COMPARATIVE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT BRIQUETTE FERTILIZER FORMULATION RATES ON MAIZE YIELD

AND GROWTH

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Agriculture is a major source of livelihood for thousands to millions of households in Ghana, where small-scale farmers dominate over
seventy percent of domestic production. Studies have revealed that, in the past thirty years, Ghana has experienced changes in soil
fertility and climatic Constrains conditions (Aniah et al., 2019). Constraints to crop outputs are mainly determined by many complex
interacting factors such as soil fertility, pests, and diseases, climate, and farmer’s farmers’ resources (Tittonell Smaling et al., 1990).
The productive capacity of soil is an important determinant of component of crop yield and growth. In the guinea savannah zone of
Ghana, continuous land use coupled with prevailingopposing long dry seasons has led to rapid decomposition of soil organic matter
and loss of soil fertility (Tahiru et al., 2015). These have led to the loss of productivity in cultivating lands and have necessitated the
use of cost-effective nutrient management strategies and fertilizer application applications to meet the needs of crops (Gebrewold,
2018).David and Adams, 1985). Fertilizers have becomeare critical components of the production system for supplying nutrients that
are essential for the optimumproper growth and development of crops. Due to the rising costs of production along with increased input
costs including fertilizer coscostst, the quest for food security, and the need to mitigate environmental impacts, there is a need for
improving fertilizer management to deliver a more efficient and balanced use of plant nutrients and to improve upon soil health.
Balanced nutrition is an essential component of nutrient management and d plays a significant role in increasisignificantly increasesng
crop production and yieldits quality (Njira et al., 2015). For the major processes of plant development and yield formation, the
presence of nutrients like nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulphurSulphur (S), boron (B), and Zinc (, Zn), and Mg, Cu in
a balanced form is essential (Njira et al.,Mahmood 1994, Randhawa and Arora 2000).

Maize (Zea mays L.), is a monocotyledonous crop belonging to the family Poaceae and tribe maydeae. Maize is a versatile crop; a
cereal crop that is grown widely throughout the world in a broad range of agroecological environments. Maize has high yield potential
or production potential which is ;the yield of thea crop cultivar when grown in environments to which it is adapted to, with unlimited
nutrients, and water, and with pests and diseases effectively controlled (Evans, 1993). ccompared to any other cereal crop. For that
reason, it is called the "Queen of cereals”. Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most important crop by volume among all cereal grain crops,
such as wheat and rice, which are widely grown throughout the world in subtropical and temperate agro-climatic regions ( DassFageria
et al.,2018 1991; SolaimalaiMartin et al., 20201976). It is a staple food for millions of individuals worldwide, and provides a large
number of micro as well as macronutrients to the world’s growing population. From 2002 –to 2004, world average yields of maize
were estimated at 4.57 t/ha (FAOSTAT, 2005). Tthe major production areas of maize are located in the temperate regions of the globe
with the United States, China, Brazil, and Mexico accounting for 70 percentt of global production. With the increasing changing
global food demands and variability in consumer choices, maize is now becoming the wonder crop for many countries, especially in
developing countries like Ghana. Maize also contains cryptoxanthin, a natural carotenoid pigment that has the potential to reduce lung
cancer (Nabi et al., 2020). The phenolic content in maize helps in free radical scavenging activity and also the folate that it provides
helps in the improvement of heart health (Surai, 2014). In Ghana, the cropIt is grown in the forest, transition, southern regions, upper
west, upper east, and northern regions of Ghana. The northern regions of Ghana, and indeed the Sahel zones of West Africa have
traditionally been home to small grain cereals such as millet and sorghum. This is due to their hardiness and ability to withstand low
soil fertility and poor water holding capacity (Singh and Singh, 1995) of the dominantly low soils (MacCarthy,Singh and Singh,
20171995). According to the publication Investment opportunity in Ghana for, maize, soya, and rice, which was developed by the
Millennium Development Authority, maize is the largest staple crop in Ghana and contributes significantly to consumer diets. It is the
number one crop in terms of area planted (about 1,000,000 hectares) and accounts for 50-60% of total cereal production hence one of
the most important crops for Ghana’s agricultural sector and food security (MoFA, 2015). Every part of the maize plant has economic
value: the grain, leaves, stalk, tassel, and cob can all be used to produce a large variety of food and non-food products. Maize is also
an important component of poultry feed and to a lesser extent for the other livestock feed sector. In developed countries, maize is
consumed mainly as second-cycle produce, in combination with the form of meat, eggs, and dairy products. In developing countries
like Ghana, maize is consumed directly and serves as a staple diet for some 20 million people. Most people regard maize as a
breakfast cereal. However, in a processed form it is also found as fuel (ethanol) and starch. Starch in turn involves enzymatic
conversion into products such as sorbitol, dextrin, sorbic, and lactic acid, and appears in household items such as beer, ice cream,
syrup, shoe polish, blue, fireworks, ink, batteries, mustard, cosmetic and evencs, aspire r, in and in paints. The national average yield
of maize production in Ghana from 2009 through 2011 was 1.7 million tons harvested from about 990,000 hectares (MOFA, 2009;
2011). Despite the benefits of maize production, the yield in Ghana maize farms is one of the lowest worldwide (Ragasa et al., 2017).
According to reports from MOFA and IFPRI, current yields in Ghana stand at 1.73 metric tons/ha (SRID-MoFA, 2011). and 1.92
metric tons/ha.

1.2 Problem Statement and Justification

Although increases in maize production are reported across Ghana, such increases are attributed to increases in the area of cultivation

as the yield of 1.72 t/ha achieved across Ghana (2 t/ha is below the achievable yield of (544 t/ha (Owusu et al.,2018).),This has

necessitateding the need to identify means to increase the yield of the crop. It is postulated that addition of the adequate quantities of

various nutrients to the soil will enhance maize productivityproductivity (Wilson et al.,2014: Essel et al.,2020). The reliance on maize

as a food and cash crop is a matter of great concern and requires effective soil fertility options to lessen the decreasing trend in maize

yields in the region. The World Food Program in 2009, reported that approximately 453,000 people in Ghana are food insecure with

34% in the Upper West region, 15% in the Upper East, and 10% in the Northern region (WFP, 2009). About 2 million people are
vulnerable to becoming food insecure nationwide, which means any unexpected natural or man-made shock will greatly affect the

pattern of their food consumption. Major factors that limit maize productivity in the Guinea Savanna Agro-ecological zone are

depletion of soil fertility and unsteady rainfall (Bationo et al., 2018). While the control of unsteady rainfall falls beyond the reach of

the farmer, Mmeasures adopted to improve maize productivity should be concentrated on improving soil nutrition and physical

[Link]. Both organic and inorganic fertilizers are used by farmers in the region, but due to the poor vegetative cover,

high temperature, low return of organic input, and low soil organic matter, the soil generally has low cation exchange capacity.

Inorganic fertilizer application, therefore, becomes the prerequisite for maize production in the region. Also, the inorganic fertilizers

available to farmers contain mainly nitrogen, potassium, and potassium. Early fertilizer recommendations also focused majorly on the

macronutrient elements (NPK) with little attention to secondary nutrients such as Sulphur calcium, magnesium, and micronutrients

like iron, zinc, boron, manganese, chlorine, and copper (Kihara et al., 2017). Spatial and temporal variability in soil fertility poses a

big challenge in coming up with fertilizer recommendations that give the desired crop response. Most organizations, farmers, and

researchers rely on earlier fertilizer recommendations.

Nutrient replenishment in the maize production system is achieved mainly through inorganic fertilizer application (Timsina et al.,
2018). Balanced pPlant nutrition is composed of macronutrients and micronutrients with a major role being played by macro
nutrientsmacronutrients-ones. The, but the micronutrients (Zn, B, Co, Mn, Mo, Cu, N, and Fe), even being required in smaller
amounts are equally vital for plant growth and development (Kirkby et al., 2012). It has been reported that the inclusion of S as a
secondary nutrient and other micronutrients in NPK fertilizer formulation improved maize crop growth and grain yield in Northern
Ghana (Kugbe et al., 2019). Also, Kanton et al., (2016) reported that inorganic fertilizers with micro-nutrients, such as S, Zn, and Mg,
produced taller plants, caused earlier tasseling and silking, and produced higher grain yields on account of increased straw yields,
plant height, stem girth, grain size, and harvest indices than organic fertilizers . MicronutrientsIt is necessary because micronutrients
not only enhance the grain yield and but is are involved in their improvement of not grainthe quality required for in terms of grain
nutrients with the combination with the macronutrient for optimal crop production (Johnson et al., 2005).. However,Moreover, the
price of fertilizers is continuously increasing and becoming expensive for farmers. Farmers’ practice for fertilizer application in maize
production in the Guinea Savanna zone of Ghana generally includes broadcasting NPK compound fertilizer before or after planting,
and a side dressing of nitrogen-based fertilizer (N) at the commencement of the reproductive stage (Adu‐Gyamfi et al., 2019).
Several studies have shown that broadcast application of N fertilizer is very inefficient (ME Trenkel, 2021), as only about one-third of
the N fertilizer is used by the plants, and the rest is lost via ammonia volatilization, runoff, and/or leaching. The application of multi-
nutrient deep placement granular fertilizer is an equally labor-intensive process (Rahman et al., 2016). (Adu‐Gyamfi et al., 2019),
reported that the deep placement of fertilizer briquettes was more agronomically effective than the traditional broadcast of granular
fertilizers Thisere is therefor, therefore, ecalls for measures to adopt the use of differently formulated NPK briquette fertilizers with all
the needed secondary macronutrient and micronutrient to adopt a less costly means of combining one or more micronutrients with the
major ones without exerting the burden on farmers to buy fertilizers composed of only macronutrients without the micro ones
involvement and equally avoiding the nutrient loss or leaching. Since the use of briquette applicator at basal before planting and at
top-dressing could be an easy, less labor intensive, precise (free of human error) ,and very effective method of urea and other
fertilizers briquette placement (Chatterjee et al., 2018) .One practical and cost-effective nutrient management strategy that
smallholder farmers in northern Ghana are adapting to incorporate the use of a single source fertilizer composed of micro and
macronutrients to reduce nutrient leaching losses and improve fertilizer efficiency is the fertilizer deep placement (FDP) technology
which was developed by the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) and collaborators with funding from the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The FDP is
a farmer-friendly technology that utilizes briquette fertilizer that is a combination of macro and micronutrients in the right proportion
into a single source and allows for application at planting, which can minimize nutrient leaching losses, without affecting maize yield.
These technology involves involve applying physical pressure to compact granular fertilizer grades into fertilizer particles of 1-4
grams by weight, referred to as super granules or briquettes, and placement of the briquette at a depth of 7 to 10 cm, near the root zone
of the maize plant (Hasan, 2017). This study will contribute new knowledge toward the generation of site-specific fertilizer
recommendations in the guinea savannah zone for sustainable maize crop production

1.3 Main Objective

The study aims at identifying which of the differently formulated NPK briquettes with Sulphur, zinc, and boron significantly affect the
yield and growth parameters of maize in the guinea savannah zone of Ghana
The aim in this study was tois study aims to evaluate the relative performance of different NPK briquette fertilizer formulations with
zinc, sSulphur, boron, and rock phosphate on yield and growth parameters of maize in an acceptable economically manner.

[1.4] Specific Objectives

 To establish the effects of differently formulated NPK briquettes with Sulphur, Boron, and Zinc , and phosphorus on growth
parameters of maize.
 To evaluate the effect of differently formulated NPK briquettes with Sulphur, Boron, and Zinc on the yield of maizeassess
which of the briquette fertilizer formulation rate significantly impact the yield and growth of maize.
 CHAPTER TWO

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

[2.1] Overview of field deep briquette multi-nutrient fertilizer application in maize

Maize is a major cereal crop for livestock feed, fuel, fodder, and human nutrition across the world. Globally, about 1148.49 million
tons of maize is produced from 197.20 million hectares (ha) of an area with a productivity of 5.82 t/ ha−1 and consumed mostly as
feed (61%), food (17%), and industrial raw material (22%) (FAOSTAT, 2020). According to the Food Research Institute (FRI) of the
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of Ghana, about 24 food items in Ghana are prepared from maize and account
for 30.8% of total food expenditures by all households (FRI, 2017). Maize, therefore, has a high potential to address critical food
security problems and could play a key role in future strategies to reverse Ghana’s declining trend in per capita food production
(MOFA, 2011). Major factors that limit maize productivity in the Guinea Savanna Agro-ecological zone are depletion of soil fertility
and unsteady rainfall. Measures adopted to improve upon maize productivity should be concentrated on improving soil nutrition and
physical conditionsconditions (Gruhn et al., 2000). Nutrient replenishment in the maize production system is achieved mainly
through inorganic fertilizer application. Micronutrients play an active role in the plant metabolism process starting from cell wall
development to respiration, photosynthesis, chlorophyll formation, enzyme activity, and nitrogen fixation (Dubey et al., 2020) and
reduction. Micronutrient requirements of the maize are small and have narrow arranges between their deficiencies and toxicities in
plants and soils. One practical and cost-effective nutrient management strategy that smallholder farmers in northern Ghana are
adapting to reduce nutrient leaching losses and improve fertilizer efficiency is the fertilizer deep placement (FDP) technology which
was developed by the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC) and collaborators with funding from the United States
Agency for International Development (USAID) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). The FDP is a
farmer-friendly technology that utilizes briquette fertilizer sources and allows for application at planting., The principal aim of the
FDP strategy is to improve N- use efficiency in maize and other cereal production systems by reducing losses of applied N via
ammonium volatilization and denitrification. This is because unutilized N is lost from the maize field and released to the environment
where it is not needed. For example, about 70% of urea is lost in runoff or the atmosphere (IFDC, 2013). FTF (2011) noted that the
adoption of the FDP strategy cuts N losses by 40%, thereby, reducing air and water pollution while increasing farmers’ yield by more
than 20% and also decreasing the negative environmental impacts of the overuse of fertilizers. One major factor and benefit that most
people have not taken into consideration is the prudent factor in which the multi-nutrient briquettes use has come with, that is allowing
easier incorporation of different macro and micronutrients to form a single compound. The technology involves applying physical
pressure to compact granular fertilizer grades into large-sized fertilizer particles of 1-4 grams by weight, referred to as super granules
or briquettes, and point placement of the briquette at a depth of 7 to 10 cm, near the root zone of the maize plant. Since several studies
have shown that broadcast application of fertilizer is very inefficient, as only about one-third of the fertilizer is used by the plants, and
the rest is lost via ammonia volatilization, runoff, and/or leaching (Gaihre et al., 2015; Huda et al., 2016; Yao et al., 2018). Adu-
Gyamfi et al., (2019),. Islam et al. (2011), and IFDC (2015) all reported that the use of deep placement of fertilizer briquettes is more
agronomically effective than the traditional broadcast of granular fertilizers. significant differences in plant height, biomass and grain
yields, total N, P, and K uptake, and N use efficiency for several maize hybrids due to the o deep placement of fertilizer briquettes
have also been reported. The increases and merit of the fertilizer multi-nutrient placement briquette fertilizer briquette technology
have been reported in several countries such as such Ghana, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, and Cambodia. The findings of this
present study are expected to support academics, researchers, and non-governmental organization, and policymakers with useful
information to raise productivity in maize and contribute towards improving food security in Ghana with the main focus on the Guinea
savanna ecological zone while at the same time save the level of energy use in maize production by multi-nutrient fertilizer deep
placements while and saving cost.
[2.1.1] Why briquettes the fertilizers

Briquette fertilizers are entirely mineral in form and supplies N, P, K, and Zn and other nutrients. The briquettes are made by a
briquette machine that simply compresses commercially available prilled fertilizers into a briquette approximately 2.43 grams
in weight without any additional binder material. The are several advantages in of using this form of fertilizers. Briquetted
fertilizer has a higher nutrient use efficiency due to their placement at 7-10 cm below the surface and also 10 cm away from
the plant, and the specific nutrient combinations enable nutrient to be released at the right time (Yao et al., 2018). Briquetting
allows combining different required nutrients ( Agyin-Birikorang et al., 2018). Also, briquetting reduces weed infestation and
equally reduces the labor force and cost required during application ( Bhattacharyya et al., 2021) and it also allows for easier
application of plant nutrients to individual crops or plants that are mixed in rows or mixed cropping by application of specific
treatment to each crop (Kurian and Peter, 2017).
Briquettes have a higher nutrient use efficiency due to their placement at 7-10 cm below the surface and also 10 cm away from the

plant, and the specific nutrient combinations.

Briquetting allows combining different required nutrients

Briquetting reduces weed infestation and equally reduces the labor force and cost required during application
Briquetting allows for easier application of plant nutrients to individual crops or plants that are mixed in rows or mixed
cropping by application of specific treatment to each crop
2.1[2.2] Morphological characteristics of maize plant
2.1.1[2.2.1] Root system
The maize plant has a profusely branched, fine root system. Under optimal conditions, the total root length, excluding the root hairs,
can reach 1 500 m. If root growth is not restricted, the root system of a mature plant extends approximately 1,5 m laterally and
downwards to approximately 2,0 m or even deeper(Araki et al.,2000). The permanent root system has adventitious and props roots.
Adventitious roots develop in a crown of roots from nodes below the soil surface. Normally four to six adventitious roots are formed
per band. After tasting, prop roots develop into bands from the first two to three aerial nodes. These roots are comparatively thick,
pigmented, and covered with a waxy substancesubstance (Eckhoff et al., 2009). Prop roots have the dual function of providing
support to the plant and taking up nutrientsnutrients (Atkinson et al., 2014). Numerous root hairs occur on young plants. Root hairs
increase the root surface area that is exposed to the soil, and play an important role in the absorption of water and nutrients.
2.1.2[2.2.2] stem
The maize stem varies in height from less than 0.6 m in some genotypes to more than 5.0 m (in extreme cases) in others. The stem is
cylindrical, and solid and is divided into nodes and internodes. It may have eight to 21 internodes. The internodes directly below the
first four leaves do not lengthen, whereas those below the sixth, seventh and eighth leaves lengthen to approximately 25, 50, and 90,
mm, respectivelyrespectively (Xue et al., 2016). Tillers may develop from nodes below the soil surface. The lateral shoot bearing the
main ear develops more or less from the bud on the eighth node above the soil surface. The five or six buds directly below the bud
give rise to rudimentary lateral shoots of which one or two develop to produce ears (Dong et al., 2019).
2.1.3[2.2.3] leaves
The eight to 20 leaves that may form are arranged spirally on the stem and occur alternately in two opposite rows. The maize leaf is a
typical grass leaf and consists of a sheath, ligules, auricles, and a blade. The leaf blade is long, narrow, undulating, tapers towards the
ti,p, and glabrous to hairy. The leaf is supported by a prominent mid-rib along its entire length. Stomata occur in rows along the entire
surfacesurface (Lundgren et al., 2019). More stomata occur on the underside of the leaf than on the upper surface. On the upper
surface motor, cells are present. These large, wedge-shaped cells occur in rows, parallel to and between the rows of stomata. During
moist conditions, these cells rapidly absorb water, become turgid and unfold the leaf. During warm, dry weather, the cells quickly lose
their turgor with the result that leaves curl inwards exposing a smaller leaf surface to evaporationevaporation (Gardner et al., 2017).
2.1.4[2.2.4] Inflorescence
Male and female flowers are borne on the same plant as separate inflorescences. Male flowers are borne in the tassel and female
flowers are on the ear.
2.1.5[2.2.5] Maize Ear
The maize ear (the female inflorescence) terminates one or more lateral branches, usually halfway up the stem. Bracts enclose the ear.
The silk of the flowers at the bottom appears first and thereafter those on the upper part of the ear. It remains receptive to pollen for
approximately three weeks but after the tenth day, receptivity decreases.

2.1.6[2.2.6] Maize Kernel

The maize kernel consists of an endosperm, embryo, a pericarp, and tip cap. The endosperm contains the main carbohydrates. The
embryo contains the parts that give rise to the next generation, while the pericarp and tip cap enclose the entire kernel. The endosperm
contains approximately 80 % of the carbohydrates, 20 % of the fat, and 25 % of the minerals, while the embryo contains about 80 %
of the fat, 75 % of the minerals, and 20 % of the protein found in the kernel. The starch part of the kernel is used in foods and many
other products such as adhesives, clothing, pharmaceutical tablets, and paper productionproduction (Shogren et al., 2019). The starch
can be converted into sweeteners and used in products such as soft drinks, sweets, bakery products, and jams, to name but a few. The
oil from the embryo is used in cooking oils, margarine, and salad dressings. The protein, hulls, and soluble parts of the maize kernel
are used in animal and poultry feed (Wet, 2006). Kernels can be of the dent or flint (round) types. Dent kernels have a dented crown,
which is formed during drying when the softer starch in the middle of the kernel shrinks faster than the outer more translucent sides.
The dent kernel has two flat sides opposite each other and one side contains the embryo. The embryo contains all the parts that give
rise to the next generation. Flint kernels can be round or flat in appearance and contain mainly translucent starch, with only a small
part of soft starch in the middle, hence the name. The pericarp and tip cap enclose the entire kernel. Maize with a high percentage of
translucent h endosperm is preferred by the dry-milling industry because it produces more of the popular high-quality and high-value
products sought after than does soft maize.
2.2[2.3] Why blend micronutrients with NPK

2.2.1[2.3.1] Sulphur

Sulphur is one of the essential secondary plant nutrients and ists increasingly being recognized as the fourth most importantregarded

plant nutrient after nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Its role in plant nutrition is well attested (Khan et al., 2006). Sulphur plays a

vital role in the primary metabolism of higher plants and is involved in the synthesis of secondary metabolic products in certain groups

of plants. It does not only influence yield but also improves upon crop quality due to its influence on protein metabolism, role in

chlorophyll formation, and oil synthesis. Sulphur deficiency has become an increasing problem in agriculture, which limits crop

production. For maize being an all-embracing crop, Sulphur nutrient requirements are sensitive and have been reported to in crease

yield loss to an extent of 10 to 30% (Sutaraalbach et al., 20171973). Sulfur emissions from industrial and transportation sources have
decreased, resulting in lower atmospheric sulfur depositions, which has resulted in a rise in sulfur-deficient corn. To sustain a high-

yielding crop, it is critical to provide adequate sulfur to crops. Sulphur is present in organic matter and crop residue ( Lucheta et al.,

Tabatabai, 20121984), but it is not readily accessible until it is converted to a soluble form of sulfate, a process that is influenced by

temperature, moisture, and other environmental factors. Sulfate in the soil is soluble and can easily move to the root with soil water;

however, heavy rainfall or irrigation will cause it to move beyond the root region. The inorganic Sulphur sources include; ammonium

sulfate, potassium sulfate (18 percent sulfur), zinc sulfate and elemental sulfur are some readily available sources (Enroth et al., 2020).

Sulphur deficiency is often visible as yellow striping with green veins (Uchida and Silva, 2000). Since sulfur is not mobile in plant

tissue (Flis and Jones, 2020), deficiency symptoms are often seen in the youngest leaves. Sulphur deficiency symptoms resemble those

of nitrogen deficiency because both are related to protein and chlorophyll deficiencies. Soils deficient in Sulphur were found to have a

higher susceptibility of crops to certain diseases (Klikocka et al., 2005).

2.2.2[2.3.2] Sulphur deficiency symptoms in maize

Maize being a nutrient -extensive crop nutrient has a higher Sulphur requirement and is sensitive to its deficiency (Pandey et al.,

2002). The newly evolved yielding varieties of maize are more fertilizer responsive. The fertilizer-responsive varieties have

accelerated the depletion of S reserves in most the soils, even from lower soil depths (Pillai, 1994). Sulphur deficiency is characterized

by a yellowing of the younger or new leaves of the maize plant. The specific symptoms are interveinal chlorosis, followed by
reddening of stems and leaves starting from leaf edges and gradually spreading to the midrib and older leaves remain green (Tiwari

and Gupta, 2006).

2.2.3[2.3.3] Why blend NPK with Sulphur

In recent times, Sulphur's effect on the growth and yield of crops has been studied and its effect cannot be underestimated. In a world

of increasing population with limiting arable lands, and poor soil fertility statuses, the need for increased food production is pertinent,

the plant requirement for Sulphur is primarily obligated for nitrogen availability hence with the increasing rate of Sulphur, the

availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and its uptake increases (Bhagyalakshm et al.,2010). The inclusion of Sulphur in fertilizer

formulations is therefore important to attain the yield required.

2.3[2.4] Boron

Boron is one of the essential secondary plant nutrients and plays a vital role in the growth and development of maize. The application
of boron through different sources, either through soil or through a foliar application is, found to be beneficial for increasing the yield
of maize (Joshi et al., 2014). Boron is involved in cell division and elongation in the apical meristem., Iit is important for the
metabolism of carbohydrates and translocation and also plays a vital role in the materialization of reencouraging fertilization for seed
development. It is an important micronutrient responsible for enhancing the production of nectar in flowers, and thus increasing the
attraction of insects for pollination. Boron deficiency has been documented as the second most essential micronutrient limitation in
crops after zinc (Ahmad et al., 2012). It is believed to be a completely indispensable element for plant growth and reproduction.
According to Smýkal Berger, (2015),1962) maize hybrids perform better with growth and yield and are also resistant to pests and
diseases with the application of boron which was necessary for better growth, because the deficiency was observed in calcareous soil.
It has been documented that sufficient application of boron for soil is best to raise soil B levels to non-deficient levels and produced
high plant a high number of leaves, dry shoot weight, high ear length, chlorophyll reading, grains weight per plant, the weight of 100
grains, plant height, ear length, total soluble sugars, and proline. (Abid et al., 2012; Adem et al., 2011; Bahaa and Salim, 2014; Imran
et al., 2010; Khan et al., 2015; Raouf et al., 2009; Samet et al., 2015; Shabaz et al., 2015; Suganiya et al., 2015). However, bBoron
deficiency and toxicity ranges are quite narrow so an application of boron can be extremely harmful to plants at a concentration only
slightly above the optimum (Das, 2003). This emphasized the need for careful appraisal of boron status through soil tests for judicious
use of boron fertilizer

2.3.1 Boron deficiency in maize

Boron deficiency in early vegetative growth is much less readily inducible in maize than in dicotyledons (Brown et al., 2002).

Symptoms of B deficiency of maize barren cobs white stripes or transparent streaks on leaf lamina, multiple but small and abnormal

ears, short silks, removed husk, small tassels with some branches emerging dead, and small shriveled anthers devoid of pollen.

declined availability of B consequences into poor translocation of assimilated substances.

2.4[2.5] Zinc

The total value of zinc in the soil depends on the chemical composition of raw materials in the soil. The zinc value in the of earth's

crust is 80 mg/kg approximately, and its value in the soil is usually 10 to 300 mg/kg with an average of 50 mg/kg (García-Navarro et

al., 2021). Zinc is in different forms in the earth's crust, such as sulfate, silica, and carbonate minerals. Zinc mobility and uptake in the

soil are dependent on many factors such as soil acidity, zinc total value in the soil, organic matter, and soil type (Rutkowska et al.,

2015). The important factors affecting zinc the decline and usability are usually: highly acidic soils due to the intense soil leaching, and

increasing soil pH because of the solubility of the minerals. is reduced and z Zinc uptake increasesd soil colloidal particles, and also

uptake by plants inhibits by some metal cations such as Cu2+ and Fe2+, (due to the same carriers for these elements in the plant roots),

(Chang et al., 2007; Alloway, 2008; Sillanpaa, 1990).

2.4.1[2.5.1] Why blend NPK with zinc

zinc exerts a great influence on basic plant life processes, such as nitrogen metabolism and uptake of nitrogen and protein quality;

photosynthesis and chlorophyll synthesis, carbon anhydrase activity; resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses, and protection against

oxidative damage( Jat et al., 2017; Suganya et al., 2020). It is well-documented globally that the combination of zinc with NPK

fertilizer increases grain yield and also seedlings from seeds containing high zinc have a better ability to withstand adverse

environmental conditions (Alloway, 2004; Lošák et al., 2011; Maňásek et al., 2013, Mirvat et al., 2006; Cakmak, 2008). It is also

known that a sufficient amount of zinc in the plant improves the harmful effects of boron (B) deficiency. Zinc deficiency decreases
plant growth by increasing the concentration of boron in the young leaves and tips of the branches (Grattan et al., 2015). The

application of zinc increased boron uptake by plants the soils with sufficient stores ( Lopez-Lefebre Rengel et al., 20021998). This

study aims at comparing the effect of briquette fertilizer with Zinc on the yield and growth parameters of [Link] of the

benefits of zinc to crops, it has been highly recommended to be included in fertilizer formulation for enhanced productivity.

CHAPTER THREE

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Study area
The trial was conducted from June to October 2021 during the cropping season, at Nyankpala and Kudula, in the Northern Region of
Ghana. The Nyankpala experimental site was is located at a latitude of 9.412", a longitude of -0.983", and an altitude of 183 meters
above sea level. The, and that of the Kudula experimental site wasis also with a located aton a latitude of 9.317928 and a longitude of -
0.804472. These areas have a uni-modal rainfall pattern averaging about 1100 mm annually. The uni-modal rainy season occurs
between May and October but is irregular with dry spells during the rainy season. Peak rainfall occurs in August and September.
Following the rains are long periods of dry Harmattan weather from November to April.
3.2 Experimental design
The experiments were laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design with four replicates. Plot sizes of 5 m x 5 m were used for
each experimental setup in the two locations. Alleys between replications and between plots were 2 m and 1 m respectively
[3.3] Treatment dDescription
The experimental plots for both Kudula and Nyankpala, consisted of 9 treatments and control at each location, for each experimental
setup. The treatments are as shown in (Table 1).
Table 1: Treatments and application rates in kilograms per hectare (kg/ha)
TREATMENT Application rate (kg/ha)
Control
NPK- 20-20-10 80-40-40
NPK-23-10-5 80-40-40
NPK -20 -10 -10 + 3S 80-40-40 -3
NPK -23-10-5 +P + S+ K 80-40-40-8.3-8.3-8.3
NPK -15 -20- 20 + 0.7Zn 80-40-40-0.7
NPK -12 30 17 + 0.4Zn 80-40-40- 0.4
NPK- 11- 22- 21 + 5S + 0.7Zn + 0.5B 80-40-40 -5 -0.7 - 0.5
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S + Zn 80-40-40 -(12.3-4.1) -8.2-8.2-0.8
Urea
Where N = nitrogen, P = phosphorus, K = Potassium, S = Sulphur, Zn= Zinc, B= Boron and RP = Phosphate rock
3.3[3.4] Cultural practices
3.3.1[3.4.1] Planting

The maize variety (Wangdata) was planted at a spacing of 0.75 m x 0.45 m. Three maize seeds
were planted per hole and later thinned to 2 plants per stand.

3.3.2[3.4.2] Fertilizer application

Nine different multi-nutrient briquette fertilizers as in (Table 1) wereas applied in each of the
treatmentsblocks used in the experiment with one control plot in each block. The basal
application was done 12 days after planting. The Nitrogen (N) fertilizer was partitioned into two
phases the first rate supplied with the basal application and top up to obtain a final quantity.
Dibbler was used to make holes about 7-10 cm deep beside the bases of the plants. The fertilizer
treatments were applied and the holes were covered up.
3.3.3[3.4.3] Weed control

480 g/litre Isopropyl amine salt Glyphosate herbicide was applied to kill all weeds a week before
ploughing, it was also used immediately after sowing the seeds to eradicate weeds that will
sprout out together with the growing seed. Weeding was done at 2 weeks after planting (WAP)
and 6WAP using the hand hoe for effective control of weeds. Selective maize herbicides 40
g/lDinosulfon and 80g/kg atrazine were also used to control weeds.
3.3.4[3.4.4] Pest management

A few weeks after planting, some plots were infested by fall armyworms (FAW: Spodoptera
frugiperda). An insecticide called Emmacare and Porslen ((Emamectin Benzoate 5% SG 25 m l
per 15 L knapsack) wereas applied at two weeks intervals through foliar application to control
them.
[3.5] 3.5 Data collectioned

Daily rainfall (mm) was recorded on the field over the period. Sampling for growth and yield
data was carried out at the 5th to 6th leaf stage of the plants to 12 weeks after planting (WAP), at
harvest, and also after harvest. Five plants on each plot were randomly tagged and used for
taking [Link] consideration.
3.3.5 Plant height

Plant height measurements (cm) were taken from the foliage of the plant (not the height of the

inflorescence or seeds, fruits), or the main stem if this projects above the foliage. This was done

using a graduated measuring ruler and taken from the ground level to the tip end of the last leaf
and the

average for each plot was computed and recorded.

3.3.6[3.5.1] Number of leaves per plant

Three weeks after 50% emergence, the leaves of the five tagged plants on each plot were counted

and the averages were recorded. These same marked plants were used for the rest of the season

and the number of leaves was recorded every 2 weeks over the growing period.

3.3.7[3.5.2] Leaf area and leaf area index

The average length (L) and width (W) of leaves on the tagged plants on maize plots were
measured

in centimeters (cm) using a measuring tape. The product of L, W, and 0.75 was computed to get

the average leaf area per plant, where 0.75 is a constant (K) (Elings, 2000). The average leaf area

per plant was then multiplied by the number of leaves per plant to get the total leaf area per plant.

This was done at two weeks intervals starting from fifth to sixth leaf occurrence. The

leaf area index was computed by converting the total leaf area per plant from centimeter square
to

meter square, multiplied by the number of plants per plot and divided by the plot area.

3.3.8[3.5.3] Leaf chlorophyll content

A chlorophyll meter (SPAD 502 Plus) was used to take this data on the five tagged plants

after which the average was calculated for each plot. The SPAD readings were taken between
base
and middle, middle, and between middle and top points of a fully grown 5th and 6th leafves from

the bottom of the selected plants. Data were recorded consistently from the 5th and the 6th leaf
stage to 8 weeks after planting (WAP).

3.3.9[3.5.4] Days to 50% flowering

The number of days from the emergence of seedlings to the day at which 50% of the plants in a

plot flowered wereas counted and the average was recorded.

[3.5.5] Days to 50% maturity (cobs)

The average number of days from the emergence of seedlings to the day onat which 50% of the
cobs

per plot taken to attain physiological maturity was monitored on daily basis and recorded.

3.3.10[3.5.6] Grain filling duration

The duration was calculated by subtracting the mean number of days to maturity from the mean

number of days that 50% of the plant’s flower per plot.

3.3.11[3.5.7] Days to maturity

The average number of days for all plants on the plot to reach maturity was taken and recorded.

3.3.12[3.5.8] Dry weights of five (5) plants at harvest

The total number of plants in two quadrants (5 m2) was counted and cut at ground level. The

entire bundle was weighed on the field. Five plants from this bundle were randomly selected and

weighed using a manual scale (top-pan). Similar plant parts (shoot, leaves, roots, grains, and
total)

were cut into pieces, mixed and kept in a labeled envelope, oven-dried at 80°C for 48 hours

in the AgSSIP Laboratory of the University for Development Studies, and weighed (g) using an

electronic scale, and their averages were recorded.

3.3.13[3.5.9] Cob weight

The cobs of the five tagged plants were manually collected and cleaned to remove any soil traces

during harvest. The weight of the cobcorn was then determined using an electronic scale.

3.3.14[3.5.10] Number of cobs

The number of cobs per plant was counted and the average was recorded.

3.3.15[3.5.11] Cob length

This was recorded in centimeters by measuring from the point of cob attachment to the end of
the

silk on de-husked cobs from each plot's five tagged plants. The average of the five plants was

determined.

3.3.16[3.5.12] Grain weight of five plants

The average weight (g) of the grains per plot obtained from the 5 plants at harvest was recorded

after oven-dried at 800 °C for 48 hours and then recorded.

3.3.17[3.5.13] Root weight

At harvest, 5 plants per plot were cut at ground level and the roots were carefully dug out. These

were thoroughly cleaned, washed, and oven-dried. After drying, the mean weight (g) was
measured

using an electronic scale and recorded.

3.3.18[3.5.14] 100 Seed weight

The 100 seed weight was determined by counting 100 seeds from the threshed and oven-dried

seeds from each plot. These were weighted to represent the average seed weight.

3.3.19[3.5.15] Grain yield

Grain yield per hectare was measured by threshing the harvested plants from the 8 m2
quadrant of each plot. These were put in labeled envelopes and sun-dried for 2 days. The
resulting weight in

grams (g) per meter square was then scaled up to tons per hectare. order effect of each plot for
the following growth and yield parameters.

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Rainfall distribution at Kudula and Nyankpala

Rainfall distribution (mm) at Kudula and Nyankpala, during the 2021 cropping season are shown

in Figure 1a, 1b, 1c, and Figure 1d respectively. At Kudula highest daily rainfall was recorded

on August 10 with a value of 66 mm, followed by a mean rainfall of 56 mm recorded on August

12 and the lowest on 6th October 2021. A cumulative rainfall value of 608 mm was recorded

during the entire planting season at Kudula.

 700

600

500

400
Rainfall (mm)

300

200

100

0
1

1
1

1
-2

-2

-2

-2
-2

-2

-2

-2

-2
-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

-2

ct

ct

ct

ct
g

p
ul

ug

ug

ug

ep

ep

ep
Au

Au

Se

Se

-O

-O
-J

-A

-A

-A

-S

-S

-S

1-

7-
27

2-

8-

1-

7-

13

19
14

20

26

13

19

25
Rain dates

Daily rainfall (mm) Daily cumulative rainfall (mm)

Figure 1a: Rainfall distribution (mm) at Kudula in the Northern region of Ghana, during

the 2021 cropping season.

At Nyankpala, the highest daily rainfall recorded was on 10 th August with a rainfall value of 57

mm, and the lowest was 12th August 2021 on 2nd October 2021 with a mean rainfall of 6 mm. A
cumulative rainfall value of 434 mm was recorded during the entire planting season at

Nyankpala.

Chart Title
500
450
400
350
300
Rainfall (mm)

250
200
150
100
50
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
ul-2 ul-2 g-2 g-2 g-2 g-2 g-2 g-2 g-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ep-2 ct-2 ct-2
-J -J u u u u u u u S S S S S S S S O O
27 31 4-A 8-A 12-A 16-A 20-A 24-A 28-A 1- 5- 9- 13- 17- 21- 25- 29- 3- 7-

Rain dates

Daily rainfall (mm) daily cumulative rainfall (mm)

Figure 1b: Rainfall distribution (mm) at Nyankpala in the Northern region of Ghana,
during the 2021 cropping season.

At Kudula the longest draught days occurred between 13 th July, and August 27th, 2021. The

shortest draught event was observed in a day’ interval, between 29 th August to 30th August and

September 5th to 4th, 2021. (Figure 1c).

 16

14

12

10

8
Number of days

25 Sep - 6 Oct

6 Oct -18 Oct

18 Oct -23 Oct

13 Jul- 27 Jul

31 Jul - 3 Aug

3 Aug - 7 Aug

7 Aug - 10 Aug

10 Aug - 12 Aug

12 Aug - 16 Aug

16 Aug - 18 Aug

18 Aug - 29 Aug

29 Aug - 30 Aug

30 Aug - 2 Sep

2 Sep - 5 Sep

5 Sep - 6 Sep

6 Sep -12 Sep

12 Sep- 17 Sep

17 Sep - 19 Sep

19 Sep - 25 Sep
27 Jul - 31 Jul

Draught duration

Figure 1c: Drought days at Kudula in the Northern region of Ghana, during the 2021
cropping season.

The longest drought duration at Nyankpala occurred from 21st to 29th, August, and from 17th to

25th of September. The shortest draught days interval day occurred on 29 th to 30daysSeptember and

30th to 1st September 2021 as shown in Figure 1d.

 Number of days

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
22 Jul - 27 Jul

cropping season.
27 Jul -31 Jul

31 Jul - 3 Aug

3 Aug - 7 Aug

7 Aug -10 Aug

10 Aug -12 Aug

12 Aug - 18 Aug

18 Aug - 21 Aug

21 Aug - 29 Aug

29 Aug - 30 Aug

Draught duration
30 Aug -1 Sep

1 Sep -5 Sep

5 Sep -12 Sep

12 Sep -17 Sep

17 Sep -25 Sep

25 Sep - 30 Sep

30 Sep -2 Oct

2 Oct -6 Oct
Figure 1d: Drought days at Nyankpala in the Northern region of Ghana, during the 2021
[4.2] Growth and yield of mMaize

[4.2.1] Pant hHeight

The interaction between the fertilizer treatment regime and location was significant. The main

effect of fertilizer was also significant at 4, 6, and 8 weeks after planting (WAP), (figure 2) at

the two locations (Table 2). The variation in plant height increased between treatments from 4

weeks after planting (WAP) to 8 WAP (weeks after planting) at Kudula and Nyankpala

[Link] main effect of location was equally significant at 2 WAP,4 WAP, 6 WAP, and

8 week after planting (WAP). At 2 WAP, which is prior to fertilizer treatments, the plant

heights were statistically similar (P > 0.05) plants had nearly identical heights for all treatments

at the two locations. Moreover, the plant heights increased substantially after the fertilizer

treatments were applied and they were significantly different among the fertilizer regimes at 2

weeks after planting (figure 2). The differences in plant height between the fertilizer treatment

regime increased with growth and were at its peak 8 weeks after planting (WAP). Experimental

plots treated with NPK briquette formulation 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B registered the highest

plant height among all the treatments in each week, except at 6 WAP, where NPK 15-20-20 +

0.7 Zn registered the highest plant height followed closely by NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn +

0.5B. After the 8 weeks after planting (WAP), the heights between treatment formulation NPK

23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A), NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, and

NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B were almost of the same height. The experimental plot with

no fertilization (Control plots) had the least plant height among all the treatments throughout the

weeks after treatments were applied to the plants (Figure 2).There were significant differences

(p ˂ 0.05) from 4 WAP to 8 WAP between the treatments. At Kudula, 4 WAP, experimental

plots treated with NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn recorded the highest mean plant height compared to the
control plots. Among the treatments at Kudula, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn recorded the highest plant

height except at 8 WAP, where treatment NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B recorded the

highest plant height followed closely by NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn which recorded second-highest

plant height at Kudula at 8 WAP. At Nyankpala, treatment NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B

and NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn had nearly identical plant height 6 WAP. The highest mean plant

height was recorded by treatment NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A) at 8 WAP.

Table 2: Interaction effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation on maize

plant heightrate at Kudula and Nyankpala on plant height in Northern Ghana.

Treatment Growth stages

5th to 6th leaf
s stage 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP
Kudul Nyankpal Kudul Nyankpal Kudul Nyankpal Kudul Nyankpal
a a a a a a a a
F0 22.05 28.41 52.12 52.83 98.4 62.4 116.5 62
F1 22.95 36.4 56.76 89.23 101.9 131.6 147.2 136.7
F2 23.7 36.67 53.11 82.43 94.1 116.5 129.6 128.3
F3 22.35 38.07 55.2 80 98.7 108.4 141.4 121.3
F4 22.88 35.27 57.17 97.5 101.2 139.8 137.6 150.9
F5 22.13 36.23 56.86 99.4 105.6 143.8 141.7 148.5
F6 23.15 36.53 63.56 89.7 107.8 134 153.4 138.9
 F7 24.25 40.8 59.11 92.73 103.3 145.9 153.8 148.5
F8 23.53 37.47 60.1 87.93 105.9 120.9 142.5 135
F9 22.53 30.74 56.47 58.97 98.5 84.9 107.8 94.9
L.S.D
(0.05) 1.63 10.41 16.37 16.81
CV (%) 7.9 10.5 10.5 9
Where FO = Control, F1 = NPK, F2 = NPK 23-10-5, F3 = NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 = NPK 23-10-5 +
P+ S+K (Farmer manage A), F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7 = NPK
11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P)+K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9 =
Urea

Comparatively, plots treated with NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B registered the highest plant

height among all the treatments in each week, except in 6 WAP, where NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn

registered the highest plant height followed by NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B. The

experimental plot with no fertilization (Control plots) hads the least plant height among all the

treatments throughout the weeks after planting (as shown in Ffigure 2).
 LSD 0.05 (5th - 6th leaf stage = 2.3, 4 WAP = 7.4, 6 WAP = 11.6, 8 WAP =
11.9)

F0 F1 F2 F3 F4
160 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

140

e
e

cde
e
e
de
120

cd
c
d
d

d
bcd
d
cd
100

bc

b
a
Mean plant height (cm)

a
80

a
a
c
c

bc
c
bc

c
b
b

60
a
a

40
bc
bc
c
bc
b

b
b

a
a

20

0
5th - 6th leaf stage 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP

Growth stage

Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5 +

P+K (Farmer manage A, F5= NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6= NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7= NPK 11-22-

21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8=NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9= Urea

Figure 2: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation rate at Kudula and
Nyankpala on plant height in Northern Ghana.
Where FO = Control, F1 = NPK 20-20-10, F2 = NPK 23-10-5, F3 = NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 =
NPK 23-10-5 + P+K (Farmer managed A), F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17
+0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+
(Farmer managed B), F9 = Urea.
4.1.1[4.2.2] Leaf area

Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2 = NPK 23-10-5, F3 = NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 = NPK 23-10-5 + P+K (Farmer manage A,
F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 +
(RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9 = Urea

4.2.2 Leaf aArea

Total leaf area per plant was significantly (p ˂ 0.05) influenced by treatments during the period
of observation (Table 3) at the two experimental sites. At 4 WAP, there was a significant
difference among the treatments for the leaf area at Kudula as well as Nyankpala. The
application of treatment NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn recorded the highest leaf area, whereas the least
mean leaf area occurred on the control plots at Kudula and Nyankpala at 8 WAP. The total leaf
area of maize was significantly increased with the application of the treatments at 4, 6 and 8
WAP.

Table 3: Interaction effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation on maize leaf
area (m2) rate at Kudula and Nyankpala on leaf area (cm2) in Northern Ghana.
Growth stages

Treatments 5th to 6th leaf stage 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP

Kudula Nyankpala Kudula Nyankpala Kudula Nyankpala Kudula Nyankpala

F0 269 532 1059 1097 4729 1137 5462 972

F1 301 1105 1465 3394 6340 4214 7361 4133

F2 336 974 1334 2960 6116 3698 7007 3443

F3 314 1009 1571 3109 6155 3271 6986 3294

F4 328 1932 1460 4587 6814 4242 7844 4361

F5 311 1878 1467 4361 6416 5024 7956 4834

F6 316 1521 1616 3826 7478 4065 7880 3898

F7 325 1613 1532 4216 6310 4654 7419 4717

F8 321 1531 1523 3431 6533 3351 6995 3497

F9 295 736 938 1947 4274 2729 4827 2447

L.S.D (0.05) 288.4 686.3 1396.5 1603.6

CV (%) 25.5 20.7 20.2 21.5

The interaction between the fertilizer treatments and location was not significant at both week 6
and 8 WAP. However, main effects of fertilizer and location were significant (Figure 2). Where FO = Control,
F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3 = NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 = NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A, F5 = NPK
15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B , F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P)
+K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9 = Urea

Generally, there was significant variation among treatments at 4 WAP. The application of NPK

23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer managed A) widened the leaf area of plants on those treatments

compared to the zero-fertilizer treatment. Comparatively, at the 6 WAP, NPK 12-30-17 + 0.4Zn

gave the highest leaf area but it was not significantly different from the other treatments except

that of Urea and the control plots. Application of NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn produced the highest

leaf area at 8 WAP, while the control treatment with no fertilization registered the least mean

leaf area as shown in f(Figure 3)igure [Link] fertilizer treatment regime was significant weeks

after fertilizer application. The application of NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer managed A)

widened the leaf area of plants on those treatments compared to the zero-fertilizer treatment

plots. Comparatively, at the 6 WAP, NPK 12-30-17 + 0.4Zn gave the highest leaf area but it was

statically similar to experimental plots treated with NPK 20-20-10, NPK 23-10-5, NPK 20-10-

10 +3S, NPK 23-10-5 + P+K (Farmer managed A), NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 11-22-21 + 5S

+0.7Zn + 0.5B, and NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn+ (Farmer managed B) except for

experimental plots treated with Urea and the control plots with no fertilization. Application of

NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn produced the highest leaf area at 8 WAP at both locations, while the

control treatment with no fertilization registered the least mean leaf area at both location (Figure

2).
 LSD 0.05 (5th - 6th leaf stage = 203.9, 4 WAP = 485.3, 6 WAP = 987.5, 8
WAP = 1133.9)
F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
F6 F7 F8 F9
7000

b
b
6000

b
b
b

b
b
b
b

b
b
b
5000
Mean leaf area (cm2)

b
b

a
4000

a
cde
cde

a
3000

de
e

bcd
bcd

bc
b
2000

a
c
c

a
c
c
c

1000
ab
b

b
b
a

0
5th to 6 th leaf stage 4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP

Growth stage
Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5 + P+

S+K (Farmer manage A), F5= NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6= NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7= NPK 11-22-

21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8=NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9= Urea

Figure 2: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation on leaf area of

maizerate at Kudula and Nyankpala on leaf area (cm2) in Northern Ghana.
Where FO = Control, F1 = NPK20-20-10, F2 = NPK 23-10-5, F3 = NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 =
NPK 23-10-5 + P+K (Farmer managed A), F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17
+0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+
(Farmer managed B), F9 = Urea.

4.1.2[4.2.3] Leaf number

There was interaction effect on location and the fertilizer treatment regime (Table 2). treatments

had a significant effect on the number of leaves at various stages (Table 4).However, at the 8th

week after planting there was no interaction effect on leaf number with fertilizer application and

location. Also, aAt 6th week after planting, WAP and 8th week after planting WAP, treatment
NPKformulation NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn had significant influence at both locations recordinged

the highest mean leaf number. At 8 WAP, . After the 6th and 8 weeks after planting (WAP), the

number of leaf between treatment formulation NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A),

NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B and NPK

23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn+ (Farmer manage B) were almost of the same number of leaf and

there were not many significant differences among individual treatments except for that of urea

and the control plot which recorded the least number of leaf respectively. Moreover, at 2 WAP, 4

WAP, 6, WAP, and 8 WAP, the least number of leaves per plant was observed on the control

plot with no fertilization.

Table 24: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation on leaf number of
maizerates at Kudula and Nyankpala on leaf number in Northern Ghana.
Growth stage
Treatments 5th to 6th
4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP
leaf stage
control 5.83 a 8.58 a 10.32 a 10.27 a
NPK-20-20-10 6.33 bcd
10.00 cd
12.17 cd
12.02 b
NPK 23-10-5 6.57 cd 9.60 bc 11.82 cd 11.58 ab
NPK 20-10-10 +3S 6.38 bcd 9.778 cd 11.57 bc 11.72 ab
NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K 6.60 cd
10.38 cd
12.21 cd
12.31 b
NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn 6.76 d 10.36 cd 12.51 d 12.55 b
NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn 6.48 bcd 10.30 cd 12.42 d 12.27 b
NPK 11-22-21+5S +0.7Zn+0.5B 6.80 d
10.57 d
12.44 d
12.30 b
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN 6.22 abc 9.96 cd 12.14 cd 12.06 b
Urea 6.05 ab 8.9 ab 10.96 ab 10.42 a
L.S.D (0.05) 0.457 0.738 0.728 1.36
Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference.
4.1.3[4.2.4] Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD)

There was interaction between fertilizer treatment regime and location on the fifth chlorophyll

reading and its effect was significant different (p <0.05), (Table 3a). The main effect location

and fertilizer treatment regime was significant (P<0.001) across all the treatment at both location

after the various weeks of planting. However, at 8 WAP the fertilizer treatment regime was

statistically similar for all treatment except for the control plot with no fertilization. The highest

mean chlorophyll reading at the 8th weeks after planting on the fifth chlorophyll was recorded in

treatment regime NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn with a value of 30.51, compared to the control plot with

the least spad value of 20.27.

There was interaction effect significant differences (p <˂ 0.05) between fertilizer treatments

regime and location in the sixth leaf chlorophyll content at 2nd and 4th week after planting (WAP).

However, there was no interaction effect between the fertilizer treatment regime and location for

both the 6th and 8th weeks after planting in the sixth leaf chlorophyll contentves (Table 3b5). The

main effect of fertilizer treatment regime was significant was a significant (p˂ 0.001) at 6th

WAP, 8th WAP and 10th WAP (weeks after planting). Experimental plots treated with NPK 12-30-

17 +0.4Zn recordedhad highhighest on a significant effect on the 6th chlorophyll leaves

chlorophyll content compared to other treatments. However, atAt 8 WAP, all treatments were

statistically similar in chlorophyll content. At 6 WAP, the main effect of location was

statistically significant (p<.001). Plants located at Kudula perform extremely better than that of

Nyankpala.
Table 3a and b5: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation on 5th and
6th leaf chlorophyllrate (SPAD units) of maize grown at Kudula and Nyankpala on the 5th
and 6th leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD units) of maize in northern Ghana.

Growth stage
Treatments 5th to 6th leaf
4 WAP 6 WAP 8 WAP 10 WAP
stage
Fifth leaf chlorophyll (SPAD units)
Control 31.53 a 28.97 a 22.71 a 20.27 a 16.54 a
NPK -20-20-10 38.76 b 41.16 e 34.16 e 27.60 c 24.29 bcd
NPK 23-10-5 38.81 b 37.33 d 28.07 bc 26.16 c 22.22 b
NPK 20-10-10 +3S 39.29 b 35.96 bcd 27.56 bc 27.95 c 23.52 bc
NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K 40.51 b 37.81 d 30.93 bcde 26.84 c 25.10 bcd
NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn 41.71 b 37.72 d 31.70 cde 27.88 c 27.77 d
NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn 40.83 b 37.71 d 33.39 de 30.51 d 26.37 cd
NPK11-22-21 +5S+0.7Zn + 0.5B 40.60 b 36.87 cd 33.22 de 28.04 c 26.87 cd
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn 39.03 b 34.14 bc 29.36 bcd 27.30 c 24.30 bcd
Urea 33.15 a 33.45 b 26.84 b 23.72 b 21.77 b
L.S.D (0.05) 2.702 2.811 3.846 1.98 3.316

Table 3b
Sixth leaf chlorophyll reading (SPAD units)
Control 29.18 a 25.11 a 26.46 a 27.21 a 13.56 a
de d b bc
NPK -20-20-10 39.91 38.50 33.70 30.39 20.30 de
NPK 23-10-5 37.49 cd 33.32 bc 32.57 b 30.24 bc 16.10 ab
NPK 20-10-10 +3S 37.18 cd 32.02 b 34.10 bc 29.34 b 18.95 bcde
NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K 39.06 de
35.91 cd
33.05 b
31.66 c 17.04 bc
NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn 39.39 de 36.35 cd 33.86 b 30.66 bc 21.30 e
NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn 40.83 e 36.86 cd 37.42 c 31.57 bc 19.57 cde
NPK11-22-21+5S+0.7Zn+0.5B 38.59 cde
35.94 cd
33.95 b
30.14 bc 18.60 bcde
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn 36.07 c 31.54 b 34.68 bc 30.68 bc 18.54 bcde
Urea 33.22 b 29.48 b 28.68 a 25.74 a 18.18 bcd
L.S.D (0.05) 2.677 3.56 3.156 1.994 2.651
Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference.
[4.2.5] Days to fifty percent flowering, days to fifty percent silking, days to tasseling, days

to silking, days to fifty percent maturity, days to maturity, and the number of leaves at

maturity.

There was interaction between fertilizer treatment regime and location on the days to fifty

percent flowering, and the analysis of variance show a significant difference (p<.001) between

the interaction. The main effect of fertilizer was significant different as experimental plots

treated with NPK -20- 20- 10, NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer managed A) and NPK 15-20-20

+ 0.7 Zn 60-20-25 recorded the least number of days to 50% flower that is 54 days, compared to

the control plots with no fertilization recorded 57 days for fifty percent flowering (Table 4).

Moreover, there was interaction between the fertilizer regime and location on days to flowering

(tasseling), days to fifty percent silking, days to silking, and days to fifty percent maturity

number of leaves at maturity and days to maturity (Table 4), There was significant difference

between the interaction (p<.001). The experimental plot treated with NPK- 20-20-10 recorded

the least number of days to tasseling, followed closely by NPK 23-10-5, NPK 20-10-10 +3S, NPK

23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A), NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, NPK 11-22-

21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, and NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B) with the control

experimental plot with no fertilization recording the highest number of days to tasseling.

Moreover,Moreover, there were no interaction effect on the number of days to maturity. The

main effect of fertilizer was significant (p<0.001) with NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer

manage B) recorded the least number of days to maturity, followed closely by NPK 11-22-21 + 5S

+0.7Zn + 0.5B and NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A) respectively. The control plot with

no fertilizer recorded the highest number of days to maturity as shown in(Table 46).
Table 46: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrients formulation rate at Kudula
and Nyankpala on the days to 50% flowering (tasseling), days to 50% flowering (silking),
days to flowering tasseling and silking, days to 50% maturity, days to maturity and
number of leaves at maturity of maize in northern Ghana.

Days to Days to Number

50% 50% Days to Days to Days to of leaves
Treatments
flowering flowering flowering flowering 50% Days to at
(tasseling) (Silking) (tasseling) (Silking) maturity maturity maturity
F0 57 cd 73.5 e 63.4 c 80.6 c 90 d 103.9 f 9:00 a
F1 54 ab 65 ab 59 a 73.8 a 80.7 a 91 ab 11.4 cd
F2 55 ab 68 c 60 ab 74.8 a 81.5 ab 92.1 c 11. c
F3 56 bc 67 bc 60 ab 73.8 a 80.8 a 92.5 c 11.3 cd
F4 54 a 65.3 ab 60 ab 74 a 81 a 90.9 ab 11.6 cde
F5 54 a 64.8 a 60 b 73.7 a 82.5 b 91.9 bc 12.0 de
F6 54.5 ab 66.3 abc 60 ab 74.4 a 80.6 a 93.5 d 11.3 cd
F7 54.3 ab 64.3 a 60.1 b 73.4 a 82.6 b 90.9 ab 12.2 e
F8 54.4 ab 64.7 a 60.8 b 75.2 a 81.8 ab 90.7 a 12 de
F9 58 d 70.6 d 64.5 c 78.5 b 89 c 99.4 e 9.6 b
L.S.D
(0.05) 1.27 1.91 1.285 1.61 1.069 1.015 0.7242
Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference. Where

FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2 = NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4 = NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K

(Farmer manage A), F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-22-21

+ 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9= Urea
[4.2.6] Cob weight per five plants, cob length per five plants, 100 seed weight, and percent

of filled cobs per five plants.

There was a significantsignificant (p<0.001) interactive effect of primary, secondary, and

micronutrient formulation rates and location at Kudula and Nyankpala on the cob weight, cob

length and 100 seed weight (Table 6). The main effect of fertilizer was significant (p<.001).

Experimental plots treated with NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn which produced the greatest mean cob

weight followed closely by plot treated NPK-20- 20-10, NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn and, NPK 11-

22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B compared to the control (no fertilization) which recorded the least

mean weight. .Statistically similar cob weight was recoded in treatment regime of NPK 23-10-5

and NPK 20-10-10 +3S. Cob length was significantly affected by the effect of primary,

secondary, and micronutrient formulation rates and experimental plots treated with NPK- 20 -20-

10 recorded the longest mean cob length followed closely by NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn and NPK

15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn respectively while the least was recorded on the control plots. There were

significant differences among treatments for the 100 seeds weight (Table 56). Treatment NPK

23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A) recorded the highest mean 100 seed weight with a value

of 25 .06g followed closely by NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn with a mean value of 25 .04g compared to

no fertilizer control which recorded the least weight of 20.7 0g. Percent filled cobs were

statistically similar at harvest was not significantly different. Maize plant grown at Kudula had a

better percent filled cob compared to those at Nyankpala. The experimental plots treated NPK -

20- 20-10 produced the greatest percent filled cobs while the least was recorded on control plots

with no fertilization.
Table 5: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation rate at Kudula and
Nyankpala on the cob weight, cob length, 100 seed weight, and percent filled cobs of maize
grown at kudula and Nyankpalaat the maturity of maize in northern Ghana.

Cob weight Cob Percentage

Treatments per 5 plants length 100 seed weight filled cobs
(g) (cm) (g) per 5 plants
Control 30.23 a 7.38 a 20.70 a 73.50 a
NPK -20-20-10 71.09 de 12.08 e 21.02 ab 92.88 e
NPK 23-10-5 54.20 b
10.08 b
24.74 cde
90.54 d
NPK 20-10-10 +3S 49.84 b 10.07 b 22.72 abc 90.88 d
NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K 65.06 cd 10.71 bc 25.06 e 90.62 d
NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn 69.11 de
11.39 cde
20.94 ab
90.96 d
NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn 78.25 e 11.84 de 25.04 e 90.58 d
NPK11-22-21+5S+0.7Zn+0.5B 69.08 de 10.89 bcd 24.90 de 89.83 d
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn 55.53 bc
10.69 bc
22.90 bcd
87.83 c
Urea 58.29 bc 11.33 cde 24.54 cde 76.42 b
L.S.D (0.05) 9.82 0.903 1.898 1.354
Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference.
[4.2.7] Ffive plants weight (leaf, shoot, root, husks, and grain) of maize at harvest in

northern Ghana.

There was a significant interactive effect of fertilizer treatments and location on five plants’

weight (leaf, shoot, root, and grain) of maize at harvest (p ˂ 0.0015). The main effect of fertilizer

treatment regime was significant (p<.001). The highest mean leaf weight was recorded when

NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B was applied followed closely by NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn

while the least was recorded on the control experimental plots (Table 6). Treatments NPK- 20-

20-10, NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn and NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B

were statistically similar in five plants shoot weight. The experimental plot treated with NPK-20-

20-10, recorded the highest five plant shoot mean value of 140.3 g, and the least was recorded by

the experimental plot treated with Urea with a value of 85 g. Also, there wasere significant

differences (p ˂ 0.0015) between treatments with regard to five plants’ root weight, NPK 12-30-

17 +0.4Zn recorded the highest mean root weight compared to experimental plots treated

with Urea which recorded the [Link] analysis of variance shown that there was no

interaction between the fertilizer treatment and location with respective to the five plant husks

weight. However, the main effect of fertilizer treatment was significant (p<0.001) on five plant

husks weight at harvest, the highest five plants husks weight was recorded when NPK 11-22-21

+ 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B was applied to plants compared to the control which recorded the least root

weight. Grain weight of five plants was significantly affected by treatments as NPK 12-30-17

+0.4Zn produced the highest weight while the least was recorded on the control plots

Table 6: Effect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation rate at Kudula and
Nyankpala on five plants (leaf, shoot, root, husks, and grain) of maize grown at Kudula and
Nyankpala at harvest in northern Ghana.

Five (5) plants dry weights (g)

Treatments Leaf Shoot Root Husks Grain
Control 60.30 a 87.1 a 45.49 a 31.97 a 97.5 a
NPK -20-20-10 95.11 def 140.3 d 93.83 de 68.02 de 304.3 e
bc
NPK 23-10-5 76.09 100.7 ab 51.60 a 50.23 b 189.8 b
cde
NPK 20-10-10 +3S 88.11 114.1 bc 61.60 abc 56.05 bc 198.5 b
ef
NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K 100.73 120.4 cd 58.34 ab 63.71 cd 269.5 cd
def
NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn 97.29 135.5 d 76.60 bcd 65.97 de 256.5 c
f
NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn 105.14 137.4 d
106.28 e
73.46 e 318.9 e
NPK11-22-21+5S+0.7Zn+0.5B 106.21 f 134.8 d 82.44 cd 69.74 de 282.7 d
NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn 84.35 bcd 108.6 bc 75.44 bcd 55.61 bc 269.9 cd
Urea 74.30 b 85.0 a 42.52 a 56.79 bc 204.6 b
L.S.D (0.05) 12.32 18.02 19.93 8.004 19.05
Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference.

4.1.4[4.2.8] Dry total weights of five (5) plants at harvest

The interaction between fertilizer treatment and location average dry total weight (g) of 5

sampled plants (stem, leaf, root, pod, seed, and total) at harvest was significantly (p < 0.001
by),and the rate at Kudula and Nyankpala (Ffigure 3). The main effect of fertilizer and location

was significantly different. Experimental plots treated with NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn

recordedgistered the highest mean weight value of 734.4 g, followed closely by the experimental

plot treated with NPK -20-20-10. Experimental plots treated with NPK 23-10-5, NPK 20-10-10

+3S and plots treated with Urea were statistically similar with the control treatment recording the

lowest (Figure 3) B but the least weight was noted on control plots.

LSD 0.05 = 66.78 F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

F6 F7 F8 F9
Five plants dry total weight (g)

800
e

f
f

de
700

b
d
c

c
600
b

b
b

500

400
a

300

200

100

0
Treatments

Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference

Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5 + P+

S+K (Farmer manage A), F5= NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6= NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7= NPK 11-22-

21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8=NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9= Urea

Figure 3: Interaction Eeffect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation rate at

Kudula and Nyankpala on five plants dry total weight of maize at harvest in northern

Ghana. Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference
Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5

+ P+ S+K (Farmer manage A), F5= NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6= NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7=

NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8=NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage

B), F9= Urea

4.1.5[4.2.9] Grain yield of maize at harvest

There was interactive effect of fertilizer treatment and location on total grain yield and was

significantly different (p < 0.001). the main effect of fertilizer treatment was significantly

different. At harvest, the application of NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn statistically recorded the greatest

mean yield of 2.40 t/ha. NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn and NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B were

statistically similar in yield, recording the next higher of 2.12 t/ha and 2.11 t/ha respectively,

NPK 23-10-5 + P+ S+K (Farmer manage A), and NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn+ (Farmer

manage B) were statistically similar and it recorded lower yields compared with the former, and

it was followed by NPK 20-20-10 and NPK 23-10-5 recording low yield next to the control

(nofertilizer) treatment 23-10-5 recorded the lower followed by control plot with no fertilization

recording the least grain yield (Figure 4).

There were significant effects (p ˂ 0.05) of treatments on grain yield (t/ha) offor maize at harvest

(Figure 5). At harvest, NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn recorded the greatest mean yield of 2.39 t/ha while

the least weight was recorded on the zero-fertilizer plot (control).

 LSD 0.05 = 0.1467
F0 F1 F2 F3 F4 F5
F6 F7 F8 F9

g
2.5

f
e
Grain yield (t/ha)

e
2

d
c
1.5

b
1

0.5
a

Treatments

Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference

Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5 + P+

S+K (Farmer manage A), F5= NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6= NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7= NPK 11-22-

21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8=NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9= Urea

Figure 4: Interaction Eeffeect of primary, secondary, and micronutrient formulation rate

at Kudula and Nyankpala on grain yield of maize at harvest in northern Ghana.

Means with the same alphabet in the same column show no significant difference

Where FO = Control, F1= NPK, F2= NPK 23-10-5, F3= NPK 20-10-10 +3S, F4= NPK 23-10-5 + P+

S+K (Farmer manage A), F5 = NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, F6 = NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn, F7 = NPK 11-

22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, F8 = NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+ZN+ (Farmer manage B), F9 = Urea
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 Effect of rainfall distribution on the productivity of maize

Water stress is one of the most important environmental factors limiting crop growth,

development, and yield (Prasad and Staggenborg 2008). The formation of reproductive organs,

biomass output, vegetative growth, and yield characteristics are all severely impacted by maize's

susceptibility to drought stress. Efficient rainfall under rainfed cropping systems increases soil

moisture and nutrient availability for crop uptake

Water deficit or osmotic effect is probably the major physiological mechanism for growth

reduction as both stresses lower the soil water potential and drought may also differentially affect

the mineral nutrient relations in plants. Low rainfall at Nyankpala couple with several days of

draught during the early vegetative stage of the maize development that is from the 2 WAP to

6WAP (weeks after planting) could be attributed to the low yield. This is in alignment with

Fageria, et al., 2008 who reported that water stress reduces plant growth by reducing cell division

and root enlargement and leads to a decline in ion transport to the root surface. In dry soils,

nutrients are less mobile mainly because pores are filled with air and pathways for nutrient flux

from soil to root surface are less direct (Fageria et al., 2008). Maize, at high yielding, has high

rates of nutrient uptake during 2nd week after planting to the 6 th week after planting where water

demand may exceed supply. A decline in soil moisture also results in a decrease in the diffusion

rate of nutrients from the soil matrix to the absorbing root surface (Alam, 1999).

5.2 Plant height

Plants height is an essential agronomic characteristic of production, which relates to lodging

resistance, plant architecture, and yield quality performance (Wang, 2007). At 2nd week prior to
the fertilizer application, plant height was similar due to the fact that essential nutrient needed for

growth and development at the initial stage were not supplied and those present were inadequate.

Maximum plant height of maize was recorded (151.1 cm) during the 8 th week after planting. The

application of briquette NPK fertilizer with micronutrient regime NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn +

0.5B at a rate of 80 – 40 - 40 - 5+ 0.7 + 0.5 produce the highest plant height compared to the

control plot with no fertilization that had the mean height value of 101.3 cm. The increase in

height of briquette NPK with micronutrients is attributed to the sufficient availability of plant

nutrients such as N, P, K, Zn, and B to maize plants up to maturity as similar findings were

reported by Singh et al., (2017). The general increase in all plant height with the briquetted NPK

plus micronutrient above the control treatments suggests that the inclusion of briquetted

secondary and micronutrients in fertilizer formulation has an impact on plant height. This is in

alignment with findings of Kugbe et al., (2019) who reported that an improvement in plant

height when S, B, and Zn were included in NPK fertilizer formulation when they included

secondary and micronutrient in fertilizer formulation to determine the growth and yield of maize

across northern Ghana. The findings also are in alignment with the findings of Islam et al.,

(2011); Adu-Gyamfi et al., (2019); Afroz, (2013): Khosa et al., (2011), and Sutar et al. (2018),

who observed that the inclusion of briquette NPK with secondary macronutrient, Sulphur and

micronutrients improved growth of the maize.

5.3 Leaf area

The availability of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Zinc, Boron, and Sulphur played a vital

role in the total leaf area. Fageria et al., (2009), stated that the leaf area index has the ability to

determine the absorption rate of macronutrients and micronutrients. Results from this study

revealed that after the 6th week after planting, fertilizer treatment regime NPK 12-30-17 + 0.4Zn
at an application rate of 80-40-40 + 0.4 gave the highest leaf area but it was statically similar to

experimental plots treated with NPK 20-20-10, NPK 23-10-5, NPK 20-10-10 +3S, NPK 23-10-

5 + P+K (Farmer managed A), NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn, NPK 11-22-21 + 5S +0.7Zn + 0.5B, and

NPK 23-10-5 + (RP+P) +K+S+Zn except for experimental plots treated with Urea and the

control plots with no fertilization. The highest leaf area in fertilizer treatment NPK 12-30-17 +

0.4Zn is attributed to zinc. Zinc increases expansion (length and breadth), high rate of cell

division and cell enlargement, rapid growth and enhances vegetative growth. Zinc caused

increase in activity of apical meristems, division and elongation of meristems cells which caused

increase in vegetative height El-Naggar, (2005). All plants treated with the various differently

NPK briquette formulations with the secondary macronutrient and micronutrient recorded

significantly higher plant height than the untreated control. The results are well supported by the

findings of Bisht et al., (2012), and Fountain et al., (2015). Higher leaf area is attributed to more

nutrient absorption and large surface area to trap sunlight for photosynthesis and food

production. Lambert et al., (2014) attributed low grain yield to reduced leaf area, this conformity

with the higher grain yield recorded in NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn.

5.4 Leaf number

The results from the experiment (table 3), show that aAt 6th week after planting, WAP and 8th

week after planting WAP, treatment NPKformulation NPK 15-20-20 + 0.7 Zn had significant

influence at both locations recordinged the highest mean leaf number. The increase in leaf

number could be attributed to the Zinc. This is in alignment with Verma et al., (2000) who stated

that the application with higher doses of NPK and zinc enhanced the vegetative growth of the

plants by increasing the number of leaves.

5.5 Leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD)

Chlorophyll is an important photosynthetic pigment to the plant, which largely determine

photosynthetic capacity and hence growth. The leaf chlorophyll gives an important data about

the physiological characteristics of the plant. The capability of plants to photosynthesize is a

function of chlorophyll content in the leaf (Sonobe et al., 2021). The results from the experiment

shows that during vegetative phase, leaf chlorophyll concentration was significantly higher in the

basal placentation (fifth leaves), but as the crop canopy advanced to the tasseling stage, the path

gradually changed, with the greatest chlorophyll content occurring in the upper leaves (sixth

leaves). Although results show interaction and significant difference (p< 0.05) between the

fertilizer regime and location on the fifth leaf after fertilizer application but opposite for the sixth

leaf, fertilizer treatment regime NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn recorded the highest mean chlorophyll

content across all stages and this could be attributed to the Zinc. Zinc is essential for biosynthesis

of the carbonic enzyme required for chlorophyll biosynthesis (Xi-Wen et al., 2011; Mousavi,

2011; Sarwar et al., 2013; Rehman et al., 2012). All plants treated with the various differently

NPK briquette formulations with the secondary macronutrient and micronutrient recorded

significantly higher SPAD than the untreated control plants. This result is in conformity with

findings of Adu-Gyamfi et al., (2019). Despite these favorable findings on the plant leaf

chlorophyll, the yields were still lower at Nyankpala but higher in Kudula due to the drought

experience at the early stages at Nyankpala.

5.6 Days to fifty percent flowering, days to fifty percent silking, days to tasseling, days to

silking, days to fifty percent maturity, days to maturity, and the number of leaves at

maturity

The results showed that the combination of formulated NPK briquette with secondary

macronutrient and micronutrient induced early flowering. Minimum days to 50% flowering was

observed in all the plant treated with various differently NPK briquette formulations with the

secondary macronutrient and micronutrient o whereas, the control took maximum days to

flowering. The results are in alignment with the findings of Sarwar et al., (2013). There was

significant difference (p<0.05) and interaction between the differently formulated briquetted

NPK fertilizer treatments and location for the days to fifty percent silking, days to tasseling, days

to silking and days to fifty percent maturity. All plants treated with the various differently NPK

briquette formulations with the secondary macronutrient and micronutrient recorded significantly

higher reading days to fifty percent silking, days to tasseling, days to silking and days to fifty

percent maturity than the untreated control plots. This is in alignment with the findings of

Njoroge at al., (2018) and Augustine and Imayavaramban, (2022).

5.7 Grain yield of maize at harvest

There was interaction between the location and the application of differently formulated NPK

with secondary, and micronutrient, and total grain yield was significantly (p < 0.001) influenced

by differently formulated briquetted NPK with secondary and micronutrient application regimes

(Figure 5). Application of NPK 12-30-17 +0.4Zn statistically gave higher yields of 2.4 t/ha,

compared to the control which gave a lowest yield. Increment in yield was as a result of Zn

which serves in phloem translocation rates and photosynthesis (Anjum et al., 2017; Sadeghzadeh

et al., 2106). Zinc application increased the photosynthetic activity and dry matter accumulation
of maize. The improvement in yield was as a result of increased in carbonic anhydrase activity

(Soltangheisi et al., 2014). All plants treated with the various differently NPK briquette

formulations with the secondary macronutrient and micronutrient recorded significantly higher

yield than the untreated control plots. The results are in alignment with the findings of Adu-

Gyamfi et al., (2019); Kugbe et al., (2019); M. S. Islam et al., (2011) who reported that

application of NPK with secondary, macronutrient and micronutrient to maize crop increase

yield.

APPENDIECES

Plant height at 5th to 6th leaf stage

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 14.521 4.84 0.91
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 300.878 33.431 6.31 <.001
LOCATION 1 3230.54 3230.54 609.34 <.001
[Link] 9 177.83 19.759 3.73 <.001
Residual 57 302.195 5.302
Total 79 4025.97

Plant height at 4 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 19.19 6.4 0.12
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 5540.06 615.56 11.4 <.001
LOCATION 1 13549.7 13549.7 250.85 <.001
[Link] 9 3574.06 397.12 7.35 <.001
Residual 57 3078.9 54.02
Total 79 25762
Plant height at 6 WAP
Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 287.6 95.9 0.72
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 15928.9 1769.9 13.25 <.001
LOCATION 1 5974.6 5974.6 44.73 <.001
[Link] 9 11307.5 1256.4 9.41 <.001
Residual 57 7614 133.6
Total 79 41112.6

Plant height at 8 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 923.2 307.7 2.18
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 30467.6 3385.3 24.02 <.001
LOCATION 1 2273.6 2273.6 16.13 <.001
[Link] 9 6069.7 674.4 4.78 <.001
Residual 57 8034.4 141
Total 79 47768.5

Leaf area at 5th to 6th leaf stage

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 94650 31550 0.76
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 4356535 484059 11.67 <.001
LOCATION 1 18879946 18879946 455.14 <.001
[Link] 9 3931788 436865 10.53 <.001
Residual 57 2364458 41482
 Total 79 29627376

Leaf area at 4 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 1821274 607091 2.58
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 29524686 3280521 13.97 <.001
LOCATION 1 71918944 71918944 306.16 <.001
[Link] 9 15344617 1704957 7.26 <.001
Residual 57 13389713 234907
Total 79 131999235

Leaf area at 6 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 46934875 15644958 16.08
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 65316344 7257372 7.46 <.001
LOCATION 1 122837249 1.23E+08 126.28 <.001
[Link] 9 11280398 1253378 1.29 0.263
Residual 57 55445509 972728
Total 79 301814375

Leaf area at 8 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 67470226 22490075 17.53
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 80852728 8983636 7 <.001
LOCATION 1 233111408 2.33E+08 181.75 <.001
[Link] 9 6575869 730652 0.57 0.816
Residual 57 73109419 1282621
 Total 79 461119651

Leaf number at 5th to 6th leaf stage

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 0.0097 0.0032 0.02
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 6.7898 0.7544 3.62 0.001
LOCATION 1 68.3883 68.3883 328.56 <.001
[Link] 9 5.3618 0.5958 2.86 0.007
Residual 57 11.8645 0.2081
Total 79 92.4141

Leaf number at 4 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 9.8833 3.2944 6.07
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 31.11 3.4567 6.37 <.001
LOCATION 1 1.3869 1.3869 2.55 0.115
[Link] 9 21.9953 2.4439 4.5 <.001
Residual 57 30.9433 0.5429
Total 79 95.3189

Leaf number at 6 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 4.0097 1.3366 2.53
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 37.064 4.1182 7.78 <.001
LOCATION 1 46.767 46.767 88.35 <.001
[Link] 9 14.192 1.5769 2.98 0.006
 Residual 57 30.1711 0.5293
Total 79 132.204

Leaf number at 8 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 70.687 23.562 12.71
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 45.533 5.059 2.73 0.01
LOCATION 1 27.183 27.183 14.66 <.001
[Link] 9 15.007 1.667 0.9 0.532
Residual 57 105.667 1.854
Total 79 264.078

Fifth leaf chlorophyll at 5th to 6th leaf stage

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 101.427 33.809 4.64
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 819.209 91.023 12.5 <.001
LOCATION 1 1874.53 1874.53 257.42 <.001
[Link] 9 149.559 16.618 2.28 0.029
Residual 57 415.08 7.282
Total 79 3359.81

Fifth leaf chlorophyll at 4 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 78.124 26.041 3.3
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 780.641 86.738 11 <.001
 LOCATION 1 2332.78 2332.78 295.94 <.001
[Link] 9 235.473 26.164 3.32 0.003
Residual 57 449.306 7.883
Total 79 3876.33

Fifth leaf chlorophyll at 6 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 145.34 48.45 3.28
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 925.49 102.83 6.97 <.001
LOCATION 1 3290.64 3290.64 223.04 <.001
[Link] 9 380.66 42.3 2.87 0.007
Residual 57 840.96 14.75
Total 79 5583.08

Fifth leaf chlorophyll at 8 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 63.358 21.119 5.4
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 567.776 63.086 16.13 <.001
LOCATION 1 122.447 122.447 31.31 <.001
[Link] 9 290.676 32.297 8.26 <.001
Residual 57 222.901 3.911
Total 79 1267.16

Fifth leaf chlorophyll at 10 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 122.8 40.93 3.73
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 746.51 82.95 7.56 <.001
 LOCATION 1 4222.61 4222.61 384.94 <.001
[Link] 9 260.82 28.98 2.64 0.012
Residual 57 625.26 10.97
Total 79 5977.99

Sixth leaf chlorophyll at 5th to 6th leaf stage

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 67.172 22.391 3.13
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 896.705 99.634 13.94 <.001
LOCATION 1 4268.41 4268.41 597.03 <.001
[Link] 9 262.933 29.215 4.09 <.001
Residual 57 407.515 7.149
Total 79 5902.73

Sixth leaf chlorophyll at 4 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 82.64 27.55 2.18
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 1189.77 132.2 10.46 <.001
LOCATION 1 4909.31 4909.31 388.33 <.001
[Link] 9 348.18 38.69 3.06 0.005
Residual 57 720.59 12.64
Total 79 7250.49

Sixth leaf chlorophyll at 6 WAP

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 39.262 13.087 1.32
 REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 697.287 77.476 7.8 <.001
LOCATION 1 2298.3 2298.3 231.37 <.001
[Link] 9 161.507 17.945 1.81 0.087
Residual 57 566.204 9.933
Total 79 3762.56

Sixth leaf chlorophyll at 8 WAP

Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 820.383 273.461 72.41

REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 257.118 28.569 7.56 <.001

LOCATION 0 -1
[Link] 0 -9
Residual 27 -30 101.964 3.776
Total 39 -40 640.816

Sixth leaf chlorophyll at 10 WAP

Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 533.101 177.7 26.61

REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 352.225 39.136 5.86 <.001

LOCATION 0 -1
[Link] 0 -9
Residual 27 -30 180.32 6.679
Total 39 -40 623.191

Days to 50%flowering (tasseling)

 Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 31.45 10.483 6.52
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 128.589 14.288 8.88 <.001
LOCATION 1 186.05 186.05 115.63 <.001
[Link] 9 67.256 7.473 4.64 <.001
Residual 57 91.717 1.609
Total 79 505.061

Days to 50%flowering (silking)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 23.138 7.713 2.12
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 632.974 70.33 19.32 <.001
LOCATION 1 348.612 348.612 95.79 <.001
[Link] 9 657.707 73.079 20.08 <.001
Residual 57 207.446 3.639
Total 79 1869.88

Days to flowering (tasseling)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 40.404 13.468 8.18
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 237.14 26.349 16 <.001
LOCATION 1 106.568 106.568 64.73 <.001
[Link] 9 84.807 9.423 5.72 <.001
Residual 57 93.846 1.646
Total 79 562.765

Days to flowering (Silking)

 Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.
REP stratum 3 15.65 5.217 2.02
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 414.694 46.077 17.82 <.001
LOCATION 1 23.472 23.472 9.08 0.004
[Link] 9 406.694 45.188 17.48 <.001
Residual 57 147.35 2.585
Total 79 1007.86

Days to 50% maturity

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 2.804 0.935 0.82
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 841.957 93.551 82.11 <.001
LOCATION 1 614.201 614.201 539.06 <.001
[Link] 9 660.424 73.38 64.4 <.001
Residual 57 64.946 1.139
Total 79 2184.33

Days to maturity

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 8.033 2.678 2.6
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 1416 157.333 152.95 <.001
LOCATION 1 888.889 888.889 864.13 <.001
[Link] 9 1272 141.333 137.4 <.001
Residual 57 58.633 1.029
Total 79 3643.56
Cob weight per 5 plant (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 762.08 254.03 2.64
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 13545 1505 15.64 <.001
LOCATION 1 568.36 568.36 5.91 0.018
[Link] 9 5109.38 567.71 5.9 <.001
Residual 57 5485.29 96.23
Total 79 25470.2

Cob length (cm)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 5.769 1.923 2.36
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 127.04 14.1155 17.34 <.001
LOCATION 1 42.326 42.326 52.01 <.001
[Link] 9 87.5759 9.7307 11.96 <.001
Residual 57 46.3877 0.8138
Total 79 309.098

100 seed weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 1.688 0.563 0.16
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 242.408 26.934 7.49 <.001
LOCATION 1 170.042 170.042 47.31 <.001
[Link] 9 315.444 35.049 9.75 <.001
Residual 57 204.861 3.594
Total 79 934.443
Percentage filled cobs per 5 plants

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 7.571 2.524 1.38
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 3240.56 360.062 197 <.001
LOCATION 1 6014.67 6014.67 3290.83 <.001
[Link] 9 2678.96 297.662 162.86 <.001
Residual 57 104.179 1.828
Total 79 12045.9

Five plants dry leaf weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 926.1 308.7 2.04
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 16226 1802.9 11.91 <.001
LOCATION 1 496.2 496.2 3.28 0.076
[Link] 9 6029.4 669.9 4.42 <.001
Residual 57 8631.3 151.4
Total 79 32309

Five plants dry shoot weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 4003 1334.3 4.12
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 31107.7 3456.4 10.68 <.001
LOCATION 1 10165.5 10165.5 31.4 <.001
[Link] 9 12578.9 1397.7 4.32 <.001
Residual 57 18453.3 323.7
 Total 79 76308.4

Five plants dry root weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 2955.4 985.1 2.49
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 32082.4 3564.7 8.99 <.001
LOCATION 1 431.8 431.8 1.09 0.301
[Link] 9 16845.5 1871.7 4.72 <.001
Residual 57 22591.3 396.3
Total 79 74906.4

Five plants dry husks weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 1153.28 384.43 6.02
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 10473.1 1163.68 18.21 <.001
LOCATION 1 1024.12 1024.12 16.03 <.001
[Link] 9 7461 829 12.97 <.001
Residual 57 3642.49 63.9
Total 79 23754

Five plants dry grain weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 2714.8 904.9 2.5
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 320008 35556.4 98.26 <.001
LOCATION 1 104 104 0.29 0.594
[Link] 9 185829 20647.7 57.06 <.001
 Residual 57 20625.9 361.9
Total 79 529282

Five plants dry total weight (g)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 36219 12073 5.43
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 1223056 135895 61.1 <.001
LOCATION 1 31654 31654 14.23 <.001
[Link] 9 531088 59010 26.53 <.001
Residual 57 126768 2224
Total 79 1948785

Grain yield (t/ha)

Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr.

REP stratum 3 0.16398 0.05466 2.55
REP.*Units* stratum
FERTILIZER 9 28.36272 3.15141 146.75 <.001
LOCATION 1 31.73383 31.7338 1477.71 <.001
[Link] 9 10.64601 1.18289 55.08 <.001
Residual 57 1.22408 0.02148
Total 79 72.13062