GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF COWPEA (Vigna unguiculata L.

)
VARIETIES TO PLANT SPACING AT SIRINKA, NORTHERN
b ETHIOPIA

MSc THESIS

ZENEBE ATLAW

APRIL 2017
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
Growth and Yield Response of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Varieties to
Plant Spacing at Sirinka, Northern Ethiopia

A Thesis Submitted to the Postgraduate Program Directorate

(School of Plant Sciences)
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (AGRONOMY)

Zenebe Atlaw

April 2017
Haramaya University, Haramaya
 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE
As Thesis research advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared
by Mr. Zenebe Atlaw under my guidance, which is entitled “Growth and Yield Response of
Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Varieties to Plant Spacing at Sirinka, Northern Ethiopia”.
I recommend that the Thesis be submitted as it fulfills the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Science.

Prof J.J. Sharma ____________________ ________________

Major Advisor Signature Date

Abdulatif Ahmad (PhD) _____________________ ________________

Co-Advisor Signature Date

As a member of the Board of Examiners of the MSc Thesis Open Defense Examination, I certify
that I have read and evaluated the Thesis prepared by Zenebe Atlaw and examined the candidate.
I recommend that the thesis be accepted as it fulfills the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy).

____________________ _________________ ______________

Chairperson Signature Date

____________________ _________________ _______________

Internal Examiner Signature Date

____________________ _________________ _______________

External Examiner Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the Thesis is contingent up on the submission of its final
copy to the Council of Graduate Program (CGP) through the candidate’s department/ school
graduate council (DGC or SGC).

ii
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this thesis to My Parents for nursing me with affection, love and dedicated help and
encouragement in my academic journey.

iii
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR

By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this Thesis is my own work. I have followed
all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data analysis
and compilation of the Thesis. Any scholarly matter that is included in the Thesis has been given
recognition through citation.

This Thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of MSc
degree at Haramaya University and is deposited at the library to be made available to borrowers
under rules of the library. I seriously declare that this Thesis is not submitted to any other
institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree or certificate.

Brief quotations from this Thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation
from this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or
the dean of post graduate directorate when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the
material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be
obtained from the author.

Name: Zenebe Atlaw Signature: _______________________

School/Department: School of Plant Science

Date of submission: _____________________

iv
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author Zenebe Atlaw, was born on March 12, 1991 at Kemise town from his father Atlaw
Asmamaw and his mother Etaferahu Chufa. When he reached school age, he attended his
primary and secondary school education at Majette Primary and Secondary school. He pursued
preparatory education at Akaki Kality Derartu Tulu Preparatory School in Addis Ababa. After
passing University entrance exam, he joined Hawasa University in 2012 and graduated with BSc
degree in plant science in 2014.

Upon graduation he was employed by Woldia University a Graduate Assistance I. After a year
of work he joined post graduate directorate program of Haramaya University in October 2015
to pursue a study leading to the degree of Master of Science in Agronomy.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express my sincere thanks to my major Advisor the late Prof. J.J. Sharma and my co-advisor
Dr. Abdulatif Ahmad for their unreserved technical supervision and advice throughout the
whole period of developing the research proposal to the thesis write up, without their genuine
caring and frequent follow up, this work would never have been come to this end.

I would like to extend my deepest appreciation and thanks to Haramaya University and Woldia
University for offering the study opportunity and full financial support through the Ministry of
Education.

Appreciable thanks are also extended to Sirinka Agricultural Research Center for their
unreserved technical and material support during the field work. My gratitude also goes to staff
members of Sirinka Agricultural Research center; Mr. Mengesha Gedamu, Mr. Abebe Ayalew,
Mr. Asmamaw Yimer and Mr. Desalegn Yimer for their Considerable assistance, consistent
visit, technical and moral support during the field work.

I affectionately thank my parents, Dr. Gumataw Kifle and other extended families who offered
me courage moral support during my study period.

vi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

CEC Cation Exchange Capacity

CV Coefficient of Variation

DAP Diammonium Phosphate

DF Days to Flowering

DM Days to Maturity

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture

LSD Least Significant Difference

MARC Melkasa Agricultural Research Center

RCBD Randomized Complete Block Design

SARC Sirinka Agricultural Research Center

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR iv

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xi
ABSTRACT xii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4
2.1. Botanical Description of cowpea 4
2.2. Agro Ecological Requirements of Cowpea 5
2.3. Importance of Cowpea 6
2.4. Production Status of Cowpea 7
2.5. Effect of Plant Spacing on Growth and Development of Cowpea 8
2.6. Effect of Plant Spacing on Yield component and Yield of Cowpea 9
2.7. Variety and Plant Spacing Interaction 11
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 12
3.1. Description of the Study Area 12
3.2. Experimental Material 12
3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design 12
3.4. Experimental Procedures and Management 13
3.5. Soil Sampling and Analysis 13
3.6. Data Collected 14
3.6.1. Phenological parameters 14
3.6.2. Growth parameters 14
3.6.3. Yield components and yield 14
3.7. Data Analysis 15

viii
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 16
4.1. Physico-Chemical Properties of the Experimental Soil 16
4.2. Phenological Parameters 17
4.2.1. Days to 50% flower initiation 17
4.2.2. Days to physiological maturity 17
4.3. Growth Parameters 19
4.3.1. Plant height at maturity 19
4.3.2. Number of primary branches 20
4.4. Yield components 21
4.4.1. Stand count 21
4.4.2. Number of pods per plant 22
4.4.3. Number of Seeds per Pod 24
4.4.4. Hundred Seed weight 25
4.5. Yield and Harvest Index 27
4.5.1. Total above ground dry biomass yield (kg ha-1) 27
4.5.2. Harvest Index 27
4.5.3. Grain Yield (kg ha-1)) 29
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 32
6. REFERENCES 34
7. APPENDICES 41

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Pages
1. General description of experimental materials 12
2. Major characteristics of experimental soil before planting 17
3. Main effect of variety and plant spacing on days to 50% flowering and 50%
physiological maturity 19
4. Main effect of varieties on mean number of plant height (cm) 20
5. Interaction effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on mean number of plant
height (cm) 21
6. Interaction effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on number of primary
branches 22
7. Interaction effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on percentage of stand
count 23
8. Main effect of varieties on mean number of pods per plant 23
9. Interaction effect of inter-row and intra- row spacing on mean number of pods
plant-1 24
10. Main effect of variety and plant spacing on number of seeds per pod and
hundred seed weight 25
11. Interaction effect of inter-row and intra- row spacing on above ground dry
biomass yield (kg ha-1) 27
12. Main effect of varieties on harvest index (%) 28
13. Interaction effect of inter and intra-row spacing on harvest index (%) 28
14. Main effect of varieties on grain yield (kg ha-1) of cowpea 29
15. Interaction effect of varieties and inter-row spacing on grain yield (kg ha-1) 29
16. Interaction effect of variety and plant spacing on grain yield (kg ha-1) 31

x
 LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Tables Pages

1. Mean squares of ANOVA for phenological and growth parameters of cowpea

varieties as affected by inter-row and intra-row spacing 42
2. Mean squares of ANOVA for yield components of cowpea varieties as affected by
inter-row and intra-row spacing 42
3. Mean squares of ANOVA for yield and harvest index of cowpea varieties as
affected by inter-row and intra-row spacing 43
4. Mean Monthly temperature and rain fall of the experimental site during main
cropping season of 2016. 43

xi
 Growth and Yield Response of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Varieties to
Plant Spacing at Sirinka, Northern Ethiopia

ABSTRACT

The production of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) has been increasing in Ethiopia because of its high
nutritive value for food and feed. Nevertheless, the yield is extremely low. One of the agronomic practices
to increase its productivity is use of optimum plant density. However, there has been no recommended
plant spacing regardless of variety and agro-climatic conditions. In view of this, a field experiment was
conducted at Sirinka Agricultural research center, northern Ethiopia, during 2016 cropping season to
assess the effects of different inter-row (40, 50, 60 cm ) and intra-row spacing (10, 15, 20 cm) on growth
parameters, yield components and yield of two cowpea varieties namely Asebot and Bekur. Randomized
complete block design in factorial arrangement with three replications was used. The result indicated
that days to 50% flowering, days to 90% maturity, plant height, number of pods per plant, number of
seeds per pod, hundred seed weight, harvest index and grain yield were highly significantly (p<0.01)
affected by the main effect of varieties. There was also highly significant (p<0.01) main effect of both
inter-row and intra-row spacing on days to 50% flowering, days to 90% maturity, number of seeds per
pod and hundred seed weight. Highest number of seeds per pod (13.98) and hundred seed weight (18.1
g) were recorded from 60 cm inter-row spacing, while significantly the highest number of seeds per pod
(13.98) and hundred seed weight (19.5) were recorded for 20 cm intra-row spacing. The interaction
effect of 60 cm × 20 cm spacing resulted in significantly higher number of primary branches (4.16),
number of pods per plant (9.14) and harvest index (37.5), whereas the highest above ground dry biomass
(10584 kg ha-1) and plant height (46.73 cm) were recorded under 40 cm × 10 cm spacing combination.
Interaction effect of variety, inter and intra-row spacing highly significantly (p<0.01) affected grain
yield. Significantly the highest grain yield (1470 kg ha-1) was recorded for variety ‘Bekur’ established at
a plant spacing of 40 cm × 15 cm, followed by 40 cm × 10 cm (1350 kg ha-1), while the lowest grain
yield (985 kg ha-1) was recorded for the interaction of 60 cm × 20 cm plant spacing. From this study it
can be concluded that among these spacing combinations 40 cm × 15 cm for variety Bekur and 40 cm x
10 cm for variety Asebot can be tentatively recommended for the area.

Key Words: Cowpea, inter-row spacing, intra-row spacing, yield

xii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) is one of the most important food and forage legumes in the
tropics. It is a member of the Phaseoleae tribe of the Fabaceae family. Due to its black- or
brown- ringed hylum cowpea is known by different names (black-eye pea, Sothern pea and
Crowder pea). It is a legume of African origin. As described by Pasquet (2000), Ethiopia, West
and Southern Africa were assumed as a center of diversity and origin. It moved to Asia and
America, and distributed to parts of Africa and other continents by the migrants and traders from
West Africa (El Naim, 2010). It has been cultivated for thousands of years throughout the old
world tropics (Singh, 2002).

The major plant growth habits of cowpea are erect, semi-erect, prostrate, or climbing. Most
cowpea plants have indeterminate nature. But, there are newly developed early maturing
determinate growth habit varieties. The early flowering cowpea genotypes can produce a dry
grain in 60 days, while longer season genotypes require more than 150 days for maturity,
depending on photoperiod. Cowpea is primarily a short day plant, or in some instances, day-
neutral (Ehlers and Hall, 1996).

Cowpea has high nutritive value for both people and livestock (Singh et al., 2003). It is a
valuable legume that helps to generate income for small holder farmers (Timko et al., 2010). It
plays important role in the livelihood of millions of people in Africa and other parts of the world.
It can also be used as a feed; cowpea hay is a rich feed for livestock in the dry season. Pods can
be harvested before maturity stage and consumed as a vegetable. The beans are nutritious and
provide complementary proteins to cereals, the fresh pods, leaves and the dried seeds are popular
ingredients in various dishes (Timko and Singh, 2008). Cowpea is sometimes called “poor
man’s meat” or “vegetable meat” by researchers due to its high protein content as its grain
contains (20 - 24%) protein, 63.3% carbohydrates and 1.9% fat (Adeyemi, et al., 2012).
Furthermore, it is rich in vitamins and minerals and highest contents of folic acid (Timko and
Singh, 2008). As a legume crop, it fixes nitrogen and improves soil fertility, also used as a trap
and cover crop (Elawad, 2000).

Researchers at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) estimated that cowpea
is now cultivated on at least 12.5 million ha of land, with an annual production of over 3 million
 2

tones worldwide. In central and west Africa cowpea production accounts over 64% of the area
with about 8 million ha, and about 0.8 million ha in eastern and southern Africa, respectively
(Timko et al., 2010). Nigeria is supposed to be the highest producer of cowpea in the world, it’s
production and consumption of cowpea grain was about 5 million ha and over 2 million tons
production annually followed by Niger and Brazil (Ogbemudia et al., 2010). Cowpea is a crop
of the warm-season of the tropics and subtropics. It is adapted to high temperatures (20 – 30 o
C). The crop can be grown quite successfully under conditions that are totally unsuitable for
other pulse crops. It grows well in a wide range of soil texture i.e. from heavy clays to sand
(Craufurd et al., 1997).

In Ethiopia, it is the least cultivated and scarcely distributed pulse crop in spite of its importance
especially in dry lands (FAO, 2012). In view of its adaptation to the dry land areas, currently the
Ethiopian government is promoting the production of cowpea in collaboration with research
centers. This is through providing seeds of improved varieties, accessing farmers to market
chains, creating awareness on the occasions of farmers day and training middle level agricultural
development agents (FAO, 2012).

The crop is mainly grown in drier areas of Oromia, SNNPR, Northern Ethiopia and Gambella
region (Sisay, 2015). In the Konso area it is grown together with other crops during main rain
season at the beginning of March. In east Hararge zone, cowpea is intercropped with sorghum
at the end of main rainy season in September. In the same manner in the study area (northern
Ethiopia) cowpea is grown as sole or intercropped with maize and sorghum. Even though the
area is ideal for cowpea production, the farmers harvest very low yield. There are a number of
constraints that limit the production and productivity of cowpea, such constraints include, lack
of appropriate plant spacing, unavailability of improved varieties, poor crop management
practices, insect pests, nematodes, diseases, parasitic weeds and a biotic stresses such as drought,
high temperature and low soil fertility (Hall, 2004).

Among different agronomic practice, plant spacing is an important factor influencing the growth
and development of crops and the final yield. The optimum plant population of cowpea depends
on many factors such as, rainfall, availability of soil moisture, type of cultivars (morphology),
available nutrients, relative humidity, management, and maturation period of the crop. El Naim
(2010) concluded that cowpea cultivars with different plant morphology and seed size require
 3

different plant densities to have good yield potential. Increasing the number of plants above
optimum per unit area reduces the resources (moisture, nutrient and light) that individual plant
can use by increasing competition between plants.

Plant spacing affects plant growth and yield due to increased competition with increased plant
population while low plant population decreased yield due to inefficient utilization of the growth
factors (Osman et al., 2010). Higher plant population i.e. close plant spacing reduces plant
growth and yield components, but increased yield per unit area (Ball et al., 2000). Similarly,
Singh (1992) and, Osman et al. (2010) indicated that number of seeds, number of pods, number
of primary branches and hundred seed weight per plant were increased under wider row spacing
of 45 cm.

Production and productivity of crops is governed by environmental factors, genotypic trait and
crop management. Therefore determining appropriate crop geometry is one of the most
important crop management activities which improves the performance and productivity of
crops. Even though the crop has a number of potential uses, the productivity is very low in
Ethiopia, particularly in the study area. The low yield is possibly due to: lack of improved variety
to different environmental conditions, poor agronomic practices such as in appropriate use of
plant density and variety selection. In addition to this, limited work has been done on the
interaction effects of various agronomic practices such as variety with spacing in the country.
There is also no site and variety specific recommendation on the plant population density of
cowpea cultivars in Ethiopia. Mostly the planting density of cowpea used in Ethiopia is 50 cm
× 15 cm spacing regardless of variety and agro climatic conditions.

Therefore, to improve the production and productivity of cowpea in the study area a field
experiment was conducted with the objective of assessing the effect of different inter- row and
intra- row spacing on growth parameters, yield components and yield of cowpea varieties.
 4

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Botanical Description of cowpea

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) is a dicotyledonous crop in the family of Fabaceae, subfamily
Faboideae, tribe Phaseoleae, genus Vigna with 22 number of chromosomes (2n =22) (Timko,
2008). It is one of the most old human food sources and has probably been used as a crop plant
for long period of time (Singh, 2002). The precise location of the center of origin of a species is
rather difficult to determine. Previous speculation on the origin and domestication of cowpea
had been based on botanical and cytological evidence, information on its geographical
distribution and cultural practices, and historical records. Origin of cowpea has remained a
controversial to many plant botanists. But Africa is the only place around the world where large
genetic diversity of wild forms of cowpeas is found (Ng, 1995).

According to Ball et al. (2000) the center of diversity of cowpea is West Africa, since the carbon
dating of cowpea (or Wild cowpea remaining from the Kintampo rock shelter in Central Ghana)
has been carried out and found the oldest archaeological evidence of cowpea in Africa. Some
evidences showed that the North-eastern part of Africa is the primary place of cowpea
domestication based on molecular studies (Caulibaly et al., 2002). South Africa is also regarded
as the center of origin but where the crop was first planted in the region is not yet clear (Timko
and Singh, 2008). It has been cultivated and domesticated in Africa for centuries. Now it is
grown worldwide, especially in the tropics.

Cowpea was probably introduced from Africa to the Indian subcontinent approximately 2000 to
3500 years ago (Ng, 1995). It is also believed that the slave trade from West Africa resulted in
the crop reaching to the southern United States of America early 18th century. However, many
US cultivars appear more closely related to germplasm from Asia or southern Europe than West
Africa (Fang et al., 2007). Nowadays, it is widespread throughout the tropics and most tropical
areas.

Cowpea is herbaceous, prostrate, climbing or sub erect annual plant, growing up to 15-80 cm
high. Leaves are alternate trifoliate with petiole of 5-25 cm long. The lateral leaflet is opposite
and asymmetrical, while the central leaflet is symmetrical and ovate. Flowers are white, cream,
 5

yellow or purple. Growth habit is either determinate or indeterminate. Seeds are variable in size
and shape having various colors, white, brown, black, cream or grey, dotted (black, brown),
purple or red. The pod length ranges from 8-22 cm with 10 - 20 seeds per pod (Timko and Singh,
2008).

2.2. Agro Ecological Requirements of Cowpea

Cowpea is a warm-season crop that can be produced in semi-arid regions and dry savannas.
Cowpea is well adapted to a wide range of soil conditions. But it has more preference to sandy
soils, which tend to be less restrictive on root growth, and droughty conditions. It requires well-
drained sandy loams or sandy soils where the soil pH is in the range of 5.5 to 6.5 (Craufurd et
al., 1997). It does well and is most popular in the semi-arid tropics where other food legumes
do not perform well (Agbogidi, 2012). Cowpea is tolerant to heat and drought conditions. Thus,
it is an extremely resilient crop to moisture stress and cultivated under some of the most extreme
agricultural conditions in the world.

But it is much less tolerant to cold soils than common beans and show a poor tolerance to water
logging. It germinates rapidly at temperatures above 18°C; colder temperatures slow
germination. Also high moisture may hinder cowpea crops in the sub-humid tropics due to the
many diseases it is susceptible to (Tarawali et al., 1997). Cowpea is warm-season annual plant;
requiring a temperatures of at least 18oC throughout all stages of its development and having an
optimal growing temperature of about 28oC (Craufurd et al., 1997). Cowpea grows in savannah
vegetation at temperatures ranging from 25°C to 35°C and in areas where annual rainfall ranges
from 750 mm to 1100 mm (Madamba et al., 2006). It is tolerant to shading and can be
intercropped with tall cereal plants such as sorghum and maize.

Cowpeas utilize soil moisture efficiently and are more drought-tolerant than other pulse crops.
Adequate rainfall is important during the flowering stage. Cowpeas react to serious moisture
stress by limiting growth (especially leaf growth) and reducing leaf area by changing leaf
orientation and closing the stomata. Flower and pod abscission during severe moisture stress
also serves as a growth-restricting mechanism.
 6

2.3. Importance of Cowpea

Cowpea is a multipurpose crop used for, provision of nutritious food, high quality feed for
animals, cowpea as cover crop, provision of organic matter to the soil, suppression of growth of
striga, and as cash generating commodity for farmers, small and medium-size entrepreneurs.
(Timko et al., 2010). The early maturity characteristics of some cowpea varieties provide the
first harvest earlier than the most other crops during production period and it is called the
"hungry-season crop" because it is the first crop to be harvested before the cereal crops.

Cowpea has a number of uses such as, a nutritious component in the human diet as well as
nutritious livestock feed (Timko and Singh, 2008). As it provides high quality protein,
carbohydrate, calcium, iron, vitamin B and carotene its fresh or dried seeds, pods and leaves are
commonly used as human food; the tender green leaves are important food source in Africa
prepared as a pot herb, like spinach (Timko and Singh, 2008). It also can be used at all stages of
growth as a vegetable crop. Immature snapped pods are used in the same way as snap beans,
often being mixed with other foods. Green cowpea seeds are boiled as a fresh vegetable, or may
be canned or frozen. Dry mature seeds are also suitable for cooking and canning. Beside its
usefulness in human diet, it serves as an important fodder crop in different parts of Africa
(Tarawali et al., 2002).

In many areas of the world, cowpea is the only available high quality legume hay for livestock
feed. It may be used as green or dry fodder. The haulm containing about 20% protein is highly
valued feed and is sold for almost the same price as cowpea grain on dry weight basis (IITA,
1997). Thus, cowpea promotes crop livestock integration, thereby leading to a better nutrient
cycling and enhanced income generation (Alghali, 1993). Cowpea has great flexibility in use.
Farmers can choose to harvest them for grains or to harvest forage for their livestock, depending
on economical or climate constraints. Dual-purpose varieties have been developed in order to
provide both grain and fodder while suiting the different cropping systems encountered in Africa
(Tarawali et al., 1997).

Cowpea by-products such as cowpea seed waste and cowpea hulls (which result from the de
hulling of the seeds for food) have been used to replace conventional feedstuffs in some
developing countries. It is also used as a green manure, a nitrogen-fixing and erosion control
 7

crop (Ahenkora et al., 1998). In addition, the crop improves the cropping systems and soil
fertility by reducing soil erosion, suppressing the weeds and fixing atmospheric nitrogen which
contributes to increased yields of non-nitrogen fixing crops grown with or after it harvested
(Tarawali et al., 2002).

2.4. Production Status of Cowpea

Cowpea is mainly grown in tropical and subtropical regions in the world for vegetable, grain
and as a fodder crop. It is grown in over 2/3 of the developing world as a companion or relay
cropped with major cereal crops (Tarawali et al., 1997). This crop is grown worldwide with an
estimated cultivation area of about 12.5 million hectares annually and an annual production of
over 3 million metric tons. About 70% of the cowpea production occurs in marginal areas of
Africa (Tarawali et al., 1997).

The leading cowpea producing countries are: Nigeria, Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso, Senegal,
Ghana, Mozambique, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
East and Southern Africa; India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, China, Haiti, Brazil
and USA (Timko et al., 2010). Nigeria is the largest producer and consumer of cowpea at
estimated annual yields of 2 million metric tons (Timko et al., 2010). In Tanzania, cowpea is
regarded as a ‘women’s crop, because, contrary to other crops, the production and marketing
process is often handled by women.

In Ethiopia, cowpea varieties were released from Melkasa Agricultural Research Center
(MARC), Sirinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC) and Pawe Agricultural Research Center
(PARC). The varieties gave an average grain yield of 1.8-2.0 t/ha at research station bases on
different accession (Ayana et al., 2013). Highest grain yield was recorded from Black eyed bean
2.89 t/ha under research environment at Ethiopian Agricultural Research Center, Pawe research
station (Bilatu et al., 2012).

Cowpea is grown in low land and medium to high altitude areas of Ethiopia mainly in Northern,
south western and western part of the country as a sole crop or inter cropped with other crops
(Sisay, 2015). Part of the country which major cultivation areas of cowpea in Ethiopia are,
Eastern and Western Hararge, Northern Ethiopia (South Wollo, Waghimra, Tigray), and
 8

southern parts of the country (Konso, Derashie, Southern Omo) and Western Ethiopia
(Gambella).

2.5. Effect of Plant Spacing on Growth and Development of Cowpea

Plant density determines the size of the area available to the individual plant. Thus, plant
arrangement in the field plays a significant role in determining growth and development of crops
(Reddy, 2000). Abdel (2008) who worked on faba bean reported reduced plant competition and
plant mortality at wider spacing of 30 cm. The spatial arrangement also determines the shape of
the area available to the individual plant. Arrangement of a population is altered by changing
row spacing, by planting seeds or by changing row direction (Robinson et al., 2002). In a given
plant density, as row spacing decreases, the plant spacing within the row increases and results
in a more equidistant plant spacing.

In a fixed row width, as plant density increases the plant spacing within the row decreases and
competition increases. Obviously, both factors can be adjusted to provide optimal plant spacing
and typically plant density increases as row spacing decreases (Pedersen et al., 2008). For low
population of plants increasing the population increases yield per unit area and results in more
intra specific competition, because greater number of individual plants compete for the same
common limiting resources. In pure stands, increase in the intensity of competition manifests
itself by the reduction of the performance of the individual plant, for example biomass of single
plant and/or reduction of grain weight per plant (Podgorska, 2007). According to Mehmet (2008)
increased number of branches at the wider plant spacing of soybean and attributed this to more
interception of sunlight for photosynthesis, which may have resulted in production of more
assimilate for partitioning towards the development of more branches.

Loss et al. (1998) obtained that number of branches per plant declined with increasing plant
density and less number of branches survived to maturity in faba bean, reduced the number of
branches with increased plant population. Similarly, Shamsi (2009) worked on spacing
experiment on soybean, observed that increasing the density of plants led to significant increases
in plant height. This was primarily because of lower amount of light intercepted by a single plant
at high plant density resulting in increased inter-node length. In soybean, Parvez et al. (1989)
 9

indicated that with increasing plant density, there was an increase in plant height, while
branching and node development were decreased.

However, Shahein et al. (1995) reported that plant height was not affected by increasing plant
density on faba bean. Elawad (2000) reported that the low plant population tended to enhance
vegetative growth of dry bean plant resulting in development of large leaf area compared to high
and moderate plant populations resulting in sink limitation to photosynthesis.

Abubaker (2008) found no significant effect of plant population on days to flowering of common
beans. On the other hand, Farag (1994) reported reduced number of days to flower in broad bean
under wide plant spacing of 50cm. However, Turk et al. (2003) worked on lentil reported that
denser plant population hastened the days to flowering. Closely spaced and quick growing crops,
which can intercept more sun light within a short period of time, produce higher yield as
compared to distantly spaced crops. For the proper light interception at various growth stages,
optimum plant density is necessary. The greater interception of light increases photosynthesis
and reduces evaporation of water from the soil (Robinson et al., 2002). Thus Plant density must
be adjusted to available soil moisture levels, either with in rows or between rows (Gobeze,
1999). Lemma and Walelign (2009) reported that inter row competition of cowpea prevented
excessive vegetative growth. Closely spaced plants have increased root elongation and hence
continued to extract available soil moisture between the rows later in the season for grain
production.

2.6. Effect of Plant Spacing on Yield component and Yield of Cowpea

High plant density brings out certain modifications in the growth of plants, for example, increase
in plant height, reduction in leaf thickness, alteration in leaf orientation, and leaves become
erect, narrow and are arranged at longer vertical intervals to intercept more sun light (Singh,
2002).Wider row spacing (60 cm) resulted in significantly higher number of pods compared to
30 cm row spacing (Mohammed et al., 1984). This is because in narrow spacing, plants compete
more for available resource especially for light and thus result in more height than widely spaced
plants. Furthermore Andrade (2002) and Caliskan (2007) reported increased yield from higher
plant populations are primarily the result of increased light interception during grain-filling by
the crop canopy of soybean. Lopez et al. (2003) described that as plant density increases
 10

competition between plants becomes more intense, affecting the growth, development and
production of each plant. Furthermore Singh (1985) reported increase in plant density leading
to a significant curvilinear reduction in number of branches/plant and nodes/branch. Early
canopy closure and greater dry matter production under high sowing rates caused greater
suppression of weeds and aphids.

Two general concepts are frequently used to explain the relationship between row spacing, plant
density, and yield. First, maximum yield could be obtained only if the plant communities
intercept more light during reproductive growth (Johnson et al., 1982). Secondly, equidistant
spacing between plants affected interplant competition (Osman et al. 2010). Depending on
availability of environmental resources plant population influences cowpea growth and
development. Biswas et al. (1997) obtained highest cowpea seed yield at a sowing rate of 30 kg
ha-1 and seed weight, branch and pod number/plant, pod length and seed number/pod increased
with lower seeding rates.

The mean number of flowers produced in the main stem was less with closer spacing (Salih,
1987). It was also stated that with increase in plant density there was a reduction in the number
of flowers per stem. The reduction in number of flowers with increasing plant density was
attributed to flower shedding. Moreover the report indicated that the number of pods per plant
decreased as plant density increased, but yield per unit area was found to be increase. There is
a positive relationship between population density and number of pods per plant. Osman et al.
(2010) found that wider spacing resulted in a greater number of pods per plant and heavier seeds.
Lemma and Walelgn (2009) found that when the number of plants per unit area increased, and
the resulting reduction in the number of pods per plant was relatively less, so that the number of
pods per unit area increased.

Osman et al. (2010) showed that increasing plant densities markedly reduced the number of
pods per plant. Abdel (2008) reported increased number of seeds per pod with decreased plant
density of faba bean. This indicated that higher number of seeds per pod was associated with
wider inter and intra-row spacing. Idris (2002) found that the number of seeds per pod was
significantly affected by plant spacing. He attributed this result to the fact that widely spaced
plants suffer less from competition than closely spaced plants and thus expected to grow and
yield better. Supporting evidence was found by Salih (1992) who stated that the photosynthetic
 11

capacity was insufficient to sustain the reproductive sinks under high population densities.
Solomon (2003) who worked on haricot bean reported that hundred seed weight decreased with
increase in plant density. Moreover, Matthews et al. (2008) reported that hundred seed weight
of faba bean was negatively related with plant density.

Ball et al. (2000) reported that increasing plant population reduced yield of individual plants but
increased yield per unit area of common bean. Similarly, Egli et al. (1988) reported that high
population ensured early canopy coverage and maximizes light interception greater crop growth
rate and crop biomass resulting increased yield in soybean. Grafton et al. (1988) reported greater
seed yield under higher population of determinate cultivars of dry beans. Solomon (2003)
reported that dry biomass per hectare was significantly increased with increased plant density
on haricot bean. Generally As plant density increases, both the biological and economic yields
increase with increasing plant population up to a certain point and subsequently no addition in
biological yield can be obtained and economic yield decreases. Therefore, the optimum plant
population of individual crop should be worked out under suitable environmental conditions
(Singh, 2002).

2.7. Variety and Plant Spacing Interaction

The spacing between rows as well as within rows depends up on the factors such as, moisture,
type of the crop, climate type and the variety of a particular crop. Competition in cultivated crop
is common between plants of like or similar genotype, all sown at the same time and each with
similar environmental conditions. Where the immediate objective in planning studies on plant
densities has been to determine the optimum sowing rate, the data rarely include a sufficiently
wide range of densities to permit the definition of the relationship of density to yield, but a few
studies have varied density from low to very high values. A major factor influencing optimum
seed rate for any particular crop is the genotype (Mekonnen, 1999). Genotype by plant density
interaction was found to be evident in faba bean (Amare et al., 1993), field pea (Rezene, 1994),
chickpea and lentil (Million, 1994). The population and growth habit interaction affected seed
yield in soybean and the interaction was also large for plant height. Increasing plant population
increased competition among plants for resources.
 12

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

A field experiment was conducted at Sirinka Agricultural Research Center (SARC) at

(11o45’00’’ N latitude, 39o36’36’’E longitude and 1850 m above sea level (m.a.s.l) altitude) in
northern Ethiopia during 2016 main cropping season (July to October). Sirinka is located about
508 km northeast of Addis Ababa and 12 km away from Zonal town Woldia. The area is
characterized by bi-modal rainfall receiving a mean annual rainfall of about 950 mm, in which
the main rainy season “Meher” occurs from June to September and the short rainy season “Belg”
from February to April. The mean maximum and minimum temperatures of the area are 26oC
and 13oC, respectively (SARC, unpublished). The soils of the study site are characterized as a
clay to clay loam texture with black to brown color with suitable pH condition for most crop
growth. The dominant soil type in the study area, based on the FAO/UNESCO System (FAO-
UNESCO, 1994) is Vertisol.

3.2. Experimental Material

Table 1 General description of experimental materials

Varieties Asebot Bekur

Released Center MARC SARC
Released year 2008 2001
Growth habit Determinate Determinate
Maturity period 75-85 86-95
Altitude 1300-1850 1300-1950
Rain fall 350-1100 350-1000

3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design

The treatments consisted of factorial combination of the two varieties and three inter-row
spacing (40 cm, 50 cm and 60 cm) and three intra-row spacing (10 cm, 15 cm and 20 cm). The
experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications.
The outermost one row from each side of the plot and 60 cm on both sides of each row was
 13

considered as border plants. Thus, the net plot size was 5.04 m2 for 40 cm inter row spacing, 4.5
m2 for 50 and 4.32 m2 for 60 cm inter row spacing. Harvesting was carried out when the crop
attains harvest maturity. The plot wise harvested produce was sun dried and then subsequently
threshing and winnowing was done.

3.4. Experimental Procedures and Management

The experimental field was ploughed with tractor and prepared to a fine tilth. The field was
manually leveled and laid out into three blocks of eighteen plots each. Each block contains
eighteen treatment combinations. The treatments were assigned to each plot within blocks. The
plot size was 3.6 m x 3.0 m. The width between plots and between blocks was 0.5 m and 1 m
respectively. As per the treatments there were 9, 7 and 6 rows in each plot having 40, 50 and 60
cm inter-row spacing respectively. The number of plants in each row were 30, 20 and 15 for
intra-row spacing of 10, 15 and 20 cm respectively. Planting was done manually by dropping
two seeds per hill on July 22, 2016. Fertilizers at the rate of 41 kg N and 46 kg P2O5 ha-1 were
applied to the crop at the time of planting. Thinning was done two weeks after emergence to
have one seedling per hill. Weeding was done thrice during the growth of the crop by hand
hoeing. All other necessary cultural practices and plant protection measures were followed
uniformly to all the plots during the period of experimentation.

3.5. Soil Sampling and Analysis

To determine the physical and chemical properties of the soil before sowing, one composite soil
samples were taken using auger at a depth of 0- 30 cm from the experimental plots. The samples
were taken randomly in a zigzag pattern from five spots in the field to represent the soil of
experimental field, then ground using pestle and mortar, air dried and allowed to pass through a
2 mm and 0.2 mm sieve. Working samples were analyzed for selected physico-chemical
properties mainly soil pH, total nitrogen, organic carbon content, available phosphorous (P)
cation exchangeable capacity (CEC) and textural analysis (percent sand, silt and clay) using
standard laboratory procedures.

Soil pH was estimated in soil-water suspension (1:2.5) with the help of pH meter. Total nitrogen
in the soil was determined by using Micro- Kjeldahl method with sulphuric acid (Jackson, 1962).
 14

Organic carbon content of soil was also determined by volumetric method (Walkley and Black,
1934). Available soil phosphorus was estimated by Olsen method using spectrophotometer
(Oleson et al., 1954). Soil CEC was determined by ammonium acetate method (Cottenie, 1980).
Soil texture was determined by Bouyocous hydrometer method (Day, 1965).

3.6. Data Collected

3.6.1. Phenological parameters

Days to 50% flowering (DF): it was recorded as the number of days from planting to when
50% of the plants produced flower.

Days to 90% physiological maturity (DM): it was recorded as the number of days from
planting to when 90% of the plants in a plot showed yellowing of pods.

3.6.2. Growth parameters

Plant height: it was measured as the height of 10 randomly selected plants from the ground
level to the apex of each plant at the time of physiological maturity from the net plot area.

Number of primary branches per plant: was determined by counting primary branches on the
main stem from randomly taken 10 plants from the net plot area.

3.6.3. Yield components and yield

Plant stand count: was recorded by counting the total number of plants per net plot area at
establishment and final plant stand count was taken from net plot area at physiological maturity,
and the percent survival was calculated to determine the change in stand count due to
competition effect.

Number of pods per plant: was determined by counting total number of pods of 10 randomly
taken plants from each net plot area and their average was taken as number of pods per plant at
harvest.

Number of seeds per pod: was recorded from 10 randomly selected pods from each net plot
at harvest.
 15

Hundred seed weight (g): was determined by taking weight of 100 randomly sampled seeds
from the total harvest from each net plot area and adjusted to 10% moisture level.

Total above ground dry biomass (kg ha-1): was determined by taking the total weight of
harvest including the seeds from each net plot area after sun drying the biomass to a constant
weight.

Seed yield (kg ha-1): was determined after threshing the seeds harvested from each net plot. The
seed yield was adjusted to 10% moisture level and converted to kg ha-1.

Harvest index (HI): was computed as the ratio of seed yield (kg ha-1) to the total above ground
dry biomass (kg ha-1) x100

3.7. Data Analysis

All the measured parameters were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate to
factorial experiment in RCBD according to Gene Stat version 18th (GenStat, 2014) and
interpretations were made following the procedure described by Gomez and Gomez (1984).
Whenever the effects of the factors were found to be significant, the means were separated by
using the Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at 5 % level of significance.
 16

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Physico-Chemical Properties of the Experimental Soil

The analysis of soil samples taken from the top soil (30 cm) before planting was done for the
major soil physical and chemical properties (Table 1). The soil of the experimental site has a
proportion of 36.5% clay, 25.5% sand, 38.0% silt, and texturally it is classified as clay loam
(Table 1). Also the pH of the experimental soil was found to be 6.57. Which is slightly acidic
Tekalign (1991). Cowpea grows well between pH 5.5 and 8.5. Furthermore, the analysis
indicated that the soil of the experimental site had values of 0.08% and 1.34% for total nitrogen
and organic carbon, respectively.

According to the rating made by Tekalgn (1991), the values were found in the lower range,
which means the soil is not satisfactory for plant growth. Thus, it needs addition of materials
that increase organic matter and total nitrogen. The analysis indicated that the available
phosphorus content of the soil sample in the study area to be (12.3 mg kg-1) which is rated as
medium available P (Olsen et al., 1954). The cation exchange capacity of the study area was
found to be 52.1Cmol kg-1. When the results of the analysis are compared with the broad ratings
made by Landon (1984), the value found in the very higher range for plant growth. This showed
high capacity of the soil to retain cations in exchangeable form for the plant.

Table 2 Major characteristics of experimental soil before planting

Soil Parameter Values Rating Reference

Soil pH 6.57 Slightly acidic Tekalgn (1991)
Total nitrogen (%) 0.08 Low Tekalgn (1991)
Organic carbon (%) 1.34 Low Tekalgn (1991)
CEC (cmol/kg) 52.1 Very high Landon (1984)
Available P (mg/kg) 12.3 Optimum Olsen et al., 1954
Particle Size distribution
Clay (%) 36.5
Sand (%) 25.5
Silt (%) 38.0
Textural Class Clay loam
P=Phosphorus, CEC=Cation exchange capacity
 17

4.2. Phenological Parameters

4.2.1. Days to 50% flower initiation

The main effect of variety was highly significant (p<0.01) on days to 50% flower initiation
(Appendix table 1). In this regard variety Bekur significantly produce flower earlier (38.67 days)
than variety Asebot which took the highest number of days (43.88) to flower. These variations
may be due to inheritable parental trait differences in the varieties as well as environmental
influence. This implies that different plants respond differently to environmental factors
depending on their genetic make-up and degree of adaptation. In agreement with this finding,
Wogayehu (2005) has reported significant difference among the varieties of common bean on
days to flowering. Similarly, Nwofia et al. (2014) reported significant difference among cowpea
varieties on days to flowering.

Both inter-row and intra-row spacings had highly significant effect on days to flower initiation
(Appendix Table 1). However, the interaction effects of the factors were not significant
(Appendix Table 1). Days to flowering was significantly increased as inter-row and intra-row
spacings increased (Table 2). Longer number of days (44.11) was recorded under 60 cm inter-
row spacing, while highest number of days (48.28) was scored under 20 cm intra-row spacing.
This might be due to high competition for available resources in the narrower inter-row and
intra-row spacing. In agreement with this result, Turk et al. (2003) who worked on lentil reported
that narrower plant spacing hastened the days to flowering. On the other hand, Farag (1994))
reported that wider plant spacing reduced number of days to flower on broad bean. In contrast
Abubaker (2008) found that no significant effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on days to
flower initiation. This may also indicate that the influence of plant spacing on days to flower
initiation varies from crop to crop as well as the prevailing environmental condition to which
the crops were exposed.

4.2.2. Days to physiological maturity

The main effect of variety, intra-row spacing, and inter-row spacing had highly significant
(p<0.01) effect on number of days to 90% physiological maturity (Appendix Table 1). But the
interaction effects of the factors were not significant. Longer number of days (86.67) was
recorded for the variety Asebot, while Bekur reached earlier (84.59 days) to physiological
 18

maturity (Table 2). In agreement with this result, Wogayehu (2005) reported significant
difference among varieties of common bean on days to physiological maturity. With respect to
the effect of plant spacing, the narrowest inter row spacing (40 cm) took the highest (86.44) days
to attain physiological maturity. The reason for this is the contributions of wider inter row
spacing for reduced competition to growth resources such as moisture and essential nutrients
than the narrower inter row spacing. Furthermore, light would be intercepted better in the wider
inter row spacing as compared to the narrower inter row spacing.

Similarly days to 90% physiological maturity was increased with decreasing intra-row spacing.
Longer number of days (87.5) was recorded for 10 cm the intra-row spacing. The prolonged
days to maturity in the case of narrower intra row spacing is the result of high competition for
available resources in the soil, poor light interception and air circulation in the canopy as
compared to the wider intra row spacing. This shows that the wider inter-row and intra-row
spacing hastened maturity of cowpea.

Table 3 Main effect of variety and plant spacing on days to 50% flowering and physiological
maturity

Treatments Days to 50% flowering Days to 50% physiological

maturity
Variety
Bekur 38.67b 84.59b
Asebot 43.88a 86.67a
LSD(0.05) 1.83 0.8
Inter-row spacing(cm)
40 38.49c 86.44a
50 41.23b 85.89a
60 44.11a 84.56b
LSD(0.05) 2.25 0.99
Intra-row spacing(cm)
10 34.28c 87.5a
15 41.26b 84.89b
20 48.28a 84.5b
LSD(0.05) 2.25 0.99
CV (%) 8.1 1.7
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in columns and rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.
 19

4.3. Growth Parameters

4.3.1. Plant height at maturity

The main effects of varieties resulted in highly significant (P < 0.01) effect on plant height at
maturity (Appendix Table 1). Variety ‘Bekur’ had higher mean plant height of 42.18 cm, than
variety ‘Asebot’ with plant height of 39.15 cm (Table 3). Differences in plant height observed
among cultivars may be attributed to the genetic potential of each genotype and environmental
adaptation.

Table 4 Main effect of varieties on plant height of cowpea

Varieties Plant height (cm)

Bekur 42.18a
Asebot 39.15b
LSD (0.05) 0.97
CV (%) 4.3
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

Regarding the plant spacing, main effect of inter-row and intra-row spacings and their
interaction indicated highly significant (P<0.01) effect on plant height (Appendix Table 1). The
interaction between 40 cm x 10 cm spacing resulted in significantly tallest plants (46.73 cm),
while the shortest plant height (36.33 cm) was recorded under 60 cm x 20 cm plant spacing
(Table 4). This can be attributed to the increased interplant competition for light as a result of
decreased plant spacing, while sparsely populated plants intercepted sufficient sunlight and
removed auxin that enhances the lateral growth. In agreement with this result, Taj et al. (2002)
who worked on mung bean found more competition for light in narrower spacing (30 cm) that
resulted in taller plants, while at wider spacing (43 cm) inter-plant completion for light was
lower and resulted in lateral growth of plants.

Moreover, Shamsi (2009), and Kobraee (2009) who worked on soybean observed significant
increase in plant height due to increased density of plants. Fleton et al. (1996), and Sharar et al.
(2001) reported that plant height of chickpea was found taller in higher plant population due to
more competition for light. Similarly, Parvez et al. (1989) and Singh (2002) indicated that plant
height increased significantly with the increase in plant density primarily because of lower
 20

amount of light intercepted by a single plant resulting into increased inter node length. The
increase in plant height could be justified on the bases of increase in the number of plants per
unit area coupled with high plant to plant competition. Under increased inter-row and intra-row
spacing probably the reduced interplant competition for light, moisture and nutrients might have
resulted in variation of plants in their height. In narrower spacing, plants compete more for
available resources especially for light and thus resulted in increased height than distantly spaced
plants.

Table 5 Interaction effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on plant height (cm) of cowpea

Inter-row spacing (cm)

Intra-row spacing (cm) 40 50 60

10 46.73a 43.87b 40.37c

15 39.11cd 40.35c 38.53cd
20 42.57b 38.13de 36.33e
LSD (0.05) 2.06
CV (%) 4.3
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in columns and rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.3.2. Number of primary branches

Analysis of variance revealed that the main effect of variety and its interaction with plant spacing
was not significant on number of branches per plant (Appendix Table 1). Although the
difference was not significant, variety Asebot produced the higher mean number of branches
(3.04) than variety Bekur with 2.99 branches per plant. However the main effect of inter and
intra-row spacing and their interaction indicated highly significant effect on the mean number
of branches per plant (Appendix Table 1). Significantly more number of branches (4.16) was
counted from plants spaced at 60 cm x 20 cm, while the least number of branches (2.66) was
recorded from plants established under 50 cm x 10 cm spacing, which did not differ significantly
from the interaction effect of 40 cm x 10 cm, 40 cm x 15 cm, 50 cm x 15 cm and 60 cm x 10 cm
inter-row and intra-row spacings (Table 5)

The differential responses among the interaction of inter-row and intra- row spacing might be
due to differences in the access to growth factors by the plants grown under similar environment.
 21

The increased number of branches under wider plant spacing could be attributed to higher
sunlight interception for photosynthesis and less competition for resources. In contrast, the
decreased number of branches in the narrower plant spacing was recorded due to the high
competition for resources and under the overlapped plant canopy, the plants were subjected to
lower interception of sunlight that led to lower synthesis formation. This also indicated the
plasticity response of plants to various plant spacing, which means the increase in plant
population is associated with a progressive decline in number of branches whereas, plants at
lower density produce higher number of branches in order to compensate the dry matter per unit
area of higher densities. The present result was in agreement with the finding of Mehmet (2008)
who reported higher number of branches (7.9) at the wider spacing combination of 70 cm x 20
cm for soybean. Similar finding was done by Loss et al. (1998) who reported reduced number
of branches with increased plant population on common bean. Moreover, Togay et al. (2005)
reported that the number of primary branches decreased with increase in density of chickpea. In
addition Shamsi (2009) also reported higher number of branches per plant in the wider plant
spacing of 100 cm on soybean.

Table 6 Interaction effect of inter-and intra-row spacing on number of primary branches per
plant of cowpea

Inter-row spacing (cm)

Intra-row spacing (cm) 40 50 60

10 2.83d 2.66d 2.72d

15 2.72d 2.82d 3.12bc
20 2.84c 3.26b 4.16a
LSD (0.05) 0.29
CV (%) 8.1
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in columns and rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.4. Yield components

4.4.1. Stand count

The analysis of variance revealed non significance difference of varieties and their interaction
with plant spacings compared to initial stand count (Appendix Table 2). Similarly, main effect
 22

of inter-row and intra-row spacing was not significant on stand count. However, the interaction
effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing was highly significant (p<0.01) on stand count at
harvest as compared to the initial count (Appendix Table 2). The lowest survival of plants was
recorded under 40 cm x 20 cm plant spacing, while the highest survival was observed under 60
cm x 20 cm plant spacing. Highest percentage of survival was indicated on the widest inter and
intra-row spacing, which might be due to less competition for resources (nutrients, moisture and
light) at lower population whereas at higher plant density due to intense intra- and inter-specific
competition, consequently, the weaker plants might have died. This result was in agreement
with Njok (2001) who reported increased plant mortality rate as density of plant increased in
common bean. Similarly, Abdel (2008) who worked on faba bean also reported reduced plant
competition and plant mortality at lower plant population.

Table 7 Interaction effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing on percentage of stand count at
harvest as compared to initial stand

Inter-row spacing (cm)

Intra-row spacing (cm) 40 50 60

10 95.55bc 95.55bc 94.66c
15 95.99b 95.82bc 94.99bc
20 93.29d 95.55bc 97.32a
LSD (0.05) 1.78
CV (%) 1.1
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in columns and rows followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.4.2. Number of pods per plant

The result indicated that the main effect of variety was highly significant (p<0.01) on the number
of pods per plant (Appendix Table 2). However their interaction with plant spacing was not
significant. Significantly higher mean number of pods per plant (8.1) was obtained from variety
‘Bekur’ while variety Asebot scored lower (5.99) number of pods (Table 7). This can be
attributed to the tallest plants of Bekur that contributed to more number of pods per plant.
 23

Table 8 Main effect of Varieties on mean number of pods per plant

Varieties Number of pods per plant

Bekur 8.1a
Asebot 5.99b
LSD (0.05) 0.57
CV (%) 14.9
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation; Means in columns followed by the
same letters are not significantly different at 5% level of significant.

Moreover, the main effects of inter- row and intra- row spacing and their interaction indicated
highly significant (P<0.01) effect on number of pods per plant (Appendix Table 2). Plants
spaced at 60 cm x 20 cm resulted in the highest number of pods per plant (9.14). Conversely,
the lowest number of pods plant (5.37) was obtained from cowpea plants spaced at 50 cm x 10
cm. The difference among the spacing combinations occurred might be due to higher
competition as a result of higher population as compared to the wider spacing. The reduced
competition for light and reduced overlapping from adjacent cowpea plants could have enabled
the plants grown under wider spacing to utilize energy for more branches (Table 3) and
subsequently resulted in higher number of pods per plant.

In agreement to the present result, Khan et al. (2010) reported higher number of pods plant–1 in
the wider inter row spacing of 72 cm on chickpea. Similarly, Al-Abdselam and Abdi (1995),
Hodgson and Blackman (2005), and Abdel (2008) who worked on faba bean reported that the
development of more and vigorous leaves on low plant density helped to improve the
photosynthetic efficiency of the crop and supported higher number of pods per plant. Moreover,
Momoh and Zhou (2001) reported that the number of effective branches and pods per branch
decreased with increased plant density. Furthermore, Osman et al. (2010) found that wider plant
spacing (60 cm) resulted in a greater number of pods per plant and heavier seeds on faba bean.
The decrease in number of pods per plant at narrower plant spacing is due to increasing
population and resource competition.
 24

Table 9 Interaction effect of inter and intra- row spacing on number of pods per plant of
cowpea

Inter-row spacing (cm)

Intra-row spacing (cm) 40 50 60

10 5.6de 5.37e 7.16c

15 6.67cd 7.71bc 7.58bc
20 5.68de 8.47ab 9.14a
LSD (0.05) 1.23
CV (%) 14.9
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= coefficient of variation; NS= non-significant. Means
in column and rows followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.4.3. Number of Seeds per Pod

The main effect of variety had highly significant (p<0.01) effect on number of seeds per pod
(Appendix Table 2). Significantly higher mean number of seeds per pod (13.9) was obtained
from variety ‘Bekur’ than Asebot variety which produced lower number of seeds per pod
(12.17). Similarly, the main effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing showed highly significant
(p<0.01) effect on this parameter (Appendix Table 2). However, the interaction effects of all the
factors were not significant on the number of seeds per pod (Appendix Table 2). Increasing
intra-row and inter-row spacing resulted in increased number of seeds per pod. The highest mean
numbers of seeds per pod (15.38) and (13.98) were recorded at the highest intra-row and inter-
row spacing respectively (Table 9). This variation can be attributed to the widely spaced plants
that encountered less intra and inter-row competition than closely spaced plants and thus
exhibited better growth that contributed to increased number of seeds per pod. This result was
in line with Abdel (2008) who reported increased number of seeds per pod with decreased plant
density. Moreover Nwofia et al. (2014) who worked on cowpea varieties reported that higher
number of seeds per pod (10.8) under wider inter-row (75 cm) and intra-row (18 cm) spacing.
Contrasting result was also reported by Mehmet (2008) who found higher number of seeds per
pod under low plant population of soybean.
 25

Table 10 Main effect of variety and plant spacing on number of seeds per pod and hundred
seed weight (g) of cowpea

Treatment No of seeds per pod 100 seed weight (g)

Variety
Bekur 13.98a 17.81a
Asebot 12.17b 16.18b
LSD (0.05) 0.60 0.62
Inter-row spacing (cm)
40 12.11b 15.73c
50 13.02b 17.14b
60 13.98a 18.1a
LSD (0.05) 0.75 0.76
Intra-row spacing (cm)
10 10.71c 14.33c
15 13.03b 17.15b
20 15.38a 19.5a
LSD (0.05) 0.75 0.76
CV (%) 8.5 6.6
LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation; NS= Non-significant. Means
in columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.4.4. Hundred Seed weight

The analysis of variance indicated highly significant (p<0.01) main effect of varieties on
hundred seed weight of cowpea (Appendix Table 2). Similarly, main effect of inter-row and
intra-row spacing showed highly significant (p<0.01) effect on this parameter (Appendix Table
2). However, the interaction effects of all the factors were not significant on hundred seed
weight. The higher hundred seed weight (17.81 g) was scored by variety ‘Bekur’ and the lower
(16.18 g) was obtained from variety Asebot (Table 9). The variation in hundred seed weight of
cowpea varieties could be the result of genetic difference and seed size of cultivars. The result
of present work was in line with earlier study on cowpea by Turk et al. (2003) who reported that
individual seed weight was highly affected by genetic factors except in case of sever water stress
and hot desiccating winds causing forced maturity.

Widest inter-row and intra-row spacing of 60 cm and 20 cm resulted in highest mean value of
hundred seed weight of 18.1g and 19.5g respectively. Whereas the narrowest inter-row and
intra-row spacing of 40 cm and 10 cm resulted in lowest hundred seed weight of (15.73 g) and
(14.33 g) respectively (Table 9). Which could be due to the fact that widest plant spacing
resulted in less inter-plant competition that lead to increased plant capacity for utilizing the
 26

environmental inputs in building great amount of metabolites to be used in developing new

tissues and increasing its yield components. In addition, distantly spaced plants improved the
supply of assimilate to be stored in the seed and increased the weight of hundred seeds.

The result of this study was in agreement with results investigated by Mehmet (2008) on soybean
where hundred seed weight was decreased from 16.5 g to 15.7 g as the intra-row spacing
increased from 5 cm to 20 cm. Similar result was also reported by Solomon (2003) on haricot
bean that hundred seed weight decreased with increase in plant density. Moreover, Matthews et
al. (2008) reported that hundred seed weight of faba bean was negatively related to plant density.
In contrast to this, Lemlem (2011) obtained non-significant effect of plant density on hundred
seed weight of soybean.
 27

4.5. Yield and Harvest Index

4.5.1. Total above ground dry biomass yield (kg ha-1)

The analysis of variance for above ground dry biomass yield revealed that the main effects of
inter-row spacing, intra-row spacing and their interaction were found to be highly significant
(p<0.01) effect (Appendix Table 3). However, the main effect of variety and its interaction with
plant spacing was not significant (Appendix Table 3). Though the difference was not significant
variety ‘Bekur’ produced higher dry biomass of 5710 kg ha-1, while variety ‘Asebot’ yielded the
lower dry biomass of 5668 kg ha-1.

The highest above ground dry biomass (10584 kg ha-1) was recorded under 40 cm x 10 cm
spacing combination, while the lowest (2615 kg ha-1) was recorded at 60 cm x 20 cm spacing
combination (Table 10). The production of highest total dry biomass at the highest plant density
might be due to more number of plants per unit area. But this is true up to the optimum plant
population, beyond the optimum the dry biomass will decrease due to lodging problem and
lower photosynthetic efficiency under highly crowded population. In agreement with this study,
Solomon (2003) and Pawar (2007) reported that dry biomass per hectare was significantly
increased with increased plant density (350000 plants/kg) on haricot bean.

Table 11 Interaction effect of inter and intra row spacing on above ground dry biomass yield
(kg ha-1) of cowpea

Inter-row spacing(cm)

Intra-row spacing(cm) 40 50 60
10 10584a 7826b 5919d
15 7246c 4872e 3816f
20 4812e 3511g 2615h
LSD (0.05) 245.2
CV (%) 3.7
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation Means in columns and rows
followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance

4.5.2. Harvest Index

The main effect of variety resulted in highly significant (p<0.01) effect on harvest index
(Appendix Table 3). However, the interaction of variety and plant spacing was not significant
 28

(Appendix Table 3). The highest harvest index (23.69) was recorded from variety Bekur and the
lowest harvest index (22.09) was from the variety Asebot. Differences in harvest index observed
among cultivars may be attributed to the genetic potential of each genotype. This indicates that
cowpea cultivars differ in partitioning of assimilates to the grain. Higher harvest index implies
higher partitioning of dry matter in to grain yield.

Table 12 Main effect of varieties on harvest index of cowpea

Varieties Harvest Index (%)

Bekur 23.69a
Asebot 22.09b
LSD (0.05) 0.9
CV (%) 7.3
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation; Means in columns followed by the
same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

In the same manner the main effect of inter-row and intra-row spacing and their interaction
showed highly significant difference (Appendix Table 3). The highest harvest index (37.5) was
obtained from the interaction of 60 cm x 20 cm spacing and the lowest harvest index (11.95)
was recorded under the interaction of 40 cm x 10 cm spacing. This reduction in harvest index in
narrower spacing might be due to higher plant population per unit area which might have
increased the flower abortion due to competition for nutrients, moisture and solar radiation.

Similar result was reported by Khan et al. (2010) where maximum harvest index (41.66) in the
highest row spacing (45 cm) of chickpea than 15 cm row spacing. Moreover the highest harvest
index at the lowest plant density might be due to low inter-plant competition for resources as
compared to high plant density. This result was in line with Solomon (2003) who found that
harvest index was reduced with increase in plant density on haricot bean.
 29

Table 13 Interaction effect of inter and intra-row spacing on harvest index (%) of cowpea

Inter-row spacing (cm)

Intra-row spacing (cm) 40 50 60

10 11.95f 15.18e 18.45d
15 18.05d 22.42c 29.03b
20 23.93c 29.48b 37.5a
LSD (0.05) 1.95
CV (%) 7.3
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation; Means in columns and rows
followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance.

4.5.3. Grain Yield (kg ha-1))

The main effect of variety, inter-row and intra-row spacing showed highly significant (p<0.01)
effect on grain yield of cowpea (Appendix Table 4). Also the interaction effect of variety and
inter-row spacing was found highly significant on grain yield of cowpea.

Table 14 Main effect of Varieties on grain yield of Cowpea

Varieties Grain yield (kg ha-1)

Bekur 1184.6a
Asebot 1076.7b
LSD (0.05) 29.22
CV (%) 4.7
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation; Means in columns followed by the
same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significant.

Table 15 Interaction effect of Varieties and inter-row spacing on grain yield of cowpea

Row spacing
Varieties 40 50 60
Bekur 1338a 1145b 1071c
Asebot 1150b 1067c 1013d
LSD (0.05) 50.6
CV (%) 4.7
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation Means in columns and rows
followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significant
 30

Significant difference was observed from the interaction of inter-row, intra-row spacing and
variety. The highest grain yield (1470 kg ha-1) was obtained from variety ‘Bekur’ at plant
spacing of 40 cm × 15 cm, while the lowest grain yield (944 kg ha-1) was recorded under the
interaction of variety Asebot at 60 cm x 20 cm plant spacing. The possible reason could be
because when inter-row and intra-row spacing decreased, number of plants per unit area
increased, resulting in higher yield. Decreased inter- row and intra-row spacing implied high
plant density, which is concomitantly equal to high yield with every successful pod formation
per plant.

In spite of lower number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per
pod and hundred seed weight at narrower plant spacing, the grain yield ha-1 was significantly
higher as compared to the wider inter-row and intra- row spacing, which showed that the main
determinant of yield was the plant population along with other yield attributes contributed to
significant increase in grain yield. As confirmed in this study it seems that, the total yield per
unit area depended not only on the performance of individual plant but also on the number of
plants per unit area.

The result of this study was in agreement with Ball et al. (2000) who reported that increasing
plant population reduced yield of individual plants but increased yield per unit area of common
bean. Similarly, Mehmet (2008) reported that high population ensured early canopy coverage
and maximizes light interception greater crop growth rate and crop biomass resulting increased
yield in soybean. This result is also in line with Grafton et al. (1988) who stated that there was
greater seed yield increase with higher population of determinate cultivars of dry beans.

Moreover, Andrade et al. (2002) and Caliskan et al. (2007) reported increased yield from higher
plant populations are primarily the result of increased light interception during grain-filling by
the crop canopy of soybean. This result is also in agreement with Singh (2002) who reported
that the yield per unit area was increased with increasing plant density due to efficient utilization
of growth factors. Furthermore, Reddy (2000) reported that too narrow or too wide spacing
affect yield due to competition for resources and shading effect. In the case of too wide spacing,
yield reduction can occur due to inefficient utilization of the growth factors.
 31

Table 16 Interaction effect of variety and plant spacing on grain yield (kg ha-1) of cowpea.

Intra-row spacing (cm)

Variety Inter-row spacing (cm) 10 15 20
b
Bekur 40 1350 1470a 1193cd
c
50 1240 1124def 1072fghi
60 1106efg 1079fghi 1027ghi
Asebot 40 1185cde 1151def 1116def
50 1339def 1065fghi 996ij
60 1084fgh 1011hij 944i
LSD (0.05) 87.66
CV (%) 4.7
LSD= Least Significant Difference at 5% level; CV= Coefficient of Variation Means in columns and rows
followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance
 32

5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The production of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) has been increasing in Ethiopia because of
its high nutritive value for both people and livestock especially in dryland areas of Ethiopia.
Nevertheless, the yield is extremely low, which can be attributed to the factors such, weed
infestation, diseases, insects, and poor agronomic practices. One of the agronomic practices to
increase its productivity is use of optimum plant density. However, there has been no
recommended plant spacing regardless of variety and agro climatic conditions. Plant density in
a unit area greatly determines resource utilization, the rate and extent of vegetative as well
reproductive growth of crops. Both too narrow and too wide plant spacing affect grain yields
through competition for resources.

In view of this, a field experiment was conducted to assess the effect of inter and intra row
spacings on growth, yield components and yield of cowpea varieties. Randomized complete
block design in factorial arrangement with three replications was used.

The result indicated that days to 50% flowering, days to 90% maturity, plant height, number of
pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, hundred seed weight, harvest index and grain yield
were highly significantly (p<0.01) affected by the main effect of varieties. Variety Asebot took
significantly the higher days than variety Bekur to produce flower. Both inter-and intra-row
spacing also affects days to flowering. Longer number of days (44.11) was recorded for 60 cm
inter-row spacing, while the 20 cm intra-row spacing took longer number of days. Days to
physiological maturity increased with decreased inter-row and intra-row spacing. Longer
number of days was recorded for 40 cm inter-row and 10 cm intra-row spacing.

Significantly higher plant height (42.18 cm) was recorded for variety Bekur. The tallest plant
(46.73 cm) was recorded at 40 cm × 10 cm plant spacing while the shortest plant height (36.53
cm) was recorded under 60 cm × 15 cm plant spacing. The interaction of inter and intra row
spacing had also a significant effect on the number of primary branches where the highest
number of branches (4.16) was recorded for the interaction of 60 cm × 20 cm inter-row spacing.

Variety had highly significant effect on number of pods per plant where variety Bekur produce
the higher pods per plant (8.1). Similarly interaction of inter-row and intra-row spacing showed
 33

a highly significant effect on number of pods per plant where the highest number of pods per
plant (9.14) was obtained from interaction effect of 60 cm × 20 cm inter-row and intra- row
spacing while the lowest (5.37) was recorded under 50 cm × 10 cm spacing.

Highest number of seeds per pod (13.9) was recorded for variety Bekur while the lowest (12.17)
was for variety Asebot. Also highest numbers of seeds per pod (13.98) and 15.38 were obtained
from 60 cm inter row and 20 cm intra-row spacing, respectively. The main effects of inter-row
and intra-row spacing were highly significant on hundred seed weight of cowpea. The widest
inter-row (cm) and intra-row (cm) spacing resulted in highest hundred seed weight of 18.1 g and
19.5 g, respectively.

Both variety and interaction effect of inter and intra- row spacing had highly significant effect
on harvest index where variety Bekur gave higher (23.69) harvest index. Also the highest and
the lowest harvest indices were recorded for the interaction of 60 cm × 20 cm and 40 cm × 10
cm plant spacing respectively. The highest above ground dry biomass (10584 kg ha-1) was
recorded under the interaction of 40 cm × 10 cm spacing combinations while lowest above
ground dry biomass (2615 kg ha-1) was recorded from 60 cm × 20 cm plant spacing, whereas
variety showed no significant effect.

Main effect of varieties, main effect of inter and intra-row spacing, interaction of variety with
inter-row spacing showed highly significant effect on grain yield. Also interaction effect of
variety and plant spacing significantly affect grain yield. The highest grain yield (1470 kg ha-1)
was recorded for variety ‘Bekur’ at plant spacing of 40 cm × 15 cm followed by 40 cm × 10 cm
plant spacing.

Most the measured parameters were highly significantly (p<0.01) affected by main effect of
varieties and plant spacing. In general, the results indicated that variety and plant spacing had a
significant influence on the phenology, growth, yield components and yield of cowpea varieties.
From this study, it can be conclude that among these spacing combinations 40 cm × 15 cm for
variety Bekur and 40 cm x 10 cm for variety Asebot can be tentatively recommended for the
area to obtain maximum return per unit area. However, as this is one season experiment at one
location, the experiment has to be repeated over locations and seasons with inclusion of more
cowpea varieties to reach at a more reliable conclusion.
 34

6. REFERENCES

Abdel, L.Y. 2008. Effect of seed size and plant spacing on yield and yield components of faba
bean (Vicia faba L.). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Science, 4(2): 146-
148.
Abubaker, S. 2008. Effect of plant density on flowering date, yield and quality attribute of bush
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under center pivot irrigation system. American
Agriculture and Biological Science Journal, 3(4): 666-668.
Adeyemi, S.A., Lewu, F.B., Adebola, P. O., Bradley, G. and Okoh, A. I. 2012. Protein content
variation in cowpea genotypes (Vigna unguiculata L.) grown in the Eastern Cape
province of South Africa as affected by mineralized goat manure. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 7(35): 4943-4947.
Agbogidi, O. M. 2012. Evaluation of eight varieties of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) in Asaba
agro-ecological environment, Delta State, Nigeria. European Journal of Sustainable
Development, 1(2):303.
Ahenkora, K., Adu-Dapaah, H.K. and Agyemang, A. 1998. Selected nutritional components and
sensory attributes of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Leaves. Plant Foods and Human
Nutrition, 52:221–229.

Al-Aduselam, M.A. and Abdai K.S. 1995. Effect of plant density and certain pesticides growth,
yield and rhizobial nodulation of faba bean. King Saudi University, Agricultural
ScienceJournal, 7: 249-257.

Alghali A.M. 1993. Intercropping as a component of insect pest management for grain cowpea
Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp production in Nigeria. Insect Science and its Application,
14 (1):49–53.
Andrade, F.H., Calviño, P., Cirilo, A. and Barbieri, P. 2002. Yield responses to narrow rows
depend on increased radiation interception. Agronomy Journal, 94: 975-980.

Ayana Etana, Estifanos Tadesse, Ashenafi Mengistu and Abubeker Hassen. 2013. Advanced
evaluation of cowpea (Vignaunguiculat) accessions for fodder production in the central
rift valley of Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 5(3):
55-61.
Ball, R.A., Purcell, L.C and Vories, E.D. 2000. Short-season soybean yield compensation in
response to population and water regime. Crop Science, 40: 1070-1078.
Bilatu Agza, Eskinder Aklilu and Ferede Alemu. 2012. Animal feed potential and adaptability
of some cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) varieties in North West lowland of Ethiopia.
Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research, 1(11):478-483.
Biswas, P. M., Akhteruzaaman, G. 1997. Effects of seed rate on grain yield and yield attributes
of cowpea. Bangladesh Science. Ind. Research. Journal, 32(3): 333-335.
 35

Biswas, P., M. Akhteruzaaman., G. Sutradhar and K.Biswas. 1997. Effect of seed rate on grain
yield and yield attributes of cowpea. Bangladish science INd. Res.Journal, 32(3)333-
335.
Çalişkan, S., Arslan, M., Uremis, I. and Çalişkan, M. E. 2007. The effects of row spacing on
yield and yield components of full season and double-cropped soybean. Turkish Journal
of Agriculture and Forestry, 31(3), 147-154.
Caulibaly, S., Pasquet, R. S., Papa, R., Gepts, P. 2002. AFLP analysis of the phenetic
organization and genetic diversity of (Vigna unguiculata L.). Reveals extensive gene
flow between wild and domesticated types. Theoretical Applied Genetics, 104: 358-366.
Clark, A. 2007. Cowpeas: Vigna unguiculata. In: Managing cover crops profitably. 3rd ed.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, College Park, MD. P.125–129.

Cottenie, I. 1980. Soil and Plant Testing as a Base for Fertilizer Recommendation. FAO Soils
Bulletin No. 38/2, FAO, Rome.

Craufurd, P. Q., Subedi, M., and Summerfield, R. J. 1997. Leaf appearance in cowpea: effects
of temperature and photoperiod. Crop science, 37(1): 167-171.
Day, P. R. 1965. Hydrometer Methods of Particle Size analysis. In: C.A. Black (ed.), Agronomy
No. 9. Part 1. American society of agronomy. Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Egli, D.B. 1988. Plant density and soybean yield. Crop Sci., 28: 977-980.
Ehlers, J.D. and Hall, A.E. 1996. Genotypic classification of cowpea based on responses to heat
and photoperiod. Crop Science, 36:673–679.

El Naim, A. M. and Jabereldar, A. A. 2010. Effect of plant density and cultivar on growth and
yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences, 4(8), 3148-3153.
Elawad, H. O. 2000. The performance of selected cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Varieties in
the sandy rainfed areas of Kordofan. Agricultural Research Corporation, Elobied, Sudan.
Fang, J. G., Chao, C, T., Robert, P. A. and Ehlers, J. D. 2007. Genetic diversity of cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata L.) In for West African and USA breeding programs as determined
by AFLP analysis. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54: 1197-1209.
FAO (Food and Agriculture organization). 2012. Report on the second State of the World’s
FAO, Rome, Italy.

Farag, S.A. and El-Shamm, H.A. 1994. Effect of irrigation intervals and plant distances on the
growth and seed yield of broad bean plants. Annual Agricultural Science, Moshtohor,
32(4): 2071-2081.
Felton, W.L., Marcellos H. and Murison, R.D. 1996. The effect of row spacing and seeding rate
on chickpea yield in Northern New South Wales. Proceeding 8th Australia
AgronomyConference Toowoomba, pp. 251-253.
 36

Genstat Release 18th Edition (PC/Windows 7) Copyright. 2014. VSN International Ltd.
germplasm. In: Fatokun CA, Tarawali SA, Singh BB, Kormawa PM, Tamo M (ed.).

Gobeze, L. 1999. Effect of spatial arrangement and nitrogen fertilizer application on sorghum
and groundnut inter crop system in Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Presented to
Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John
Wiley and Sons, Neywork. p 680.
Grafton, K.F., Schneiter, A.A. and Nagle, B.J. 1988. Row spacing, plant population and
genotype and row spacing interaction effects on yield and yield components of dry bean.
Agronomy Journal, 80: 631-634.
Hall-Stoodley, L., Costerton, J. W., & Stoodley, P. 2004. Bacterial biofilms: from the natural
environment to infectious diseases. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2(2): 95-108.
Hodgson, G.L. and Blackman, G.E. 2005. An Analysis of the Influence of Plant Density on the
Growth of Vicia faba. L. Journal of Experimental Botany. Oxford University, 7:147-
165.
Idris, A.Y. 2002. Effect of seed size and plant spacing on yield and yield components of faba
bean (Vicia faba L.) MSc, Thesis, University of Khartoum, Sudan.

IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture). 1997. A guide line for cowpea production.

Jackson, M. L. 1962. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. 498.

Johnson, R. R., D. E. Green and C.W. Jordan, 1982. What is the best soybean row width: US
perspective? Crops and Soils, 34(4): 10-13.
Khan, E. A., Aslam, M., Ahmad, H. K., Ayaz, M. and Hussain, A. 2010. Effect of row spacing
and seeding rates on growth yield and yield components of chickpea. Sarhad Journal of
Agriculture, 26(2): 201-211.
Landon, J.R. 1984. Booker tropical soil manual (ed.). A hand book for soil survey and
agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Booker Agriculture
International Limited, Bath.
Lemlem Haile-giorgis. 2011. Effect of N fertilizer and plant density on yield, seed quality, and
oil content of soybean (Glycine max L.) at Hawassa, southern Ethiopia. MSc, Thesis
Presented to Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Lemma Gebere-mariam and Walelign Worku. 2009. Moisture and planting density interactions
affect productivity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Journal of Agronomy, 8
(4): 117 – 123.

Liu, X. B., Liu, C., Wang, G. H., Harbert, S. J. and Hashemi, M. 2010. Response of soybean
yield and yield components to light enrichment and planting density. International
Journal of Plant Production, 4:1–10.
 37

Lopez-Bellido, R., Lopez-Bellido, J. L., Lopez-Bellido, F. J. and Castillo, J. E. 2003. Faba bean
(Vicia faba L.) response to tillage and soil residual nitrogen in a continuous rotation with
wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under rain fed Mediterranean conditions. Agronomy
Journal, 95: 1253-126.

Loss, S., Siddique, M. K. and Crombie, A. 1998. Response of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) to
sowing rate in southwestern Australia, II: Canopy development, radiation absorption and
dry matter partitioning. Australian Agriculture Research Journal, 49(6): 999-1008.
Madamba, R., Grubben, G. J. H., Asante, I. K., & Akromah, R. 2006. Vigna unguiculata (L.).
Plant resources of tropical Africa, 1: 221-229.
Matthews, P.W., E.L. Armstrong, C.J. Lisle, I.D. Menz, P.L. Shephard and B.C. Armstrong,
2008. The effect of faba bean plant population on yield, seed quality and plant
architecture under irrigation in southern NSW. Australia Crop Agronomy Journal,
40:23-25
Mehmet, O. Z. 2008. Nitrogen rate and plant population effects on yield and yield components
in soybean. African Biotechnology Journal, 7(24): 4464-4470.
Mekonnen, D, 1999. Effects of spacing and nitrogen fertilization on yield and related traits of
finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaerth) growth on soils of Bako area, Western
Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Presented to Alemaya University, Ethiopia.
Mohammed, J.R., Shams Uddin, T., Mustique, A.R. and Fazel, K.R. 1984. Effects of Row and
Plant Spacing on Yield and Yield Components of Soybean. Pakistan Journal of
Agriculture Research, 5: 2.

Momoh, E.J.., Zhou, W. 2001. Growth and yield responses to plant density and stage of
transplanting in winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L). Journal of Agronomy Crop
Science, 186: 253–259.

Ng, N.Q. 1995. Cowpea taxonomy, origin, and germplasm. Pages 11-22 in Cowpea research,
production and utilization.

Njoka, E. M. 2001. The influence of plant density on yield and yield components of common
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). New York Ann. Rep. Bean Improv. Coop. Program,
25:92-95.
Nwofia, G. E., Nwanbu, M. C. and Mbah, E. U. 2014. Yield and yield component Response of
Some Cowpea Varieties to Population Density Under rain-fed Conditions Low land
tropics of Southeast Nigeria. World Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(2): 68-75.
Ogbemudia, F. O., Denise, E. M., Ogie-Odia, E.A. and Omonhinmin, A. C. 2010. Comparative
germination studies of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) and Soy bean (Glycine
max L. Merr.) on whole and water saturated fractions of hydrocarbon (hexane). Annals
of Biological Research, 1(4): 34 - 40.
 38

Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. W., Watanabe, F. S. and Dean, L. A. 1954. Estimation of available
phosphorous in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Soil Science, 96: 308-12.

Osman, A. A., Yagoub, S. O. and Tut, O. A. 2010. Performance of Faba beans (Vicia faba L.)
cultivars grown in new agro-ecological regions of Sudan (South Sudan). Australian
Journal Basic and Applied Science, 11: 5516-5521.

Parvez, A. Q., Gardner, F. P. and Boote, K. J. 1989. Density and sowing depth effects on yield
components of grain legumes. Journal of Crop Science, 29: 150-157

Pasquet, R.S. 2000. Allozyme diversity of cultivated cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.).
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 101: 211–219.
Pawar, S.U.,Kharwade, M.L and Awari,H.W. 2007. Effect of plant density on vegetative growth
and yield performance of French bean under irrigated conditions. Karnataka Journal of
Agricultural science, 20(3):684-685.
Pedersen, P. 2008. Soybean plant population. In: Soybean Extension and Research Program.
Iowa State University, USA.
Reddy, R. S. 2000. Principle of crop production. Pp. 45-47. In: Asfaw, Telaye and Geletu,
Bejiga. Proceedings of the 1st National Research Review onCool-season Food Legumes
of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Rezene Fessehaie, 1994. Weed research in cool-season food legumes. pp. 252-278. In:
Proceedings of the 1st National Research Review Conference on Cool Food Season
Legumes. Review Conference, 16-20 December 1993. ICARDA/ Institute of
Agricultural Research. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Robinson, R. G., Ford, J., Lueschen, W. E., Rabas, D. L., Warnes, D. D. and Wiersm, J. V.
2002. Sunflower Plant Population and Its Arrangement. Communication and
Educational Technology Services, University of Minnesota Extension

Salih, F. A. 1987. Effect of nitrogen application and plant population per hill on faba bean (Vicia
faba L.) yield. FABIS Newsletter, 17:27-30

Salih, F. A. 1992. Effect of watering intervals and hill planting on faba bean seed yield and its
components (Vicia faba). Faba Bean Information Service.
Shamsi, K. and Kobraee, S. 2009. Effect of plant density on the growth, yield and yield
components of three soybean varieties under climatic conditions of Kermanshah, Iran.
Animaland Plant Sciences Journal, 2(2): 96 - 99.

Sharaan, A. N., Ekram, H., Megawer, H.A., Hemida, Z.A. 2003. Biological yield, its related
growth criteria and chocolate-spot disease as influenced by cultivar, sowing date and
 39

planting distances in faba bean. Agronomy Department Faculty of Agriculture at

Fayoum, Cairo University, Egypt.
Sharar, M. S., Ayub, M., Nadeem, M.A., Noori, S.A. 2001. Effect of different row spacings and
seeding densities on the growth and yield of gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Pakistan Journal
of Agricultural Science, 38: 51-53.
Singh, B.B., Tarawali, S.A., Fernandez-Rivera, S.and Abubakar, M. 2003. Improving the
production and utilization of cowpea as food and fodder. Field Crops Res 84:169–177.
Singh, N.P. 2002. Scientific crop production, with special reference to North Eastern Hill
Region. , Delhi-28, 1st ed., India.
Singh, S. P. 1985. Effects of location and plant density on yield and architectural traits in dry
beans. Crop Science, 25(4): 579-584.
Singh, S. P. 1992. Performance of Faba bean varieties at different plant densities. FABIS
Newsletter, (30): 29-31.

Sisay Alemu. 2015. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Landrace Diversity in southern Ethiopia.
MSc, Thesis Presented to Addis Ababa University. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Solomon Abate. 2003. Effects of irrigation frequency and plant population density on growth,
yield components and yield of haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Dire Dawa Area.
MSc, Thesis Presented to Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Taj, F.H., H. Akber, A. Basir and, N. Ullah. 2002. Effect of row spacing on agronomic traits
and yield of mung bean (Vigna radiate L. Wilczek). Asian Plant Science Journal, 1(4):
328-329.
Tarawali, S. A. 1997. Cowpea haulms as fodder. Advances in Cowpea Research, 6: 313-325.
Tarawali, S., Ntare, B., and Tabo, R. 2002. Soil fertility management and cowpea production in
the semiarid tropics. Challenges and Opportunities for Enhancing Sustainable Cowpea
Production, IITA, Ibadan, 301-318.
Tekalign Mamo and Haque, I. 1991. Phosphorus status of some Ethiopian soils. III. Evaluation
of soil test methods. Tropical Agriculture, 68: 51-56.
Timko, M. P., Gowda, B. S., Galyuon, I. K., Aboagye, L. L., Takrama, J. F. 2010. Assessment
of the genetic diversity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) germplasm from Ghana using
simple sequence repeat markers. Plant Genetic Resources, 8(02): 142-150.
Timko, M.P and Singh, B.B. 2008. Cowpea, a multifunctional legume. In Genomics of tropical
crop plants. Springer, New York, 227-257.
TJAI (Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute). 2010. Cowpea: a versatile legume for hot, dry
conditions. Columbia, MO. http://www.jeffersoninstitute.org/pubs/cowpea.shtml
(accessed on March 15, 2017)
 40

Togay, N., Togay, Y., Erman, M., Yusuf, D., Cig, F. 2005. The effects of different plant densities
on yield and yield components in some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars in dry
and irrigated conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, 11(4): 417-421.

Turk, M. A., Tawaha, A. M., and El‐Shatnawi, M. K. 2003. Response of to plant density, sowing
date, phosphorus fertilization application in the absence of moisture stress. Journal of
Agronomy and Crop Science, 189(1), 1-6.
Walkley, A. and Black, I. C. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining
soil organic matter and proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil
Sci. 37:29-38
Wogayehu Worku. 2005. Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties
intercropped with maize (Zea mays L.) for double cropping at Alemaya and Hirna areas,
Eastern Ethiopia. MSc, Thesis Presented to Haramaya University., Ethiopia.
 41

7. APPENDICES
 42

Appendix Table 1. Mean squares of ANOVA for phenological and growth parameters of
cowpea varieties as affected by plant spacing

Mean squares
Source of variation Degree of DF DM PH NPB SC
Freedom
Block 2 58.6 0.35 13.17 0.12 1.85
Variety (V) 1 366.91** 58.07** 123.45** 0.02 0.001
Intra-row spacing (K) 2 883.69** 47.9** 121.13** 2.32** 0.55
Inter-row spacing (Y) 2 141.99** 16.96** 86.97** 1.41** 3.0
Variety x Intra-row spacing 2 16.83 1.13 0.96 0.08 0.04
Variety x Inter-row spacing 2 5.83 3.63 4.13 0.06 1.72
KxY 4 3.43 4.13 20.47** 0.80** 12.41**
VxKxY 4 4.91 5.35 3.36 0.07 1.68
Error 34 11.05 2.14 3.09 0.05 1.15
CV% 8.1 1.7 4.3 8.1 1.1
DF=days to flowering, DM=days to maturity, PH=plant height, NPB=number of primary branches, SC=stand
count, **= highly significant at 0.01, and *=significant at 0.05

Appendix Table 2. Mean squares of ANOVA for yield components of cowpea varieties as
affected by plant spacing

Mean squares
Source of variation NPP NSP HSW
DF
Block 2 0.11 6.51 6.26
Variety (V) 1 59.99** 40.76** 35.72**
Intra-row spacing (K) 2 14.33** 98.18** 120.68**
Inter-row spacing (Y) 2 17.88** 15.77** 25.63**
Variety x Intra-row spacing 2 2.81 1.87 2.09
Variety x Inter-row spacing 2 1.11 0.64 0.35
KxY 4 4.97** 0.38 1.25
VxKxY 4 1.0 0.54 1.24
Error 34 1.09 1.22 1.27
CV (%) 14.9 4.6 6.6

HSW= hundred seed weight, NPP= number of pods per plant, NSP= number of seeds per Pod, DF=degree of
freedom, **= highly significant, *= significant
 43

Appendix Table 3. Mean squares of ANOVA for yield and harvest index of cowpea varieties
as affected by plant spacing

Mean squares
Source of variation HI GY AGDB
DF
Block 2 3.78 13339 3586.5
Variety (V) 1 34.24** 157286** 23146
Intra-row spacing (K) 2 1028.59** 76446** 91586488**
Inter-row spacing (Y) 2 485.81** 192572** 54078945**
Variety x Intra-row spacing 2 4.47 6023 30305
Variety x Inter-row spacing 2 2.84 21749** 57551
KxY 4 20.08** 8737* 2388844**
VxKxY 4 5.79 9372* 10801
Error 34 2.76 2791 43679
CV (%) 7.3 4.7 6.6
AGDBM = above ground dry biomass, GY= grain yield, HI= harvest index, DF=degree of freedom
**= highly significant, and *= significant

Appendix Table 4. Mean Monthly temperature and rain fall of the experimental site during
cropping season of 2016

June July August September October November Mean Total

T(0C) Max 30.89 31.47 28.55 27.42 27.45 25.3 35.44
Min 15.96 16.6 15.81 15.17 13.31 12.76 14.93
RF(mm) 15 31.7 316.5 73.1 10.3 84.4 88.5
NB: T=Temperature, RF=Rainfall
Source: National Meteorology Agency, Kombolcha branch