are the major barley producer accounting for nearly half of the
total world production (Edeny and Tipples, 1997)
4 it adapted wide environmental condition mature, soon and high yield potential
(Hailu and vanleur, joop, 1996).
5 The maximum day of barley 110 were recorded from planting which received 0k.g
per hector similar results were reported by Kernich and Halloran (1996) observed
that nitrogen fertilizer application considerable influenced of the duration of
fertilizer.
6 Masood et al (1999)reported that increasing number of effective tiller with
increasing nitrogen level.

Zemede Asfaw (1996) record up to 12 distinct morph type from single barley field.

7 During the germination the seedling mostly depend of the nitrogen fertilizer
level. Because this parameter are none significant variation may not observed on
days to emergency by nitrogen fertilizer application. This is inconformity with
finding shrive statava etal,(1996).who reported that plant depend mostly on stored
food than external nutrient germination.
8 On the other hand ,Rashid et al(2007)indicated that plant height was linearly
increased with increased different level of nitrogen fertilizer.
9 Zemede Asfaw (1996) record up to 12 distinct morph type from single barley
field. Ethiopian seed enterprise has no Zemede Bishaw, Yonas Seblu and barley of
simane, 2008 said that 1 quintal= 100k.g.

9 The average production of Ethiopian seed enterprise improved maize, barley and
wheat verities in the period of 2000-2007 where 55194, 51395 and 40 quintal per
annum. Zemede Bishaw, Yonas Seblu and barley of simane, 2008 said that 1
quintal= 100k.g.

The production of barley by and large has been below one million ton per year for
most of the past 25 years. Except during the year when the area under barley
increase above one million hector. Zemede Asfaw (1996) record up to 12 distinct
morph type from single barley field. Ethiopian seed enterprise has no
Zemede Bishaw, Yonas Seblu and barley of simane, 2008 said that 1 quintal=
100k.g.

Appendix
Analysis of variance
Variate: DE_50%
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

17.3875

5.7958

42.67

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

0.3475
1.2225

0.1158
0.1358

0.85

15

18.9575

Total

F pr.

0.500

Tables of means
Variate: DE_50%
Grand mean 5.713
TRT

1
5.950

2
5.650

3
5.700

4
5.550

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.1843

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
0.5895

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: DE_50%
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
1.2037
0.3686

cv%
21.1
6.5

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
5.550
5.650
5.700
5.950

4
2
3
1

a
a
a
a

Analysis of variance
Variate: DH50%
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

155.8101

51.9367

109.44

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

2.4291
4.2712

0.8097
0.4746

1.71

15

162.5104

Total

Tables of means
Variate: DH50%
Grand mean 57.19
TRT

1
57.68

2
57.35

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.344

3
56.61

4
57.13

F pr.

0.235

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
1.102

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: DH50%
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
3.603
0.689

cv%
6.3
1.2

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
56.61
57.13
57.35
57.68

3
4
2
1

a
a
a
a

Analysis of variance
Variate: LL
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

775.8625

258.6208

266.85

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

18.6325
8.7225

6.2108
0.9692

6.41

15

803.2175

Total

Tables of means
Variate: LL

F pr.

0.013

Grand mean 23.64

TRT

1
21.90

2
23.65

3
24.22

4
24.77

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.492

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
1.575

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: LL
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
21.90
23.65
24.22
24.77

1
2
3
4

a
b
b
b

Analysis of variance
Variate: LL

s.e.
8.041
0.984

cv%
34.0
4.2

Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

775.8625

258.6208

266.85

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

18.6325
8.7225

6.2108
0.9692

6.41

15

803.2175

Total

F pr.

0.013

Tables of means
Variate: LL
Grand mean 23.64
TRT

1
21.90

2
23.65

3
24.22

4
24.77

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.492

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
1.575

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: LL
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

Duncan's multiple range test

s.e.
8.041
0.984

cv%
34.0
4.2

TRT
Mean
21.90
23.65
24.22
24.77

1
2
3
4

a
b
b
b

Analysis of variance
Variate: NET
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

18.4875

6.1625

32.20

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

0.2275
1.7225

0.0758
0.1914

0.40

15

20.4375

Total

Tables of means
Variate: NET
Grand mean 2.61
TRT

1
2.45

2
2.75

3
2.70

4
2.55

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.219

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
0.700

F pr.

0.759

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: NET
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
1.241
0.437

cv%
47.5
16.7

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
2.450
2.550
2.700
2.750

1
4
3
2

a
a
a
a

Analysis of variance
Variate: NL
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

85.16687

28.38896

645.82

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

1.12688
0.39563

0.37563
0.04396

8.55

15

86.68937

Total

Tables of means
Variate: NL
Grand mean 6.594
TRT

1
6.275

2
6.475

Standard errors of means

Table

TRT

3
6.625

4
7.000

F pr.

0.005

rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

4
9
0.1048

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
0.3354

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: NL
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
2.6641
0.2097

cv%
40.4
3.2

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
6.275
6.475
6.625
7.000

1
2
3
4

a
a
a
b

Analysis of variance
Variate: NNET
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

35.33687

11.77896

147.11

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

0.70687
0.72062

0.23562
0.08007

2.94

15

36.76437

Total

F pr.

0.091

Tables of means
Variate: NNET
Grand mean 2.619
TRT

1
2.350

2
2.500

3
2.725

4
2.900

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.1415

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
0.4526

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: NNET
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
1.7160
0.2830

cv%
65.5
10.8

146 IF _ibalance.eq.0 .OR. _ibalance.eq.1

147
DELETE [REDEFINE=yes] _mean, _rep, _var, _rdf
148
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] TRT; MEAN=_mean; REP=_rep; VARIANCE=_var;
RTERM=_resid
149
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] #_resid; DF=_rdf
150
AMCOMPARISON [METHOD=duncan; DIRECTION=ascending; PROB=0.05] TRT

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT

Mean
2.350 a

2
3
4

2.500 ab
2.725 ab
2.900 b

151 ENDIF
152 SET [IN=*]
158 "One-way design in randomized blocks"
159 DELETE [REDEFINE=yes] _ibalance
160 A2WAY [PRINT=aovtable,means,%cv; TREATMENTS=TRT; BLOCKS=Rep; FPROB=yes;
PSE=lsd,means;\
161
LSDLEVEL=5; PLOT=*; EXIT=_ibalance] PH; SAVE=_a2save

Analysis of variance
Variate: PH
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

2642.9719

880.9906

987.95

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

60.3519
8.0256

20.1173
0.8917

22.56

15

2711.3494

Total

F pr.

<.001

Tables of means
Variate: PH
Grand mean 78.69
TRT

1
76.20

2
77.55

3
79.83

4
81.20

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.472

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
1.511

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: PH
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
14.841
0.944

cv%
18.9
1.2

162 IF _ibalance.eq.0 .OR. _ibalance.eq.1

163
DELETE [REDEFINE=yes] _mean, _rep, _var, _rdf
164
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] TRT; MEAN=_mean; REP=_rep; VARIANCE=_var;
RTERM=_resid
165
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] #_resid; DF=_rdf
166
AMCOMPARISON [METHOD=duncan; DIRECTION=ascending; PROB=0.05] TRT

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT

1
2
3
4

Mean
76.20
77.55
79.83
81.20

a
a
b
b

167 ENDIF
168 SET [IN=*]
174 "One-way design in randomized blocks"
175 DELETE [REDEFINE=yes] _ibalance
176 A2WAY [PRINT=aovtable,means,%cv; TREATMENTS=TRT; BLOCKS=Rep; FPROB=yes;
PSE=lsd,means;\
177
LSDLEVEL=5; PLOT=*; EXIT=_ibalance] SPL; SAVE=_a2save

Analysis of variance
Variate: SPL
Source of variation

d.f.

s.s.

m.s.

v.r.

Rep stratum

58.35277

19.45092

893.13

Rep.*Units* stratum
TRT
Residual

3
9

1.13727
0.19601

0.37909
0.02178

17.41

15

59.68604

Total

F pr.

<.001

Tables of means
Variate: SPL
Grand mean 5.322
TRT

1
5.025

2
5.100

3
5.502

4
5.660

Standard errors of means

Table
rep.
d.f.
e.s.e.

TRT
4
9
0.0738

Least significant differences of means (5% level)

Table
rep.
d.f.
l.s.d.

TRT
4
9
0.2361

Stratum standard errors and coefficients of variation

Variate: SPL
Stratum
Rep
Rep.*Units*

d.f.
3
9

s.e.
2.2052
0.1476

cv%
41.4
2.8

178 IF _ibalance.eq.0 .OR. _ibalance.eq.1

179
DELETE [REDEFINE=yes] _mean, _rep, _var, _rdf
180
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] TRT; MEAN=_mean; REP=_rep; VARIANCE=_var;
RTERM=_resid
181
AKEEP [SAVE=_a2save[2]] #_resid; DF=_rdf
182
AMCOMPARISON [METHOD=duncan; DIRECTION=ascending; PROB=0.05] TRT

Duncan's multiple range test

TRT
Mean
5.025
5.100
5.502
5.660

1
2
3
4
183
184

a
a
b
b

ENDIF
SET [IN=*]