BIBLIOGRAPHY PALMERO, NARCISO B. APRIL 2009. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PALMERO, NARCISO B. APRIL 2009. Performance of Lettuce and Green
Onion Under an Intercropping Scheme. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, PhD.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to evaluate the growth and yield performance and
economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion.
Results showed that significantly higher marketable yield was obtained when
lettuce and green onion were planted alone in two rows per plot or when one row of
green onion was intercropped between two rows of lettuce or one row of lettuce was
intercropped between two rows of green onion, and with these intercropping schemes,
high return on investment of 39.45% and 35.33%, respectively were realized.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
MATERIALS AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Final Height at Harvest (cm) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Average Plant Weight (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Marketable Yield Per Plot (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Non-Marketable Yield Per Plot (kg). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Total Yield Per Plot (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Computed Yield (t/ha). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Other Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
ii
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
iii
INTRODUCTION
Nature of the Study
One of the major problems of Filipino farmers is the small-size of land holdings
that they till. In the province of Benguet, a farmer usually cultivates 250 m2 and only few
farmers own up to one-half hectare. With this land holding, the concern of farmer is how
to make the land productive to support the growing households. The land cannot be
expanded so crops should be diversified to increase yield per unit area. It is common
observation that farmers use green onions as companion crop with most vegetable crops
but very few studies were made on documenting the yield performance and profitability
of this scheme.
Intercropping is growing more than one crop on the same piece of land at the
same time. This practice is one way of maximizing the use of the land and to optimize
production. However, crops should be chosen carefully to avoid allelophatic interaction
between incompatible crops. When properly done, this practice is very favorable to the
soil and to production.
The limited studies on intercropping provide very little information to guide the
local farmers of the Cordillera in maximizing the productivity of their small
landholdings. Results of this study may provide very specific information on the benefits
of intercropping lettuce and green onions to local farmers, agricultural technicians and
those who might be writing books on highland vegetable production. The aspects of
multiple cropping in the highland has not been fully studied which may be a contributing
factor to the monocropping practice of local farmers up to the present. Due to this, the
proliferation of pests is still a major problem resulting to claims of farmers losing in their
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
2
crop production. Findings in this study will not only benefit the present farmers, but also
the following generation, thus it will also contribute to adaptable technologies.
Importance of the Study
Intercropping is a practice usually observed despite the lack of reliable data
showing its significance from the stand point of yield and profit. It is a system of
vegetable production whereby compatible crops are planted at a time on the same piece
of land with the main objective of maximizing the use of land for better productivity.
This system, however, can be modified to some extent by the addition of organic and/or
inorganic fertilizers.
Furthermore, the growing of more than one crop in the same piece of land at a
time can be of great help in increasing production per unit area. It is a practical and
effective means of achieving optimum yield from a unit area of land. Increasing
vegetable production eventually increases the farmer’s income. Hence, the system
should be studied intensively and carefully to find out its merits and its limitations with
regards to vegetable production under specified location and season (Allan, 1986).
Intercropping as stated by Biglette (1970) is considered as an important source of
additional income and source of food. He added that it is advantageous since it increases
profit from the cultivated land especially when the area available is limited.
Intercropping of two or more crops does not only increase income but also
accounts in reducing or controlling insect pests and diseases in the main crops. Density
of the intercropped plant is a very important factor in controlling population of insects.
Thus, closer density has greater effects (Floyd, 1935).
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
3
Objectives of the Study
The study was conducted to:
1. evaluate the growth and yield of lettuce and green onion intercropped with one
another;
2. assess the economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion; and
3. determine the appropriate intercropping scheme for lettuce and green onion.
Time and Place of the Study
The study was conducted at the Horticulture Experimental Area, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2008 to January 2009.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Intercropping as stated by Biglete (1970) is considered as an important source of
additional income and source of food. He added that it is more advantageous since it
increase profit from the cultivated especially when the area available is limited.
Various plants for intercropping by market gardeners are nearly all of them small
growing and quick maturing one (Thompson and Kelly, 1959). Likewise, Raymond
(1971) suggested that intercropping techniques can maximize production per unit area per
year. He claimed that intercropping are geared towards attaining the goals of food
production and maximizing the benefits of fertilizers used. However, it was found that
intercropping sweetpotato with corn had no influence on either maturity of the latter of its
marketable and non-marketable green ears and stover (Uichanco, 1959). Victor (1979)
also reported that the yield of snap beans is not statistically affected by different cropping
systems and crop combinations. He further stated that other crop such as cabbage,
tomatoes and onions had no depressing effects on the yield of snap beans.
Similarly, Toledo and Oliveros (1977) observed that intercropping show less yield
than monocropping. They reported that this difference was due to the competition
between crops. In contrast, Eustaque (1975) claimed that intercropping does not have a
negative effect on the growth and yield of crops. He added that intercropping gives
beneficial effect on corn like minimizing the evaporation of soil moisture from the soil.
The same study shows that intercropping of corn with radish and mongo gave significant
increase in yield than the production of corn alone.
There are many combinations for crop which may be used (Knott and Deanon,
1967). These are: tomato, bean, sweetpotato or either vegetables can be growth as
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
5
intercrops depending on preferences. They pointed out that some other combinations for
intercropping in various countries are leaf mustard or lettuce between beans. Tobia
(1980) likewise claimed that intercropping increase the yield of the crops without harmful
effect to the snap bean. The results based on the same study are: the secondary crops,
namely cabbage, green onions, radish and sweetpepper can be successfully intercropped.
Intercropping two or more crops does not only increase income but also accounts
much in reducing or controlling insect pest and diseases in the main crops (Floyd, 1935).
He added that density of the intercropped plants is a very important factor in controlling
population of insects where density has greater effects. In addition, Mendiola (1958)
recommended that intercropping is one way of minimizing the damaged caused by rust
on soy bean plantation. Scientists of the University of the Philippines at Los Banos,
College of Agriculture discovered that intercropping tomato with cabbage minimized the
attack of diamond backmoth on cabbage and intercropping peanut with corn borer
infestation (Anon, 1976).
A well-planned croppding system such as intercropping usually result in an
increase in yield and greater profit because it increase and improves the productivity of
the soil and permits a more economical management of the plant (Benta, 1973). In
addition, Malasco (1979), cited the findings of Pablico (1978) that intercropping
maximizes land productivity at the same time increase income per unit area, apart from
maximizing labor and maintain soil fertility especially when legumes are planted as the
main crop.
Intercropping lettuce, green onion with potato has yield and least yield obtained
from green onion only (Fernandez and Padua, 1983). They added that the height of
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
6
potatoes at maturity was not affected by the different intercrops like celery, lettuce and
green onions and carrot due to its larger canopy, longer stem as well as its root system
that may limit the light inside the rows and between hills of potato plants.
Other studies indicate varied findings. For example, intercropping garden with
snap beans shortened the number of days from planting to flowering, increased the length
of matured harvested pod per plot, total weight, number of marketable pods, average
weight and number of pods per hill of the garden pea (Dolique, 1982). Borbe (1964) also
reported that pole sitao intercropped with Hawaiian Sweet and Laguna Glutinous corn
decreased the yield by 24:14 pods per plot and 13:33 per plot, respectively. He
mentioned further that intercropping corn affected the number of days to flowering, the
weight as well as the average length of pods. But the same study indicated that pole sitao
and corn are not compatible as intercrops.
Bawang and Victor (1983) found that suitable succession crop after white potato,
edible podded pea and cabbage is edible podded pea, while after potato and green onion
is potato and radish maybe followed after cabbage, cauliflower, white potato and green
onion. Green onion is compatible for planting after radish and white potato, cabbage may
be appropriate to succession after pole and edible podded pea, and pole bean may be
compatible for planting after edible podded pea, white potato and cauliflower.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
7
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Materials
The materials needed in the study were seeds of lettuce ‘Tyrol’, green onion
‘Dulce’ leeks, digging tools, watering cans, identifying tags, weighing scale, etc.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in a
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were
as follows:
Code
Description
I1
Two rows lettuce
I2
Two rows green onion
I3
Two rows lettuce and one row green onion at the
center of the rows
I4
Two rows green onion and one row lettuce at the
center of the rows
I5
One row lettuce and one row green onion
Growing seedlings. Seeds of lettuce were sown thinly by hand broadcasting in a
well prepared seedbed followed by covering with thin layer of soil and immediately
supplied with water. Watering was done every two days. The seedlings were sprayed as
needed to control insects and diseases.
Land preparation. An area of 100 m2 was prepared. This area was divided into
four blocks to represent the replications and each block was subdivided into five plots
measuring 1 m x 5 m to represent the treatments.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
8
The treatment plots were dug at least 30 cm deep, leveled then applied with
compost and mixed thoroughly with the soil. The rate of compost application was one-
half can (eight liters) per plot.
Transplanting, care and management. Seedlings were transplanted at four weeks
old. Seedlings were carefully uprooted and transplanted on the prepared 1 m x 5 m plots
at a distance of 25 x 25 cm between hills and rows. Transplanting was done late in the
afternoon to avoid transplantation shock and scorching of seedlings. Immediately after
transplanting, the seedlings were watered to prevent wilting and to enhance recovery.
Watering was continued every other day for one week afterwhich the plants were watered
every week until the plants were harvested. Spraying was done when there were signs of
attack of insect pests and diseases. Likewise, weeding and cultivation was done to ensure
good growth of the plants.
Data Gathered
The data gathered and subjected to variance analysis and mean separation test by
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were the following:
1. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten selected plants at random were measured
during harvest from the base to the tip of the longest leaf. There were separate
measurements for lettuce and green onions.
2. Average plant weight of lettuce and green onion (kg). This was taken by using
the formula:
Total Plant Weight per Plot
Average Plant Weight = Number of Plants per Plot
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
9
3. Marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of lettuce and green onion
without defects which can be sold in the market.
4. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of lettuce and green
onion that were stunted or with deformities, excessively small, and rotten that cannot be
sold in the market.
5. Total yield per plot (kg/plot). This was the weight of all lettuce and green
onions that was harvested.
6. Computed yield per hectare (ton). The yield per plot was converted to
tons/hectare using the following formula:
Yield (t/ha) = Yield (kg/5 m2) x 2000
Where: 2000 is the number of 5 m2 plots/ha
7. Other observations. The following data was taken:
a) Incidence of insect pests and diseases. Observations were made on the
presence of insect pests and diseases.
b) Allelophaty. Undesirable growth due to allelophaty was also observed.
8. Economic analysis. All expenses incurred in the study were recorded such as
labor, seeds, fungicides, insecticides, fertilizers, etc. These were subtracted from the
sales per plot to get the net profit on loss per treatment plot.
Net Profit
ROI = x 100
Expenses
9. Documentation of study. This was taken in pictures.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Final Height at Harvest
Final height of lettuce and green onion was not significantly affected by the
intercropping schemes evaluated (Table 1).
Average Plant Weight
Table 2 shows that the average plant weight of lettuce and green onion was not
significantly affected by the intercropping schemes evaluated.
Table 1. Plant height at harvest
MEAN (cm)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
22.00a
Two rows green onion
60.80a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
22.42a
57.18a
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
22.17a
59.09a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
21.38a
57.08a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
11
Table 2. Average plant weight
MEAN (kg/ 5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
0.19a
Two rows green onion
0.14a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
0.18a
0.09a
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
0.17a
0.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
0.19a
0.13b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Marketable Yield
Table 3 shows that lettuce planted in two rows and planting two rows of lettuce +
one row green onion significantly had higher marketable yield of 6.36 and 5.83,
respectively, while the lowest marketable yield of 2.84 was obtained from one row
lettuce + one row green onion. In onion, planting two rows green onion alone and
planting two rows green onion + one row lettuce significantly had higher marketable
yield of 5.33 and 5.13, respectively, while the lowest marketable yield of 1.88 was
obtained from one row green onion + two rows lettuce.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
12
Table 3. Marketable yield
MEAN (kg/5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
6.36a
Two rows green onion
5.33a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
5.83a
1.88b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
3.13b
5.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
2.84b
2.63b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Non-Marketable Yield
The non-marketable yield of lettuce and green onion was not significantly
affected by the intercropping schemes evaluated (Table 4).
Table 4. Non-marketable yield
MEAN (kg/5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
0.90a
Two rows green onion
0
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
1.24a
0
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
0.60a
0
One row lettuce + one row green onion
0.73a
0
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
13
Total Yield
Presented in Table 5 is the yield per plot as affected by the different intercropping
schemes evaluated. Result showed that two rows lettuce and two rows lettuce + one row
green onion significantly had the highest total yield of lettuce of 7.26 and 7.07,
respectively. In green onion, planting two rows green onion alone and planting two rows
green onion + one row lettuce had higher total yield of 5.33 and 5.13, respectively.
Computed Yield
Presented in Table 6 is the computed yield of lettuce and green onion. Result
shows that lettuce planted in two rows and planting two rows of lettuce + one row green
onion significantly had higher computed total yield of 14.53 and 14.13 t/ha, respectively.
Two rows green onion and two rows green onion + one row lettuce significantly had
higher computed total yield of green onion of 10.65 and 10.25 t/ha, respectively.
Table 5. Total yield
MEAN (kg/ 5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
7.26a
Two rows green onion
5.33a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
7.07a
1.88b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
3.44b
5.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
3.85b
2.63b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
14
Table 6. Computed yield
MEAN (t/ha)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
14.53a
Two rows green onion
10.65a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
14.13a
3.75b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
6.88b
10.25a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
7.70b
5.25b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Other Observations
Incidence of insect pests and diseases. There were occurrence of insects such as
mole crickets, leaf miner, aphids, and cutworms. However, through the application of
insecticides, these were minimized.
The presence of leaf blight and head rot were observed on lettuce especially in
two rows of lettuce + one row green onion, probably due to dense population. In green
onion, leaf blight was noticed.
Incidence of allelopathy. The growth and yield of lettuce and green onion was
not affected by possible allelopathy effects of the intercrops.
Economic Analysis
Table 7 shows the cost and return analysis of lettuce and green onion production
as affected by different intercropping schemes evaluated. Planting two rows of green
onion + one row lettuce and two rows lettuce + one row green onion were more
profitable at 39.45% and 35.33% ROI, respectively, while the lowest ROI of 9.77% was
realized from planting two rows of green onion.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
15
Table 7. Economic analysis (20 m2 area)
TREATMENT
PARTICULAR
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Marketable Yield (kg)
23.45 21.30 30.80
31.85 23.00
A. Sales (Php)
763.50 852.00 999.00 1160.50 795.00
B. Expenses
1. Seedlings/Suckers
112.00
112.00
56.00 56.00
a. Lettuce
b. Green onion
300.00 150.00 300.00 150.00
2. Insecticide
a. Prodone
23.00 23.00 23.00
23.00 23.00
3. Fertilizers
a. 14-14-14
30.40 30.40 30.40
30.40 30.40
b 46-0-0
22.80 22.80 22.80
22.80 22.80
4. Gasoline
35.00 35.00 35.00
35.00 35.00
5. Labor
365.00 365.00
365 365.00 365.00
Total Expenses
588.20 776.20 738.20 832.20 682.20
C. Net Profit
175.30 75.80 260.80 328.30 112.80
D. ROI (%)
29.80
9.77 35.33
39.45 16.53
E. Rank
3
5
2
1
4
Note: The selling price of lettuce per kilo during harvest was Php30.00 while green
onion was sold at Php40.00/kg.
Legend:
T1 = Two rows lettuce
T2 = Two rows green onion
T3 = Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
T4 = Two rows green onion + one row lettuce
T5 = One row lettuce + one row green onion
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
16
Figure 1. Overview of the experimental field
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
17
Figure 2. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 1
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
18
Figure 3. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 2
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
19
Figure 4. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 4
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
20
Figure 5. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 5
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Benguet State University Horticulture
Experimental Area at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2008 to January 2009
to evaluate the growth and yield of lettuce and green onion intercropped with one
another, assess the economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion, and to determine
the appropriate intercropping scheme(s) for lettuce and green onion.
Results of the study showed that significantly higher marketable yield was
obtained when lettuce and green onion were planted alone in two rows per plot or when
one row of green onion was intercropped at the center of two rows of lettuce or one row
of lettuce was intercropped at the center of two rows of green onion and these
intercropping schemes effected high return on investment of 39.45% and 35.33%,
respectively.
Observations also show that lettuce and onion are compatible intercrops.
Conclusion
Based on the results, it is inferred that planting two rows of green onion plus one
row lettuce or two rows of lettuce plus one row green onion per plot have high yield and
high return on investment.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended, that intercropping two rows of lettuce plus one row
green onion or two rows of green onion plus one row of lettuce per plot should be done to
obtain higher yield of the crops and greater profit pr area.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
22
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. 1976. Philippine Recommends for Soybean. PCARRD. Soybean
Multiple Cropping. P. 32.
ALLAN, W. K. 1986. Intercropping onion with Chinese cabbage. BS Thesis. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 1.
BENTA, G. R. 1973. Economics of irrigating cropping system. UPLB. IRRI.
BIGLETE, C. F. 1970. Sugar Farmers Bulletin. Quezon City, Philippines: Sugar
Institute. P. 7.
BORBE, R. B. 1964. Mixed cropping yard long corn. BS Theis. UPLB-CA as cited by
VICTOR, L. B. 1979. Bush bean and green onion in two locations and season.
Ph.D. Dissertation, UPLB-CA.
BALA-OY, H. 1980. Intercropping white potato with green onion and pechay. BS
Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
BAWANG, F. T. and L. B. VICTOR. 1983. Cropping Pattern for Highland Vegetable
Crops. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 13.
DOLIQUE, V. B. 1982. The effect of intercropping snap bush bean on the growth and
yield of garden pea under different plot orientation. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
EUSTAQUE, R. B. 1975. Performance of corn intercropped with radish mongo and
pepper. BS Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
FERNANDEZ, L. C. and D. P. PADUA. 1983. Intercropping potato, lettuce, green
onion, celery and carrot. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 13.
FLOYD, J. W. 1935. Productive Vegetable Growing. Chicago. Philadelphia,
Lippincott Co. Pp. 240-241.
GOMEZ, A. A. 1974. Cropping Pattern to Increase Yield. Modern Agriculture and
Industry. Multiplex Publimark Inc. Manila, Philippines 11(5):15.
MALASCO, A. 1979. Agronomic characteristics and economics evaluation of
intercropping Virginia with legumes. Research Study.
MARTIN, J. A., W. A. LEONARD. 1970. Principle of Field Crop Production. New
York, Jhon Willey and Sons, Inc. P. 36.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
23
MENDIOLA, N. B. 1958. Principle of Crop Production. United Calculation Inc.
Philippines. Pp. 288-294.
RAYMOND, T. M. 1971. Intercropping Techniques can Maximize Production Per Unit
Area. Crop Production. P. 101.
THOMPSON AND KELLY. 1959. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York. McGrawhill
Book Co. Inc. P. 151.
TOBIA, O. T. 1980. Performance of snap beans intercropped with four different crops.
BS Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
TOLEDO, P. E. and C. J. OLIVERSO. 1977. Growing cabbage with minimum tillage
and intercropping under MSAC condition. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 1. No.
1. Pp. 105-113.
UICHANGCO, D. F. 1959. The intercropping of sweetpotato with corn had no
influence on maturity of the latter or its marketable green ears and stover. UP
College of Agriculture. P. 40.
VICTOR, L. B. 1979. Multiple compatibility of cabbage, tomato, bush bean and green
onion in two locations and seasons. PhD Dissertation. UPLB, College Laguna.
Pp. 37, 58, 75, 94.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Plant height of lettuce (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
19.87
20.66
23.95
23.52
88.00
22.00
T2
19.73
20.31
24.51
25.13
89.68
22.42
T3
20.02
22.57
22.65
23.43
88.67
22.17
T4
18.21
22.03
20.90
24.38
85.52
21.38
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULAR F
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
0.05
0.01
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Replication
3
49.245
16.415
0.55ns
0.00
0.66
Factor A
3
2.354
0.785
Error
9
12.903
1.434
TOTAL
15
64.502
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 5.44
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
25
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant height of onion (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
62.72
57.56
63.18
59.72
243.18
60.80
T2
54.95
57.39
57.82
58.55
228.71
57.18
T3
56.31
56.10
61.76
62.18
236.35
59.09
T4
53.04
59.84
52.82
2.60
228.30
57.08
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULAR F
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
0.05
0.01
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Replication
3
35.679
11.893
1.14ns
0.40
0.38
Factor A
3
37.549
12.516
Error
9
98.541
10.949
TOTAL
15
171.769
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 5.65
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
26
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Average plant weight of lettuce (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.21
0.23
0.19
0.13
0.76
0.19
T2
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.72
0.18
T3
0.14
0.19
0.15
0.21
0.69
0.17
T4
0.15
0.26
0.14
0.22
0.77
0.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.007
0.002
0.23ns
0.23
0.87
Factor A
3
0.001
0.000
Error
9
0.013
0.001
TOTAL
15
0.021
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 20.78
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
27
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Average plant weight of green onion (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.12
0.54
0.14
T2
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.37
0.09
T3
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.51
0.13
T4
0.11
0.16
0.11
0.14
0.52
0.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.002
0.00
1.91ns
0.48
0.19
Factor A
3
0.004
0.00
Error
9
0.007
0.00
TOTAL
15
0.013
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 23.20
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
28
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Marketable yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
7.00
7.75
6.60
4.10
25.45
6.36
T2
5.65
5.00
5.65
7.00
23.30
5.83
T3
1.85
3.25
2.50
3.75
11.35
3.13
T4
1.75
4.90
2.35
3.50
12.50
2.84
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
3.078
1.026
8.21**
0.60
0.00
Factor A
3
39.493
13.164
Error
9
14.425
1.602
TOTAL
15
56.996
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 27.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
29
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Marketable yield of green onion (kg/5 m2 plot)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
6.00
4.25
6.30
4.75
21.30
5.33
T2
2.00
1.25
2.25
2.00
7.50
1.88
T3
3.75
4.00
6.50
6.25
20.50
5.13
T4
2.25
3.25
2.25
2.75
10.50
2.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
2.976
0.992
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Factor A
3
36.608
12.202
Error
9
7.478
0.830
TOTAL
15
47.062
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
30
APPENDIX TABLE 7.Non-marketable yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
1.20
1.25
0.90
0.25
3.60
0.90
T2
0.50
1.70
1.50
1.25
4.95
1.24
T3
0.90
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.40
0.60
T4
1.25
0.25
0.50
0.90
2.90
0.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.131
0.043
1.36ns
0.89
0.31
Factor A
3
0.919
0.306
Error
9
2.033
0.225
TOTAL
15
3.083
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 54.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
31
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Non-marketable yield of green onion (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
T2
T3
T4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.89
0.31
Factor A
3
Error
9
TOTAL
15
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 54.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
32
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Total yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
8.20
9.00
7.50
4.35
29.05
7.26
T2
6.15
6.70
7.15
8.25
28.25
7.07
T3
2.75
3.75
3.00
4.25
13.75
3.44
T4
3.00
5.15
2.85
4.40
15.40
3.85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
F
TABULAR F
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
3.145
1.048
Factor A
3
49.946
16.648
8.91**
0.65
0.00
Error
9
16.810
1.867
TOTAL
15
69.901
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 25.29
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
33
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Total yield of green onion (kg/ 5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
6.00
4.25
6.30
4.75
21.30
5.33
T2
2.00
1.25
2.25
2.00
7.50
1.88
T3
3.75
4.00
6.50
6.25
20.50
5.13
T4
2.25
3.25
2.25
2.75
10.50
2.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
2.976
0.992
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Factor A
3
36.608
12.202
Error
9
7.478
0.830
TOTAL
15
47.062
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
34
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Computed yield of lettuce (t/ha)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
16.40
18.00
15.00
8.70
58.10
14.53
T2
12.30
13.40
14.30
16.50
56.50
14.13
T3
5.50
7.50
6.00
8.50
27.50
6.88
T4
6.00
10.30
5.70
8.80
30.80
7.70
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
14.241
4.747
Factor A
3
212.166
70.722
8.77**
0.63
0.00
Error
9
72.540
8.060
TOTAL
15
298.947
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 26.03
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
35
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Computed yield of green onion (t/ha)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.00
8.50
12.60
9.50
42.60
10.65
T2
4.00
2.50
4.50
4.00
15.00
3.75
T3
7.50
8.00
13.00
2.50
41.00
10.25
T4
4.50
6.50
4.50
5.50
21.00
5.25
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
11.905
3.968
Factor A
3
146.430
48.810
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Error
9
29.915
3.323
TOTAL
15
188.250
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
PALMERO, NARCISO B. APRIL 2009. Performance of Lettuce and Green
Onion Under an Intercropping Scheme. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Percival B. Alipit, PhD.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to evaluate the growth and yield performance and
economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion.
Results showed that significantly higher marketable yield was obtained when
lettuce and green onion were planted alone in two rows per plot or when one row of
green onion was intercropped between two rows of lettuce or one row of lettuce was
intercropped between two rows of green onion, and with these intercropping schemes,
high return on investment of 39.45% and 35.33%, respectively were realized.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
MATERIALS AND METHOD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Final Height at Harvest (cm) . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Average Plant Weight (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
Marketable Yield Per Plot (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Non-Marketable Yield Per Plot (kg). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Total Yield Per Plot (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Computed Yield (t/ha). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Other Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
ii
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
iii
INTRODUCTION
Nature of the Study
One of the major problems of Filipino farmers is the small-size of land holdings
that they till. In the province of Benguet, a farmer usually cultivates 250 m2 and only few
farmers own up to one-half hectare. With this land holding, the concern of farmer is how
to make the land productive to support the growing households. The land cannot be
expanded so crops should be diversified to increase yield per unit area. It is common
observation that farmers use green onions as companion crop with most vegetable crops
but very few studies were made on documenting the yield performance and profitability
of this scheme.
Intercropping is growing more than one crop on the same piece of land at the
same time. This practice is one way of maximizing the use of the land and to optimize
production. However, crops should be chosen carefully to avoid allelophatic interaction
between incompatible crops. When properly done, this practice is very favorable to the
soil and to production.
The limited studies on intercropping provide very little information to guide the
local farmers of the Cordillera in maximizing the productivity of their small
landholdings. Results of this study may provide very specific information on the benefits
of intercropping lettuce and green onions to local farmers, agricultural technicians and
those who might be writing books on highland vegetable production. The aspects of
multiple cropping in the highland has not been fully studied which may be a contributing
factor to the monocropping practice of local farmers up to the present. Due to this, the
proliferation of pests is still a major problem resulting to claims of farmers losing in their
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
2
crop production. Findings in this study will not only benefit the present farmers, but also
the following generation, thus it will also contribute to adaptable technologies.
Importance of the Study
Intercropping is a practice usually observed despite the lack of reliable data
showing its significance from the stand point of yield and profit. It is a system of
vegetable production whereby compatible crops are planted at a time on the same piece
of land with the main objective of maximizing the use of land for better productivity.
This system, however, can be modified to some extent by the addition of organic and/or
inorganic fertilizers.
Furthermore, the growing of more than one crop in the same piece of land at a
time can be of great help in increasing production per unit area. It is a practical and
effective means of achieving optimum yield from a unit area of land. Increasing
vegetable production eventually increases the farmer’s income. Hence, the system
should be studied intensively and carefully to find out its merits and its limitations with
regards to vegetable production under specified location and season (Allan, 1986).
Intercropping as stated by Biglette (1970) is considered as an important source of
additional income and source of food. He added that it is advantageous since it increases
profit from the cultivated land especially when the area available is limited.
Intercropping of two or more crops does not only increase income but also
accounts in reducing or controlling insect pests and diseases in the main crops. Density
of the intercropped plant is a very important factor in controlling population of insects.
Thus, closer density has greater effects (Floyd, 1935).
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
3
Objectives of the Study
The study was conducted to:
1. evaluate the growth and yield of lettuce and green onion intercropped with one
another;
2. assess the economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion; and
3. determine the appropriate intercropping scheme for lettuce and green onion.
Time and Place of the Study
The study was conducted at the Horticulture Experimental Area, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2008 to January 2009.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Intercropping as stated by Biglete (1970) is considered as an important source of
additional income and source of food. He added that it is more advantageous since it
increase profit from the cultivated especially when the area available is limited.
Various plants for intercropping by market gardeners are nearly all of them small
growing and quick maturing one (Thompson and Kelly, 1959). Likewise, Raymond
(1971) suggested that intercropping techniques can maximize production per unit area per
year. He claimed that intercropping are geared towards attaining the goals of food
production and maximizing the benefits of fertilizers used. However, it was found that
intercropping sweetpotato with corn had no influence on either maturity of the latter of its
marketable and non-marketable green ears and stover (Uichanco, 1959). Victor (1979)
also reported that the yield of snap beans is not statistically affected by different cropping
systems and crop combinations. He further stated that other crop such as cabbage,
tomatoes and onions had no depressing effects on the yield of snap beans.
Similarly, Toledo and Oliveros (1977) observed that intercropping show less yield
than monocropping. They reported that this difference was due to the competition
between crops. In contrast, Eustaque (1975) claimed that intercropping does not have a
negative effect on the growth and yield of crops. He added that intercropping gives
beneficial effect on corn like minimizing the evaporation of soil moisture from the soil.
The same study shows that intercropping of corn with radish and mongo gave significant
increase in yield than the production of corn alone.
There are many combinations for crop which may be used (Knott and Deanon,
1967). These are: tomato, bean, sweetpotato or either vegetables can be growth as
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
5
intercrops depending on preferences. They pointed out that some other combinations for
intercropping in various countries are leaf mustard or lettuce between beans. Tobia
(1980) likewise claimed that intercropping increase the yield of the crops without harmful
effect to the snap bean. The results based on the same study are: the secondary crops,
namely cabbage, green onions, radish and sweetpepper can be successfully intercropped.
Intercropping two or more crops does not only increase income but also accounts
much in reducing or controlling insect pest and diseases in the main crops (Floyd, 1935).
He added that density of the intercropped plants is a very important factor in controlling
population of insects where density has greater effects. In addition, Mendiola (1958)
recommended that intercropping is one way of minimizing the damaged caused by rust
on soy bean plantation. Scientists of the University of the Philippines at Los Banos,
College of Agriculture discovered that intercropping tomato with cabbage minimized the
attack of diamond backmoth on cabbage and intercropping peanut with corn borer
infestation (Anon, 1976).
A well-planned croppding system such as intercropping usually result in an
increase in yield and greater profit because it increase and improves the productivity of
the soil and permits a more economical management of the plant (Benta, 1973). In
addition, Malasco (1979), cited the findings of Pablico (1978) that intercropping
maximizes land productivity at the same time increase income per unit area, apart from
maximizing labor and maintain soil fertility especially when legumes are planted as the
main crop.
Intercropping lettuce, green onion with potato has yield and least yield obtained
from green onion only (Fernandez and Padua, 1983). They added that the height of
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
6
potatoes at maturity was not affected by the different intercrops like celery, lettuce and
green onions and carrot due to its larger canopy, longer stem as well as its root system
that may limit the light inside the rows and between hills of potato plants.
Other studies indicate varied findings. For example, intercropping garden with
snap beans shortened the number of days from planting to flowering, increased the length
of matured harvested pod per plot, total weight, number of marketable pods, average
weight and number of pods per hill of the garden pea (Dolique, 1982). Borbe (1964) also
reported that pole sitao intercropped with Hawaiian Sweet and Laguna Glutinous corn
decreased the yield by 24:14 pods per plot and 13:33 per plot, respectively. He
mentioned further that intercropping corn affected the number of days to flowering, the
weight as well as the average length of pods. But the same study indicated that pole sitao
and corn are not compatible as intercrops.
Bawang and Victor (1983) found that suitable succession crop after white potato,
edible podded pea and cabbage is edible podded pea, while after potato and green onion
is potato and radish maybe followed after cabbage, cauliflower, white potato and green
onion. Green onion is compatible for planting after radish and white potato, cabbage may
be appropriate to succession after pole and edible podded pea, and pole bean may be
compatible for planting after edible podded pea, white potato and cauliflower.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
7
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Materials
The materials needed in the study were seeds of lettuce ‘Tyrol’, green onion
‘Dulce’ leeks, digging tools, watering cans, identifying tags, weighing scale, etc.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in a
randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The treatments were
as follows:
Code
Description
I1
Two rows lettuce
I2
Two rows green onion
I3
Two rows lettuce and one row green onion at the
center of the rows
I4
Two rows green onion and one row lettuce at the
center of the rows
I5
One row lettuce and one row green onion
Growing seedlings. Seeds of lettuce were sown thinly by hand broadcasting in a
well prepared seedbed followed by covering with thin layer of soil and immediately
supplied with water. Watering was done every two days. The seedlings were sprayed as
needed to control insects and diseases.
Land preparation. An area of 100 m2 was prepared. This area was divided into
four blocks to represent the replications and each block was subdivided into five plots
measuring 1 m x 5 m to represent the treatments.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
8
The treatment plots were dug at least 30 cm deep, leveled then applied with
compost and mixed thoroughly with the soil. The rate of compost application was one-
half can (eight liters) per plot.
Transplanting, care and management. Seedlings were transplanted at four weeks
old. Seedlings were carefully uprooted and transplanted on the prepared 1 m x 5 m plots
at a distance of 25 x 25 cm between hills and rows. Transplanting was done late in the
afternoon to avoid transplantation shock and scorching of seedlings. Immediately after
transplanting, the seedlings were watered to prevent wilting and to enhance recovery.
Watering was continued every other day for one week afterwhich the plants were watered
every week until the plants were harvested. Spraying was done when there were signs of
attack of insect pests and diseases. Likewise, weeding and cultivation was done to ensure
good growth of the plants.
Data Gathered
The data gathered and subjected to variance analysis and mean separation test by
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were the following:
1. Plant height at harvest (cm). Ten selected plants at random were measured
during harvest from the base to the tip of the longest leaf. There were separate
measurements for lettuce and green onions.
2. Average plant weight of lettuce and green onion (kg). This was taken by using
the formula:
Total Plant Weight per Plot
Average Plant Weight = Number of Plants per Plot
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
9
3. Marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of lettuce and green onion
without defects which can be sold in the market.
4. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot). This was the weight of lettuce and green
onion that were stunted or with deformities, excessively small, and rotten that cannot be
sold in the market.
5. Total yield per plot (kg/plot). This was the weight of all lettuce and green
onions that was harvested.
6. Computed yield per hectare (ton). The yield per plot was converted to
tons/hectare using the following formula:
Yield (t/ha) = Yield (kg/5 m2) x 2000
Where: 2000 is the number of 5 m2 plots/ha
7. Other observations. The following data was taken:
a) Incidence of insect pests and diseases. Observations were made on the
presence of insect pests and diseases.
b) Allelophaty. Undesirable growth due to allelophaty was also observed.
8. Economic analysis. All expenses incurred in the study were recorded such as
labor, seeds, fungicides, insecticides, fertilizers, etc. These were subtracted from the
sales per plot to get the net profit on loss per treatment plot.
Net Profit
ROI = x 100
Expenses
9. Documentation of study. This was taken in pictures.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Final Height at Harvest
Final height of lettuce and green onion was not significantly affected by the
intercropping schemes evaluated (Table 1).
Average Plant Weight
Table 2 shows that the average plant weight of lettuce and green onion was not
significantly affected by the intercropping schemes evaluated.
Table 1. Plant height at harvest
MEAN (cm)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
22.00a
Two rows green onion
60.80a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
22.42a
57.18a
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
22.17a
59.09a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
21.38a
57.08a
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
11
Table 2. Average plant weight
MEAN (kg/ 5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
0.19a
Two rows green onion
0.14a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
0.18a
0.09a
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
0.17a
0.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
0.19a
0.13b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Marketable Yield
Table 3 shows that lettuce planted in two rows and planting two rows of lettuce +
one row green onion significantly had higher marketable yield of 6.36 and 5.83,
respectively, while the lowest marketable yield of 2.84 was obtained from one row
lettuce + one row green onion. In onion, planting two rows green onion alone and
planting two rows green onion + one row lettuce significantly had higher marketable
yield of 5.33 and 5.13, respectively, while the lowest marketable yield of 1.88 was
obtained from one row green onion + two rows lettuce.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
12
Table 3. Marketable yield
MEAN (kg/5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
6.36a
Two rows green onion
5.33a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
5.83a
1.88b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
3.13b
5.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
2.84b
2.63b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Non-Marketable Yield
The non-marketable yield of lettuce and green onion was not significantly
affected by the intercropping schemes evaluated (Table 4).
Table 4. Non-marketable yield
MEAN (kg/5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
0.90a
Two rows green onion
0
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
1.24a
0
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
0.60a
0
One row lettuce + one row green onion
0.73a
0
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
13
Total Yield
Presented in Table 5 is the yield per plot as affected by the different intercropping
schemes evaluated. Result showed that two rows lettuce and two rows lettuce + one row
green onion significantly had the highest total yield of lettuce of 7.26 and 7.07,
respectively. In green onion, planting two rows green onion alone and planting two rows
green onion + one row lettuce had higher total yield of 5.33 and 5.13, respectively.
Computed Yield
Presented in Table 6 is the computed yield of lettuce and green onion. Result
shows that lettuce planted in two rows and planting two rows of lettuce + one row green
onion significantly had higher computed total yield of 14.53 and 14.13 t/ha, respectively.
Two rows green onion and two rows green onion + one row lettuce significantly had
higher computed total yield of green onion of 10.65 and 10.25 t/ha, respectively.
Table 5. Total yield
MEAN (kg/ 5 m2 plot)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
7.26a
Two rows green onion
5.33a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
7.07a
1.88b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
3.44b
5.13a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
3.85b
2.63b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
14
Table 6. Computed yield
MEAN (t/ha)
TREATMENT
Lettuce
Green Onion
Two rows lettuce
14.53a
Two rows green onion
10.65a
Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
14.13a
3.75b
Two rows green onion+ one row lettuce
6.88b
10.25a
One row lettuce + one row green onion
7.70b
5.25b
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5%
level by DMRT
Other Observations
Incidence of insect pests and diseases. There were occurrence of insects such as
mole crickets, leaf miner, aphids, and cutworms. However, through the application of
insecticides, these were minimized.
The presence of leaf blight and head rot were observed on lettuce especially in
two rows of lettuce + one row green onion, probably due to dense population. In green
onion, leaf blight was noticed.
Incidence of allelopathy. The growth and yield of lettuce and green onion was
not affected by possible allelopathy effects of the intercrops.
Economic Analysis
Table 7 shows the cost and return analysis of lettuce and green onion production
as affected by different intercropping schemes evaluated. Planting two rows of green
onion + one row lettuce and two rows lettuce + one row green onion were more
profitable at 39.45% and 35.33% ROI, respectively, while the lowest ROI of 9.77% was
realized from planting two rows of green onion.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
15
Table 7. Economic analysis (20 m2 area)
TREATMENT
PARTICULAR
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Marketable Yield (kg)
23.45 21.30 30.80
31.85 23.00
A. Sales (Php)
763.50 852.00 999.00 1160.50 795.00
B. Expenses
1. Seedlings/Suckers
112.00
112.00
56.00 56.00
a. Lettuce
b. Green onion
300.00 150.00 300.00 150.00
2. Insecticide
a. Prodone
23.00 23.00 23.00
23.00 23.00
3. Fertilizers
a. 14-14-14
30.40 30.40 30.40
30.40 30.40
b 46-0-0
22.80 22.80 22.80
22.80 22.80
4. Gasoline
35.00 35.00 35.00
35.00 35.00
5. Labor
365.00 365.00
365 365.00 365.00
Total Expenses
588.20 776.20 738.20 832.20 682.20
C. Net Profit
175.30 75.80 260.80 328.30 112.80
D. ROI (%)
29.80
9.77 35.33
39.45 16.53
E. Rank
3
5
2
1
4
Note: The selling price of lettuce per kilo during harvest was Php30.00 while green
onion was sold at Php40.00/kg.
Legend:
T1 = Two rows lettuce
T2 = Two rows green onion
T3 = Two rows lettuce + one row green onion
T4 = Two rows green onion + one row lettuce
T5 = One row lettuce + one row green onion
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
16
Figure 1. Overview of the experimental field
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
17
Figure 2. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 1
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
18
Figure 3. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 2
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
19
Figure 4. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 4
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
20
Figure 5. Overview of the intercropping treatments in replication 5
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Benguet State University Horticulture
Experimental Area at Balili, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2008 to January 2009
to evaluate the growth and yield of lettuce and green onion intercropped with one
another, assess the economics of intercropping lettuce and green onion, and to determine
the appropriate intercropping scheme(s) for lettuce and green onion.
Results of the study showed that significantly higher marketable yield was
obtained when lettuce and green onion were planted alone in two rows per plot or when
one row of green onion was intercropped at the center of two rows of lettuce or one row
of lettuce was intercropped at the center of two rows of green onion and these
intercropping schemes effected high return on investment of 39.45% and 35.33%,
respectively.
Observations also show that lettuce and onion are compatible intercrops.
Conclusion
Based on the results, it is inferred that planting two rows of green onion plus one
row lettuce or two rows of lettuce plus one row green onion per plot have high yield and
high return on investment.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended, that intercropping two rows of lettuce plus one row
green onion or two rows of green onion plus one row of lettuce per plot should be done to
obtain higher yield of the crops and greater profit pr area.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
22
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. 1976. Philippine Recommends for Soybean. PCARRD. Soybean
Multiple Cropping. P. 32.
ALLAN, W. K. 1986. Intercropping onion with Chinese cabbage. BS Thesis. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 1.
BENTA, G. R. 1973. Economics of irrigating cropping system. UPLB. IRRI.
BIGLETE, C. F. 1970. Sugar Farmers Bulletin. Quezon City, Philippines: Sugar
Institute. P. 7.
BORBE, R. B. 1964. Mixed cropping yard long corn. BS Theis. UPLB-CA as cited by
VICTOR, L. B. 1979. Bush bean and green onion in two locations and season.
Ph.D. Dissertation, UPLB-CA.
BALA-OY, H. 1980. Intercropping white potato with green onion and pechay. BS
Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
BAWANG, F. T. and L. B. VICTOR. 1983. Cropping Pattern for Highland Vegetable
Crops. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 13.
DOLIQUE, V. B. 1982. The effect of intercropping snap bush bean on the growth and
yield of garden pea under different plot orientation. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
EUSTAQUE, R. B. 1975. Performance of corn intercropped with radish mongo and
pepper. BS Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
FERNANDEZ, L. C. and D. P. PADUA. 1983. Intercropping potato, lettuce, green
onion, celery and carrot. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 13.
FLOYD, J. W. 1935. Productive Vegetable Growing. Chicago. Philadelphia,
Lippincott Co. Pp. 240-241.
GOMEZ, A. A. 1974. Cropping Pattern to Increase Yield. Modern Agriculture and
Industry. Multiplex Publimark Inc. Manila, Philippines 11(5):15.
MALASCO, A. 1979. Agronomic characteristics and economics evaluation of
intercropping Virginia with legumes. Research Study.
MARTIN, J. A., W. A. LEONARD. 1970. Principle of Field Crop Production. New
York, Jhon Willey and Sons, Inc. P. 36.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
23
MENDIOLA, N. B. 1958. Principle of Crop Production. United Calculation Inc.
Philippines. Pp. 288-294.
RAYMOND, T. M. 1971. Intercropping Techniques can Maximize Production Per Unit
Area. Crop Production. P. 101.
THOMPSON AND KELLY. 1959. Vegetable Crops. 5th ed. New York. McGrawhill
Book Co. Inc. P. 151.
TOBIA, O. T. 1980. Performance of snap beans intercropped with four different crops.
BS Thesis. Mountain State Agricultural College, La Trinidad, Benguet.
TOLEDO, P. E. and C. J. OLIVERSO. 1977. Growing cabbage with minimum tillage
and intercropping under MSAC condition. MSAC Research Journal. Vol. 1. No.
1. Pp. 105-113.
UICHANGCO, D. F. 1959. The intercropping of sweetpotato with corn had no
influence on maturity of the latter or its marketable green ears and stover. UP
College of Agriculture. P. 40.
VICTOR, L. B. 1979. Multiple compatibility of cabbage, tomato, bush bean and green
onion in two locations and seasons. PhD Dissertation. UPLB, College Laguna.
Pp. 37, 58, 75, 94.
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Plant height of lettuce (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
19.87
20.66
23.95
23.52
88.00
22.00
T2
19.73
20.31
24.51
25.13
89.68
22.42
T3
20.02
22.57
22.65
23.43
88.67
22.17
T4
18.21
22.03
20.90
24.38
85.52
21.38
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULAR F
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
0.05
0.01
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Replication
3
49.245
16.415
0.55ns
0.00
0.66
Factor A
3
2.354
0.785
Error
9
12.903
1.434
TOTAL
15
64.502
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 5.44
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
25
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Plant height of onion (cm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
62.72
57.56
63.18
59.72
243.18
60.80
T2
54.95
57.39
57.82
58.55
228.71
57.18
T3
56.31
56.10
61.76
62.18
236.35
59.09
T4
53.04
59.84
52.82
2.60
228.30
57.08
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TABULAR F
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
0.05
0.01
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Replication
3
35.679
11.893
1.14ns
0.40
0.38
Factor A
3
37.549
12.516
Error
9
98.541
10.949
TOTAL
15
171.769
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 5.65
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
26
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Average plant weight of lettuce (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.21
0.23
0.19
0.13
0.76
0.19
T2
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.21
0.72
0.18
T3
0.14
0.19
0.15
0.21
0.69
0.17
T4
0.15
0.26
0.14
0.22
0.77
0.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.007
0.002
0.23ns
0.23
0.87
Factor A
3
0.001
0.000
Error
9
0.013
0.001
TOTAL
15
0.021
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 20.78
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
27
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Average plant weight of green onion (kg)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.15
0.11
0.16
0.12
0.54
0.14
T2
0.10
0.06
0.11
0.10
0.37
0.09
T3
0.09
0.10
0.16
0.16
0.51
0.13
T4
0.11
0.16
0.11
0.14
0.52
0.13
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.002
0.00
1.91ns
0.48
0.19
Factor A
3
0.004
0.00
Error
9
0.007
0.00
TOTAL
15
0.013
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 23.20
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
28
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Marketable yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
7.00
7.75
6.60
4.10
25.45
6.36
T2
5.65
5.00
5.65
7.00
23.30
5.83
T3
1.85
3.25
2.50
3.75
11.35
3.13
T4
1.75
4.90
2.35
3.50
12.50
2.84
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
3.078
1.026
8.21**
0.60
0.00
Factor A
3
39.493
13.164
Error
9
14.425
1.602
TOTAL
15
56.996
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 27.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
29
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Marketable yield of green onion (kg/5 m2 plot)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
6.00
4.25
6.30
4.75
21.30
5.33
T2
2.00
1.25
2.25
2.00
7.50
1.88
T3
3.75
4.00
6.50
6.25
20.50
5.13
T4
2.25
3.25
2.25
2.75
10.50
2.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
2.976
0.992
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Factor A
3
36.608
12.202
Error
9
7.478
0.830
TOTAL
15
47.062
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
30
APPENDIX TABLE 7.Non-marketable yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
1.20
1.25
0.90
0.25
3.60
0.90
T2
0.50
1.70
1.50
1.25
4.95
1.24
T3
0.90
0.50
0.50
0.50
2.40
0.60
T4
1.25
0.25
0.50
0.90
2.90
0.73
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.131
0.043
1.36ns
0.89
0.31
Factor A
3
0.919
0.306
Error
9
2.033
0.225
TOTAL
15
3.083
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 54.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
31
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Non-marketable yield of green onion (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
T2
T3
T4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
0.89
0.31
Factor A
3
Error
9
TOTAL
15
ns = Not significant
CV (%) = 54.90
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
32
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Total yield of lettuce (kg/5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
8.20
9.00
7.50
4.35
29.05
7.26
T2
6.15
6.70
7.15
8.25
28.25
7.07
T3
2.75
3.75
3.00
4.25
13.75
3.44
T4
3.00
5.15
2.85
4.40
15.40
3.85
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
F
TABULAR F
FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
3.145
1.048
Factor A
3
49.946
16.648
8.91**
0.65
0.00
Error
9
16.810
1.867
TOTAL
15
69.901
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 25.29
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
33
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Total yield of green onion (kg/ 5 m2 plot )
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
6.00
4.25
6.30
4.75
21.30
5.33
T2
2.00
1.25
2.25
2.00
7.50
1.88
T3
3.75
4.00
6.50
6.25
20.50
5.13
T4
2.25
3.25
2.25
2.75
10.50
2.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
2.976
0.992
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Factor A
3
36.608
12.202
Error
9
7.478
0.830
TOTAL
15
47.062
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
34
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Computed yield of lettuce (t/ha)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
16.40
18.00
15.00
8.70
58.10
14.53
T2
12.30
13.40
14.30
16.50
56.50
14.13
T3
5.50
7.50
6.00
8.50
27.50
6.88
T4
6.00
10.30
5.70
8.80
30.80
7.70
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
14.241
4.747
Factor A
3
212.166
70.722
8.77**
0.63
0.00
Error
9
72.540
8.060
TOTAL
15
298.947
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 26.03
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
35
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Computed yield of green onion (t/ha)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
I
II
III
IV
TOTAL
MEAN
T1
12.00
8.50
12.60
9.50
42.60
10.65
T2
4.00
2.50
4.50
4.00
15.00
3.75
T3
7.50
8.00
13.00
2.50
41.00
10.25
T4
4.50
6.50
4.50
5.50
21.00
5.25
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF
F
TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
VALUE
0.05
0.01
Replication
3
11.905
3.968
Factor A
3
146.430
48.810
14.68**
0.36
0.00
Error
9
29.915
3.323
TOTAL
15
188.250
** = Highly significant
CV (%) = 24.39
Performance of Lettuce and Green Onion Under
an Intercropping Scheme / Narciso B. Palmero. 2009
Document Outline
- Performance of Lettuce and GreenOnion Under an Intercropping Scheme
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- Nature of the Study
- Importance of the Study
- Objectives of the Study
- Time and Place of the Study
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHOD
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Final Height at Harvest
- Average Plant Weight
- Marketable Yield
- Non-Marketable Yield
- Total Yield
- Computed Yield
- Other Observations
- Economic Analysis
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES