Abstract
In appropriate use of plant spacing and lack of evaluation of improved varieties across agro ecologies are the predominant agronomic practices that reduce the productivity of onion. The present study therefore, has been designed to investigate the influence of variety, intra-row spacing and their possible interaction on growth and yield of onion. The study was conducted under irrigation during the year 2016/2017 at Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, on experimental site of horticultural crops. Four onion varieties (Adama Red, Nafis, Melkam and Nasik Red) and three intra-row spacing (7,10 and 13 cm) with inter-row spacing of 20 cm. The experiment was designed in RCBD with three replications. The results of the study showed that both variety and intra-row spacing had a significant effect (P˂0.05) on all parameters, except for the leaf diameter which was only affected by intra-row spacing. Leaf number per plant was significantly affected by interaction of variety and intra-row spacing. The highest leaf number (13.9) obtained from variety Nafis with intra-row spacing of 13 cm. In general, leaf number per plant, leaf length, plant height and leaf diameter were higher at wider intra-row spacing (13 cm). Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1). Onion plant grown at closer intra-row spacing (7 cm) showed very promising result for average bulb weight, marketable yield and total tuber yield. Moreover, the closest intra-row spacing (7 cm) gave higher marketable and total bulb yield than the wider intra-row spacing. Thus, growers in the study area can be benefited from closer intra-row spacing, however, it is paramount important to test the feasibility of the other closest intra-row spacing e.g., 6 cm and 4 cm.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 15
Claim · model-written summary
Variety significantly affected all measured parameters except leaf diameter.
- Taxon
- Onion
Allium cepat0 - Material
- varietye0
- Outcome
- all parameters, except for the leaf diametere0
- Value
- P˂0.05e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both variety and intra-row spacing had a significant effect (P˂0.05) on all parameters, except for the leaf diameter which was only affected by intra-row spacing”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intra-row spacing significantly affected all measured parameters.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- intra-row spacinge0
- Outcome
- all parameterse0
- Value
- P˂0.05e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“both variety and intra-row spacing had a significant effect (P˂0.05) on all parameters, except for the leaf diameter which was only affected by intra-row spacing”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf number was significantly affected by variety and spacing interaction.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- interaction of variety and intra-row spacinge0
- Outcome
- Leaf number per plante0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf number per plant was significantly affected by interaction of variety and intra-row spacing.”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis at 13 cm had the highest leaf number, 13.9.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Material
- Nafise0
- Treatment
- intra-row spacing of 13 cme0
- Outcome
- leaf numbere0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 13.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest leaf number (13.9) obtained from variety Nafis with intra-row spacing of 13 cm.”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf number, leaf length and plant height were higher at 13 cm spacing.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- wider intra-row spacing (13 cm)e0
- Outcome
- leaf number per plant, leaf length, plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf number per plant, leaf length, plant height and leaf diameter were higher at wider intra-row spacing (13 cm)”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf diameter was higher at 13 cm spacing.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- wider intra-row spacing (13 cm)e0
- Outcome
- leaf diametere0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leaf number per plant, leaf length, plant height and leaf diameter were higher at wider intra-row spacing (13 cm)”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis had a leaf number of 13.9 and was superior.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1).”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis bulb diameter was 5.67 cm and was superior.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1).”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis average bulb weight was 74.50 g and was superior.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1).”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis marketable yield was 36.26 t ha-1 and was superior.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Material
- Nafise0
- Outcome
- marketable yielde0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Value
- 36.26 t ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1).”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Nafis total bulb yield was 36.28 t ha-1 and was superior.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Material
- Nafise0
- Outcome
- total bulb yielde0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Value
- 36.28 t ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nafis variety was superior in terms of leaf number per plant (13.9), bulb diameter (5.67 cm), average bulb weight (74.50 g), marketable yield (36.26 t ha-1) and total bulb yield (36.28 t ha-1).”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Closer 7 cm spacing gave a promising average bulb weight.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- closer intra-row spacing (7 cm)e0
- Outcome
- average bulb weighte0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Onion plant grown at closer intra-row spacing (7 cm) showed very promising result for average bulb weight, marketable yield and total tuber yield.”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Closest 7 cm spacing gave higher marketable and total bulb yield than wider spacing.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Treatment
- closest intra-row spacing (7 cm)e0
- Outcome
- marketable and total bulb yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- wider intra-row spacinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the closest intra-row spacing (7 cm) gave higher marketable and total bulb yield than the wider intra-row spacing.”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Growers in the study area can benefit from closer intra-row spacing.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Outcome
- closer intra-row spacinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“growers in the study area can be benefited from closer intra-row spacing”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend testing feasibility of 6 cm and 4 cm spacing.
- Taxon
- OnionAllium cepat0
- Outcome
- test the feasibility of the other closest intra-row spacing e.g., 6 cm and 4 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it is paramount important to test the feasibility of the other closest intra-row spacing e.g., 6 cm and 4 cm”
t0“Onion (Allium cepa L.)”
The same questions in other papers
density · quality: postharvest · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →density · growth · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →density · yield · Allium cepa (onion)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.