BIBLIOGRAPHY LANGBIS, SAMUEL P. APRIL 2007. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LANGBIS, SAMUEL P. APRIL 2007. Growth and Yield Response of Chinese
Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row and Plant Spacings. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Pepe E. Toledo, PhD
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Results revealed that the weekly plant height three weeks after seeding were
significantly taller at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm and 15 x 10 cm spacings during the first and
second weeks of measurements after transplantint. There were no significant differences
were observed from the third to the fourth and the final height at first harvest.
Spacing at 25 x 25 cm considerably increased the average marketable plant
weight but a distance of 10 x 10 cm significantly increased marketable, total and
computed marketable yields and benefit:cost ratio.
The population of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and diamond-back moth) and
the occurrence of the disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer than
with wider spacings.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Row Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Plant Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Plant Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Days from Seeding to First Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Yields and Benefit:Cost Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Incidence of Insect Pests and Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Photography Documentation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
ii
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
iii
INTRODUCTION
Pechay or Pak Choi is one of the most common leafy vegetables grown by the
farmers in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) and is usually sold in the market
year round. Two important types of pechay species are grown in the region namely: the
heading type (Brassica pekinensis Rupr) and the non-heading type (Brassica napus var.
chinensis). Both types belong to the Brassicaceae or Cruciferae family.
A newly introduced non-heading type of pechay developed by the Chinese plant
breeders is ‘Kai-lan’, also known as Chinese broccoli or Chinese kale is becoming
popular to the farmers and consumers in the country. As a member of the Brassica
oleracea group, it belongs to the Alboglabra cultivar group and of the same species as
broccoli and kale (Anon., 2006). It is described as slightly bitter leafy vegetable
featuring thick, flat, glossy blue-green leaves with thick stems and several tiny, almost
vestigial flower heads similar to those of broccoli. Its flavor is very similar to that of
broccoli, though not identical, being a bit sweeter.
‘Kai-lan’ is widely eaten in Chinese cuisine, and especially in Cantonese cuisine
(Anon., 2006). Common preparations include stir-fried with ginger and garlic, and boiled
served with oyster sauce. Unlike broccoli where only the flowering parts are normally
eaten, with this crop, the leaves and stems are eaten as well, normally sliced into bits with
the proper size and shape to be eaten with chopsticks.
Plant spacing affects plant growth and development due to competition for light,
mineral nutrients, soil moisture, air and space. In vegetable production, spacing is one of
the cultural management practices often not considered by farmers to optimize yield with
good quality produce. In Chinese kale production particularly ‘Kai-lan’, a newly
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
2
introduced species, planting distance had not yet been established as there are no reports
found in the literature.
Moreover, return on investment will be maximized if the ideal planting distance is
established in all vegetable crops. With the logarithmic population growth of the
country, it is not just the worry of the officials but the country as well. As population
increases, land area devoted for food production decreases to give way to housing and
other infrastructures. The limited area should then be utilized to its maximum to produce
food crops to provide proper nutrition to the population. It is in this context that this
study was conceived.
The experiment was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Plant Spacing
The ideal plant spacing(s) to attain a desired population in a given area to
maximize yield and quality are those spacings that will not unduly increase production
costs (Anon., 1990). As a rule, all crops tended to increase yields per unit area as plant
population is increased but up to certain limit. He added that beyond that limit, the yield
may or may not increase. The rationale of this idea is the wise utilization of area in terms
of yield and quality (Bawang, 2006). It is also noteworthy to mention that the proper
planting distance between plants depends on the growth habit, purpose, soil fertility
status, method of cultivation, pest control, and harvesting method of the variety in
question (Watts, 1972; Knott and Deanon, 1967; Kinoshita, 1972). Burton (1966) added
that if spacing is too close, the individual plant will suffer from the competition of it’s
neighbors and the growth of the crop may be impaired. But he also contradicted that if
spacing is too wide, the yield per unit area may also be lower despite increase in yield of
individual plants. Furthermore, Vicente (1978) stated that higher incidences of insect
pests and diseases were observed in carrot plants with closer spacings.
Colbong (1985) reported that in radish production, wider spacing resulted to the
enhancement of maturation, produced higher number of leaves, more larger and longer
storage roots, and heavier weight of individual storage roots.
In sweetpotato, Thompson (1959) said that closer spacings increase the yield of
marketable storage roots while Martin and Leonard (1970) stated that wider spacings tend
to produce fewer but larger storage roots. While in potato, more tubers were harvested
with closer spacing (Dampilag, 1979). Hendro and Scrnjako (1975) reported that closer
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
4
spacing likewise increased yield in potato but with higher percentage of small but lower
percentages of big tubers.
On the other hand, Bilango (1996) also reported that in heading lettuce plants
spaced spacing of 30 cm x 30 cm, resulted to the highest yield and total weight of
marketable heads while those spaced at 20 cm x 20 cm were lower. Plants spaced at 35
cm x 35 cm, 40 cm x 40 cm and 45 cm x 45 cm produced heavier heads with the least
non-marketable heads but lowest total yield.
In pole snapbean, Amboy (1981) found that plants spaced at 20 cm x 20 cm
produced the highest pod yield/plot, pod number and weight/plot, tallest plant and
computed yield/ha.
Colbong (1985) reported that radish plants spaced at 15 cm x 15 cm, 20 xm x 20
cm and 25 cm x 25 cm outyielded other spacings in terms of marketable roots and
economic value.
Row Spacing
According to Grubinger (Undated), the way vegetable rows are arranged in the
field depends on how much space a crop needs, as well as the seeding, transplanting and
cultivation equipment to be used. Row spacings that give the highest yield for particular
crops may not be suitable for cultivating weeds or for promoting air circulation to prevent
development of disease. They may not be the best when it comes time to harvest, either.
Extension publications list a dozen or more different row spacings that optimize the yield
of various vegetables, yet many growers use just one system of arranging plants in order
to enhance the efficiency of field operations. Ideally, the arrangement of rows conforms
not only to tractor wheel spacing, but also to equipment used to form beds, set
transplants, control pests, and harvest the crop, resulting in a production system that's
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
5
suited to the farm from start to finish. He cited some examples of planting systems from
three different farms as follows:.
David Trumble, of Good Earth Farm in Weare, NH, grows 40 species of
vegetables on three acres of land to supply the 80 families in his Community Supported
Agriculture program. In the past, he used many different row spacings and a lot of hand
labor in an effort to optimize the yield of each crop, but found that this approach actually
hurt his yields because without mechanization his weed control was not very effective.
Now, using a 2-row transplanter and an Earthway push seeder, he plants everything in
double rows, 24 inches apart, on flat ground.
Paul Harlow and Dennis Sauer raise 60 acres of vegetables at Harlow Farm in
Westminster, Vermont. To enhance the speed and efficiency of field operations in order
to meet the demands of wholesale markets, the dozen or so crops they raise are grown on
a 2 row/2-bed system. Each bed gets planted with two rows of crops, 14 inches apart.
Direct seeded crops such as carrots, beets, parsnip and turnips are sown with a Stanhay
precision seeder. Transplanted cabbage, lettuce, peppers and kale are set using a 4-row
Lannen transplanter.
David and Chris Colson of New Leaf Farm in Durham, Maine, grow four acres
of vegetables primarily for direct sale to restaurants. Lettuce and leafy greens are grown
in three rows per bed, with 16 inches between rows and plants staggered across the bed.
Broccoli, peppers, and tomatoes are grown in double rows 24 inches apart on the bed.
Summer squash and winter squash are grown in a single row per bed.
As mentioned above, there is no single recipe for row spacing to enhance
efficiency. Watts (1972) stated that planting distances will be about 30 to 45 cm apart
and thinning to 7 to 10 apart from the rows to reached maximum weight and growth and
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
6
development of the plants.
Plant Population Density
This term refers to the number of plants per unit area that determines land use
efficiency (Wiley, 1979). Janick (1972) added that the yield per unit area determines to a
large extent the efficiency of land utilization and that population pressure markedly affect
plant performance. He mentioned that there two types of plant density relationships.
Asymptotic relationship - the relationship between plant population and yield where the
former increases the latter. Parabolic relationships - as plant population increases to a
certain level, total yield increases but then declines as plant density further increase.
Hill (1987) stated that in low plant density planting, the plants were short, develop
many branches producing high yield due to low competition pressure.
Bawang and Kudan (1990) added that low density planting tends to enhance early
maturity in some vegetables such as cabbage and lettuce.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were Chinese kale seeds (‘Kai-lan’), fertilizers,
fungicides, insecticides, watering cans, knapsack sprayer, grabhoe, weighing scale,
identifying tags, pencil, and record book.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The treatments were as follows:
Code Row Spacing (cm/row)
Hilll Spacing (cm/apart)
Population/plot
R1
10
10
250
R2
10
15
210
R3
10
20
147
R4
15
10
200
R5
15
15
164
R6
15
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
20
130
R7
20
10
150
R8
20
15
110
R9
20
20
92
R10
25 (Farmer’s practice) 25
(Farmer’s practice) 75
Land preparation and fertilizer application. An area of 200 m2 was thoroughly
prepared and divided into four blocks. Each block was further subdivided into plots with
a dimension of 1 m x 5 m. These plots were leveled and holes were made in accordance
with the specified treatments. Chicken manure (one handful, 155 g) and complete
fertilizer at the rate of 100-100-100 kg N-P205-K20/ha were applied in the prepared holes
and mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Planting. The seeds were directly seeded in the well prepared plot and covered
thinly with soil followed by watering. Solution of nitrogenous fertilizer (46-0-0) at the
rate of 10g/16 li water was applied once to the seedlings one week after emergence.
Care and management. Other cultural management practices such as pests
control, weeding, hilling-up, and irrigation were done uniformly to ensure optimum
growth and development of the plants.
Harvesting. All plants were hand harvested using a sharp knife at the marketable
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
9
stage and was based first sign of opening of the first vestigial flower.
Data gathering. The data gathered and subjected to variance of analysis and mean
separation test by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Weekly plant height (week). This was obtained by measuring five randomly
selected sample plants by measuring from the soil line to the tip of the shoot at weekly
intervals until harvest.
2. Days from transplanting to harvesting. This was the number of days from of
direct seeding to harvesting.
3. Yield. The yield were assessed as follows:
a. Average marketable plant weight (kg). This was computed using the
formula:
Average (kg) = Total marketable plant weight (kg/plot) ¸ Number of marketable
plants
b. Marketable yield (kg/plot). All marketable plants without defects were
weighed at harvest.
c. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot). All diseased infected plants were
weighed at harvest.
d. Total yield (kg/plot). This was the weights of marketable and non-
marketable yields per plot.
e. Computed yield (t/ha). The marketable yield per plot was converted to
tons/hectare using the formula:
Yield (t/ha) = Yield (kg/5m2) x 2
where: 2 was a factor used to convert kg/5m2 to t/ha
4. Incidence of insect pests and diseases. Observations on the presence of insect
pests and diseases were done, identified and rated them using the following scale.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
10
a. Insect
Rating
Description
1
No infestation
2
1-25% of the plants/plot were infested
3
26-50% of the plants/plot were infested
4
51-75% of the plants/plot were infested
5
76-100% of the plants/plot were infested
b. Disease
Rating
Description
1
No infestation
2
1-25% of the plants/plot were infested
3
26-50% of the plants/plot were infested
4
51-75% of the plants/plot were infested
5
76-100% of the plants/plot were infested
5. Benefit:cost ratio (BCR). This was obtained by recording the man-days/ha in
transplanting and seedling costs and BCR was computed by using the formula:
BCR = Benefit-Cost ¸ Cost + 1
6. Documentation of the study through pictures.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height
The weekly plant height three weeks after seeding up to first harvesting is shown
in Table 1. During the first week of measurement, plants spaced at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm
were significantly taller that those with wider spacings with the exception of plants
spaced at 15 x 20 cm. On the second week of measurement, plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm
were markedly taller than those spaced at 20 x 15 up to 25 x 25 cm; however, plant
heights measure were comparable to other plant spacings. On the other hand, there were
no significant differences were observed from the third to the fourth and final height at
first harvest.
These results are apparently due to shading at the early stages of growth but
growth was not affected at the latter stages. Plants with closer spacings cannot grow
sidewise, instead they grew upward in search for light. This agrees well with the findings
of Mendoza
Table 1. Plant height three weeks after seeding up to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL WEEKLY HEIGHT MEASUREMENT (cm) FINAL PLANT
SPACING
HEIGHT
(cm x cm)
1
2
3
4
(cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
7.05a
14.92ab
21.39a 33.60a 40.88a
10 x 15
7.06a
15.13ab
21.25a 34.03a 41.29a
10 x 20
7.15a
13.97abc
19.65a 32.09a 41.71a
15 x 10
7.43a
15.47a
22.33a 35.07a 45.55a
15 x 15
7.25a
14.16abc
20.43a 33.63a 41.59a
15 x 20
6.69ab
13.78abc
18.17a 31.24a 41.46a
20 x 10
5.88bc
13.69abc
19.95a 31.30a 42.22a
20 x 15
5.07c
12.10c
18.70a 33.17a 42.25a
20 x 20
5.65c
13.03bc
18.72a 32.32a 39.47a
25 x 25
5.27c
12.41c
20.69a 32.30a 40.84a
(Farmer’s practice)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
(1966) that closer spacing tends to enhance the production of taller plants. However,
Cortez (1978) explained that closer spacing lead to greater competition for moisture, light
and mineral nutrients.
Days from Seeding to First Harvest
Table 1 shows that plants spaced at 20 x 15 and 25 x 25 cm (Farmer’s practice)
were significantly harvested earlier compared to those spaced at 10 x 10 up to 15 x 15 cm
but were comparable in days to harvesting with the other spacings evaluated.
These findings indicated that lower density of planting promotes faster vegetative
growth resulting to earlier maturity supporting similar observations of Bawang and
Kudan (1990) in some vegetable crops such as cabbage and lettuce. The early harvesting
in plants grown at wider spacings was similar to the observations of Villanueva (1979) in
snapbean where plants spaced at 10 x 25 cm flowered earlier than plants grown in the
other spacings studied.
Table 2. Number of days from seeding to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL SPACING (cm x cm)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
49.0a
10 x 15
48.0a
10 x 20
48.0ab
15 x 10
48.0ab
15 x 15
47.0b
15 x 20
46.0c
20 x 10
46.0cd
20 x 15
45.0d
20 x 20
45.0cd
25 x 25 (Farmer’s practice)
45.0c
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
13
Yields
The average marketable plant weight, marketable, non-marketable, total, and
computed yields and benefit:cost ratio are presented in Table 3. Plants spaced at 25 x 25
cm had considerably increased average marketable plant weight in comparison to the
other spacings evaluated except for plants spaced at 20 x 10 up to 20 x 20 cm. However,
plants spaced at 10 x 10 cm significantly produced higher marketable, total and computed
marketable yields and had higher benefit:cost ratio than plants grown in the other
spacings with the exception of plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm.
These results confirmed the statement of Anon. (1990) that as a rule, all crops
tended to increase their yield per unit area as plant population is increased but up to a
certain limit. Also, this indicates that this crop, Chinese kale, followed the asymptotic
plant density relationship wherein the yield increases as the plant population is increased
which is true for crops where only the vegetative parts are harvested (Bawang and
Kudan, 1990).
Incidence of Insect Pests
and Disease
As presented in Table 4, the occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and
diamond-back moth) and disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer
spacings than with wider spacings.
These results jibe with the findings of Vicente (1978) who found that higher
incidences of insect pests and diseases were observed in carrot planted at closer spacing.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
14
Documentation of the Study in Pictures
Figures 1 and 2 show the overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’)
plants grown from the various rows and spacings treatments.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
16
10 cm x 10 cm
10 cm x 15 cm
10 cm x 20 cm
15 cm x 10 cm
15 cm x 15 cm
15 cm x 20 cm
Figure 1a. Overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’) grown from the various plant rows and
spacings
17
20 cm x 10 cm
20 cm x 15 cm
20 cm x 20 cm
25 cm x 25 cm
Figure 1b. Overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’) grown from the various plant rows and
spacings
Table 3. Average marketable plant weight, marketable, non-marketable, total, computed yields and benefit:cost ratio
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL AVERAGE
YIELDS (kg/plot)
COMPUTED
BENEFIT:COST
SPACING
PLANT
──────────────────────────────
MARKETABLE
RATIO
(cm x cm) WEIGHT (kg) Marketable Non-marketable
Total
YIELD (t/ha)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
0.038cd
9.13a
3.22a 12.35a 18.26a
109.57a
10 x 15
0.031d 6.21bc
3.55a
9.86bc 12.42bc
74.53bc
10 x 20
0.040cd
5.21c
2.92a 7.89bc
10.42bc
42.50c
15 x 10
0.045bcd
8.44ab 3.94a
12.38a 16.88ab
101.26ab
15 x 15
0.044bcd
6.02bc
2.90a 9.00bc
12.11bc
72.69bc
15 x 20
0.044bcd
4.95c
2.58a 7.52bc
9.89c
59.37c
20 x 10
0.051bc
6.66bc
3.03a
9.70b 13.33bc
79.97bc
20 x 15
0.057abc
6.38bc
2.65a 9.03bc
12.75bc
76.52bc
20 x 20
0.062ab
5.31c
2.35a 7.66bc
10.43c
63.75c
25 x 25
0.066a
4.58c
2.47a
7.05c 9.16c
54.94c
(Farmer’ practice)
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
16
Table 4. Occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids, diamond-back moth) and
powdery mildew disease
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL SPACING (cm x cm)
INSECT PESTS
POWDERY
MILDEW
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
3.15a
2.20a
10 x 15
3.00ab
2.07ab
10 x 20
2.87ab
2.00a
15 x 10
2.87ab
2.07ab
15 x 15
2.87ab
1.70c
15 x 20
2.53c
2.00b
20 x 10
2.73c
2.00b
20 x 15
2.73c
2.00b
20 x 20
2.20d
2.00b
25 x 25 (Farmer’ practice)
2.00d
2.00b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
17
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Results revealed that the weekly plant height three weeks after seeding were
significantly taller at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm and 15 x 10 cm spacings during the first and
second measurements. No significant differences were observed from the third to fourth
and final height at first harvest.
Spacing at 25 x 25 cm considerably increased the average marketable plant
weight against the other spacings evaluated except plants spaced at 20 x 10 up to 20 x 20
cm. However, plants at 10 x 10 cm significantly produced higher marketable, total and
computed marketable yields and benefit:cost ratio than the other spacings with the
exception of plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm.
The occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and diamond-back moth) and
disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer spacings than with wider
spacings.
Conclusion
Based from the results of the study, it is therefore concluded that to obtain higher
yield and profitability, plant spacing at 10 x 10 and 15 x 10 cm be used in Chinese kale
production under open field culture.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
18
Recommendation
From the preceeding results and discussion, it is recommended that either 10 x 10
or 15 x 10 cm could be used as plant spacing for Chinese kale production during the cool
and dry season cropping. However, a similar study is further recommended for the rainy
season cropping.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
LITERATURE CITED
ALOS, J.N. 1996. Growth and yield of mustard ‘Taiping P’ as affected by plant spacing.
BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6.
AMBOY, M. 1981. Influence of different types of fertilizer study on the growth and
yield of snapbean. MS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 48.
ANONYMOUS. 2006. Kai-lan. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclop. 210.6.194.214.
_____. 1990. Vegetable Training Manual. AVRDC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC.
P.
181.
BAWANG, F.T. 2006. Production and Postharvest Technologies of Vegetables in the
Mid- elevation and High Altitude Tropics. Baguio City: Baguio Allied Printers.
P. 39.
_____ and S.L. KUDAN. 1990. Principles of production manual in Horticulture 100.
BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
BILANGO, J.G. 1996. Effect of spacing on the growth and yield of lettuce cv. Great
Lakes 54. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-2.
BURTON, W.H.. 1966. The Potato. Wageningen, The Netherlands: H. Veeman and
Zamen. Pp. 131-132.
COLBONG, Y.G.. 1985. The effect of planting distance on the growth and yield of
radish.
BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 46.
COMPAY, D.F. 1995. Effect of planting distance on the growth and yield of tomato.
BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 14.
CORTEZ, L.C. 1978. Effect of distance of planting on the growth and yield of lettuce.
BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 14.
DAMPILAG, H.B.. 1979. Influence of spacing on the maturity, some postharvest
qualities and profitability of Chinese cabbage. BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 29-30.
GRUBINGER, V. Undated. Row spacing should enhance efficiency. Univ. Vermont
Extension. Vermont. Unpaged.
HILL, M.J. 1987. Seed development, maturity and ripeness. Lecture presented during
the
Certificate on Seed Technology Course. Seed Tech. Centre, Massey
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
Univ., Palmerston North, New Zealand. P. 5.
JANICK, J. 1972. Horticultural Science. California: W.H. Freeman and Co. P.
KINOSHITA, K. 1972. Vegetable Production in the Sub-tropics and Tropics. Tokyo,
Japan: Overseas Tech. Coop. Agency. P. 272.
KNOTT, J.E. and J.R. DEANON. 1967. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia.
UPLB,
Los Baños, Laguna. P.
MARTIN, J.H. and W.H. LEONARD. 1970. Principles of Field Crop Production. New
York: McMillan. P. 281.
MENDOZA, A.V. 1966. The effect of nitrogen on the yield of snapbeans. BS Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp 16-18.
THOMPSON, H.C.. 1959. Vegetable Crops. New York: McGraw-Hill Publ., Co., Inc.
P.
560.
VICENTE, B.Y.. 1978. Effect of spacing on the root size and yield of carrots. BS
Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 23.
WATTS, R.L.. 1972. Vegetable Gardening. New York: Orange Judd Inc. P. 259.
WILEY, R.W.. 1979. Intercropping: It’s importance and research needs. I.
Competition and yield advantage. Field Crops Abstr. 32:1-10.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Plant height on the first measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
7.00
7.16
7.00
21.16
7.05
R2
7.32
6.44
7.42
21.18
7.06
R3
6.44
7.66
7.46
21.56
7.19
R4
6.38
8.00
7.92
22.30
7.43
R5
7.06
7.32
7.38
21.76
7.25
R6
6.00
6.20
7.86
20.06
6.69
R7
5.30
6.00
6.33
17.63
5.88
R8
4.20
5.00
6.02
15.22
5.07
R9
5.52
5.61
5.82
16.95
5.65
R10
5.00
5.50
5.30
15.80
5.27
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.455 1.727
Factor A
9
21.633
2.404 10.30** 2.41
5.51
Error
18
4.202 0.233
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
29.290
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.49%
Appendix Table 2. Plant height on the second measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
14.98
14.72
15.06
44.76
14.92
R2
14.68
15.84
14.88
45.40
15.13
R3
14.62
13.72
13.58
41.92
13.97
R4
15.42
16.50
14.50
46.42
15.47
R5
14.84
11.12
16.52
42.48
14.16
R6
14.06
14.50
12.68
41.24
13.78
R7
13.66
14.20
13.20
41.06
13.69
R8
11.76
12.00
12.53
36.29
12.10
R9
13.34
12.56
13.20
39.10
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
23
13.03
R10
11.04
12.40
13.80
37.24
12.41
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.294 0.147
Factor A
9
34.137 3.793
2.71* 2.41
5.51
Error
18
25.223 1.401
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
59.654
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
= Significant
Coefficient of variation = 8.54%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
24
Appendix Table 3. Plant height on the third measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
19.48
22.50
22.20
64.18
21.39
R2
19.96
22.10
21.70
63.76
21.25
R3
18.62
20.92
20.00
59.54
19.85
R4
22.02
22.18
22.80
67.00
22.33
R5
20.97
20.40
19.92
61.29
20.43
R6
13.96
19.90
20.66
54.52
18.17
R7
20.42
19.70
19.72
59.84
19.95
R8
20.30
18.40
17.40
56.10
18.70
R9
16.68
20.38
19.10
56.16
18.72
R10
20.40
17.58
24.10
62.08
20.69
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
11.928 5.964
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
25
Factor A
9
8.275 5.364 1.61ns
2.41 5.51
Error
18
59.809 3.323
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29 120.012
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 9.05%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
26
Appendix Table 4. Plant height on the fourth measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
30.00
36.80
34.00
100.80
33.60
R2
31.40
36.08
34.60
102.08
34.03
R3
29.88
33.70
32.70
96.28
32.09
R4
35.10
34.40
35.70
105.20
35.07
R5
32.04
34.40
34.44
100.88
33.63
R6
31.22
31.30
31.20
93.72
31.24
R7
31.30
31.10
31.50
93.90
31.30
R8
35.70
31.80
32.00
99.50
33.17
R9
29.72
35.00
32.24
96.96
32.32
R10
30.30
30.80
35.80
96.90
32.30
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
21.961 10.980
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
27
Factor A
9
41.127
4.570 1.22ns 2.41
5.51
Error
18
67.496 3.750
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
130.584
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 5.89%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
28
Appendix Table 5. Final plant height at first harvest (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
35.72
45.00
41.92
122.64 40.88
R2
35.32
44.50
44.04
123.86 41.29
R3
36.20
44.34
44.58
125.12 41.71
R4
43.50
44.68
48.48
136.66 45.55
R5
41.08
41.00
42.68
124.76 41.59
R6
41.24
43.84
39.30
124.38 41.46
R7
40.44
43.10
43.12
126.66 42.22
R8
44.60
40.54
41.92
127.06 42.35
R9
36.18
41.90
40.32
118.40 39.47
R10
38.92
38.40
45.20
122.52 40.84
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
88.415 44.207
Factor A
9
66.522
7.391 0.95ns 2.41
5.51
Error
18
140.384 7.799
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
295.321
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 6.69%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
29
Appendix Table 6. Number of days from seeding to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
48.0
49.0
49.0
146.0
48.67
R2
49.0
48.0
48.0
145.0
48.33
R3
48.0
48.0
48.0
144.0
48.00
R4
48.0
48.0
48.0
144.0
48.00
R5
47.0
47.0
48.0
142.0
47.33
R6
46.0
46.0
46.0
138.0
46.00
R7
46.0
46.0
45.0
137.0
45.67
R8
45.0
45.0
45.0
135.0
45.00
R9
45.0
46.0
45.0
136.0
45.33
R10
45.0
45.0
45.0
135.0
45.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.067 0.033
Factor A
9
58.533 6.504 35.84**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
3.267 0.181
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
61.867
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 0.91%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
30
Appendix Table 7. Average marketable plant weight (kg)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
0.039
0.040
0.036
0.108
0.036
R2
0.038
0.027
0.028
0.094
0.031
R3
0.047
0.036
0.036
0.114
0.038
R4
0.049
0.025
0.061
0.139
0.046
R5
0.037
0.041
0.054
0.161
0.054
R6
0.042
0.038
0.053
0.141
0.047
R7
0.055
0.048
0.049
0.156
0.052
R8
0.044
0.046
0.081
0.172
0.057
R9
0.058
0.071
0.057
0.189
0.063
R10
0.067
0.065
0.067
0.269
0.090
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.000 0.000
Factor A
9
0.008 0.001 5.85**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.003 0.000
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
0.010
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation =
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
31
23.22%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
32
Appendix Table 8. Marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
9.480
9.330
8.583
27.393 9.13
R2
7.644
5.485
5.500
18.629 6.21
R3
6.275
4.650
4.700
15.625 5.21
R4
9.010
4.805
11.500 25.315 8.44
R5
5.019
5.550
7.500
18.069 6.02
R6
4.689
4.150
6.000
14.839 4.95
R7
7.168
6.125
6.700
19.993 6.66
R8
4.956
5.075
9.100
19.131 6.38
R9
4.913
6.025
5.000
15.938 5.31
R10
4.635
4.500
4.600
13.735 4.58
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
9.218 4.609
Factor A
9
59.317 6.591 3.24*
2.41 5.51
Error
18
36.613 2.034
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
105.148
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 22.68%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
33
Appendix Table 9. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
2.740
2.715
4.195
9.650
3.22
R2
1.912
4.040
3.500
9.452
3.15
R3
1.460
3.905
3.400
8.765
2.92
R4
3.677
4.685
3.450
11.812 3.94
R5
4.007
2.450
2.250
8.707
2.90
R6
2.176
2.500
3.050
7.726
2.58
R7
3.297
3.000
2.800
9.097
3.03
R8
2.399
3.850
1.700
7.949
2.65
R9
2.045
3.400
1.600
7.045
2.35
R10
1.665
3.100
2.650
7.415
2.47
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.473 1.737
Factor A
9
5.726 0.636 0.94ns
2.41 5.51
Error
18
12.213 0.679
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
21.413
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 28.20%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
34
Appendix Table 10. Total yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
12.220 12.045 12.778
37.043 12.35
R2
9.556 9.525 9.000
28.081
9.36
R3
7.735 8.555 7.100
23.390
7.89
R4
12.687 9.490 14.950
37.127
12.38
R5
9.026 8.000 9.850
26.876
9.00
R6
6.865 6.650 9.050
22.565
7.52
R7
10.465 9.125 9.500
29.090
9.70
R8
7.355 8.925 10.800
27.080
9.03
R9
6.958 9.425 6.600
22.983
7.66
R10
6.300 7.600 7.250
21.150
7.05
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.877 1.939
Factor A
9
96.379 10.709 6.32**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
30.514 1.695
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
130.769
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Highly significant
Coefficient of
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
35
variation = 14.18%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
36
Appendix Table 11. Computed marketable yield (t/ha)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
18.960 18.660 17.166
54.786
18.26
R2
15.288 10.970 11.000
37.258
12.42
R3
12.550
9.300 9.400
31.250
10.42
R4
18.020
9.610 23.000
50.630
16.88
R5
10.038 11.100 15.200
36.338
12.11
R6
9.378 8.300 12.000
29.678
9.89
R7
14.336 12.250 13.400
39.986
13.33
R8
9.912 10.150 18.200
38.262
12.75
R9
9.826 12.050 10.000
31.876
10.63
R10
9.270 9.000 9.200
27.470
9.16
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
37.377
18.689
Factor A
9
237.069
26.341 3.22*. 2.41
5.51
Error
18
147.155
8.175
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
421.601
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
37
Coefficient of variation = 22.72%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
38
Appendix Table 12. Benefit:cost ratio
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
113.76 111.96 103.00 328.72
109.57
R2
91.73
65.82 66.00 223.55
74.53
R3
75.30
55.80 56.40 187.50
62.50
R4
108.12
57.66 138.00 303.78
101.26
R5
60.23
66.60 91.20 218.03
72.69
R6
56.27
49.80 72.00 178.07
59.37
R7
86.02
73.50 80.40 239.92
79.97
R8
59.47
60.90 109.20 229.57
76.52
R9
58.96
72.30 60.00 191.26
63.75
R10
55.62
54.00 55.20 164.82
54.94
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2 1345.673 672.836
Factor A
9 8534.611 948.290 3.22* 2.41
5.51
Error
18 5297.522 294.307
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29 15177.806
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 22.72%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
39
Appendix Table 13. Incidence of insect pests (rating)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
──────────────────────── TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
3.0
3.2
3.2
9.40
3.13
R2
2.8
3.0
3.2
9.00
3.00
R3
2.8
2.6
3.2
8.60
2.87
R4
2.8
2.8
3.0
8.60
2.87
R5
3.0
2.8
2.8
8.60
2.87
R6
2.6
2.6
2.4
7.60
2.53
R7
2.8
2.8
2.6
8.20
2.73
R8
2.8
2.8
2.6
8.20
2.73
R9
2.0
2.2
2.4
6.60
2.20
R10
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.035 0.017
Factor A
9
3.392 0.377 14.37**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.472 0.026
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
3.899
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 6.01%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
14
Appendix Table 14. Incidence of powdery mildew (rating)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
──────────────────────── TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
2.2
2.4
2.0
6.60
2.20
R2
2.0
2.2
2.0
6.20
2.07
R3
2.0
2.2
1.8
6.00
2.00
R4
2.0
2.2
2.0
6.20
2.07
R5
1.8
1.8
1.8
5.40
1.80
R6
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R7
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R8
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R9
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R10
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.075 0.037
Factor A
9
0.261 0.029 3.77*
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.139 0.008
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
0.475
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.36%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
LANGBIS, SAMUEL P. APRIL 2007. Growth and Yield Response of Chinese
Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row and Plant Spacings. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Pepe E. Toledo, PhD
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Results revealed that the weekly plant height three weeks after seeding were
significantly taller at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm and 15 x 10 cm spacings during the first and
second weeks of measurements after transplantint. There were no significant differences
were observed from the third to the fourth and the final height at first harvest.
Spacing at 25 x 25 cm considerably increased the average marketable plant
weight but a distance of 10 x 10 cm significantly increased marketable, total and
computed marketable yields and benefit:cost ratio.
The population of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and diamond-back moth) and
the occurrence of the disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer than
with wider spacings.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Row Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Plant Spacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Plant Population Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Days from Seeding to First Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Yields and Benefit:Cost Ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
Incidence of Insect Pests and Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Photography Documentation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
ii
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
iii
INTRODUCTION
Pechay or Pak Choi is one of the most common leafy vegetables grown by the
farmers in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) and is usually sold in the market
year round. Two important types of pechay species are grown in the region namely: the
heading type (Brassica pekinensis Rupr) and the non-heading type (Brassica napus var.
chinensis). Both types belong to the Brassicaceae or Cruciferae family.
A newly introduced non-heading type of pechay developed by the Chinese plant
breeders is ‘Kai-lan’, also known as Chinese broccoli or Chinese kale is becoming
popular to the farmers and consumers in the country. As a member of the Brassica
oleracea group, it belongs to the Alboglabra cultivar group and of the same species as
broccoli and kale (Anon., 2006). It is described as slightly bitter leafy vegetable
featuring thick, flat, glossy blue-green leaves with thick stems and several tiny, almost
vestigial flower heads similar to those of broccoli. Its flavor is very similar to that of
broccoli, though not identical, being a bit sweeter.
‘Kai-lan’ is widely eaten in Chinese cuisine, and especially in Cantonese cuisine
(Anon., 2006). Common preparations include stir-fried with ginger and garlic, and boiled
served with oyster sauce. Unlike broccoli where only the flowering parts are normally
eaten, with this crop, the leaves and stems are eaten as well, normally sliced into bits with
the proper size and shape to be eaten with chopsticks.
Plant spacing affects plant growth and development due to competition for light,
mineral nutrients, soil moisture, air and space. In vegetable production, spacing is one of
the cultural management practices often not considered by farmers to optimize yield with
good quality produce. In Chinese kale production particularly ‘Kai-lan’, a newly
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
2
introduced species, planting distance had not yet been established as there are no reports
found in the literature.
Moreover, return on investment will be maximized if the ideal planting distance is
established in all vegetable crops. With the logarithmic population growth of the
country, it is not just the worry of the officials but the country as well. As population
increases, land area devoted for food production decreases to give way to housing and
other infrastructures. The limited area should then be utilized to its maximum to produce
food crops to provide proper nutrition to the population. It is in this context that this
study was conceived.
The experiment was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Plant Spacing
The ideal plant spacing(s) to attain a desired population in a given area to
maximize yield and quality are those spacings that will not unduly increase production
costs (Anon., 1990). As a rule, all crops tended to increase yields per unit area as plant
population is increased but up to certain limit. He added that beyond that limit, the yield
may or may not increase. The rationale of this idea is the wise utilization of area in terms
of yield and quality (Bawang, 2006). It is also noteworthy to mention that the proper
planting distance between plants depends on the growth habit, purpose, soil fertility
status, method of cultivation, pest control, and harvesting method of the variety in
question (Watts, 1972; Knott and Deanon, 1967; Kinoshita, 1972). Burton (1966) added
that if spacing is too close, the individual plant will suffer from the competition of it’s
neighbors and the growth of the crop may be impaired. But he also contradicted that if
spacing is too wide, the yield per unit area may also be lower despite increase in yield of
individual plants. Furthermore, Vicente (1978) stated that higher incidences of insect
pests and diseases were observed in carrot plants with closer spacings.
Colbong (1985) reported that in radish production, wider spacing resulted to the
enhancement of maturation, produced higher number of leaves, more larger and longer
storage roots, and heavier weight of individual storage roots.
In sweetpotato, Thompson (1959) said that closer spacings increase the yield of
marketable storage roots while Martin and Leonard (1970) stated that wider spacings tend
to produce fewer but larger storage roots. While in potato, more tubers were harvested
with closer spacing (Dampilag, 1979). Hendro and Scrnjako (1975) reported that closer
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
4
spacing likewise increased yield in potato but with higher percentage of small but lower
percentages of big tubers.
On the other hand, Bilango (1996) also reported that in heading lettuce plants
spaced spacing of 30 cm x 30 cm, resulted to the highest yield and total weight of
marketable heads while those spaced at 20 cm x 20 cm were lower. Plants spaced at 35
cm x 35 cm, 40 cm x 40 cm and 45 cm x 45 cm produced heavier heads with the least
non-marketable heads but lowest total yield.
In pole snapbean, Amboy (1981) found that plants spaced at 20 cm x 20 cm
produced the highest pod yield/plot, pod number and weight/plot, tallest plant and
computed yield/ha.
Colbong (1985) reported that radish plants spaced at 15 cm x 15 cm, 20 xm x 20
cm and 25 cm x 25 cm outyielded other spacings in terms of marketable roots and
economic value.
Row Spacing
According to Grubinger (Undated), the way vegetable rows are arranged in the
field depends on how much space a crop needs, as well as the seeding, transplanting and
cultivation equipment to be used. Row spacings that give the highest yield for particular
crops may not be suitable for cultivating weeds or for promoting air circulation to prevent
development of disease. They may not be the best when it comes time to harvest, either.
Extension publications list a dozen or more different row spacings that optimize the yield
of various vegetables, yet many growers use just one system of arranging plants in order
to enhance the efficiency of field operations. Ideally, the arrangement of rows conforms
not only to tractor wheel spacing, but also to equipment used to form beds, set
transplants, control pests, and harvest the crop, resulting in a production system that's
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
5
suited to the farm from start to finish. He cited some examples of planting systems from
three different farms as follows:.
David Trumble, of Good Earth Farm in Weare, NH, grows 40 species of
vegetables on three acres of land to supply the 80 families in his Community Supported
Agriculture program. In the past, he used many different row spacings and a lot of hand
labor in an effort to optimize the yield of each crop, but found that this approach actually
hurt his yields because without mechanization his weed control was not very effective.
Now, using a 2-row transplanter and an Earthway push seeder, he plants everything in
double rows, 24 inches apart, on flat ground.
Paul Harlow and Dennis Sauer raise 60 acres of vegetables at Harlow Farm in
Westminster, Vermont. To enhance the speed and efficiency of field operations in order
to meet the demands of wholesale markets, the dozen or so crops they raise are grown on
a 2 row/2-bed system. Each bed gets planted with two rows of crops, 14 inches apart.
Direct seeded crops such as carrots, beets, parsnip and turnips are sown with a Stanhay
precision seeder. Transplanted cabbage, lettuce, peppers and kale are set using a 4-row
Lannen transplanter.
David and Chris Colson of New Leaf Farm in Durham, Maine, grow four acres
of vegetables primarily for direct sale to restaurants. Lettuce and leafy greens are grown
in three rows per bed, with 16 inches between rows and plants staggered across the bed.
Broccoli, peppers, and tomatoes are grown in double rows 24 inches apart on the bed.
Summer squash and winter squash are grown in a single row per bed.
As mentioned above, there is no single recipe for row spacing to enhance
efficiency. Watts (1972) stated that planting distances will be about 30 to 45 cm apart
and thinning to 7 to 10 apart from the rows to reached maximum weight and growth and
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
6
development of the plants.
Plant Population Density
This term refers to the number of plants per unit area that determines land use
efficiency (Wiley, 1979). Janick (1972) added that the yield per unit area determines to a
large extent the efficiency of land utilization and that population pressure markedly affect
plant performance. He mentioned that there two types of plant density relationships.
Asymptotic relationship - the relationship between plant population and yield where the
former increases the latter. Parabolic relationships - as plant population increases to a
certain level, total yield increases but then declines as plant density further increase.
Hill (1987) stated that in low plant density planting, the plants were short, develop
many branches producing high yield due to low competition pressure.
Bawang and Kudan (1990) added that low density planting tends to enhance early
maturity in some vegetables such as cabbage and lettuce.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in the study were Chinese kale seeds (‘Kai-lan’), fertilizers,
fungicides, insecticides, watering cans, knapsack sprayer, grabhoe, weighing scale,
identifying tags, pencil, and record book.
Methods
Experimental design and treatments. The experiment was laid out in randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. The treatments were as follows:
Code Row Spacing (cm/row)
Hilll Spacing (cm/apart)
Population/plot
R1
10
10
250
R2
10
15
210
R3
10
20
147
R4
15
10
200
R5
15
15
164
R6
15
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
20
130
R7
20
10
150
R8
20
15
110
R9
20
20
92
R10
25 (Farmer’s practice) 25
(Farmer’s practice) 75
Land preparation and fertilizer application. An area of 200 m2 was thoroughly
prepared and divided into four blocks. Each block was further subdivided into plots with
a dimension of 1 m x 5 m. These plots were leveled and holes were made in accordance
with the specified treatments. Chicken manure (one handful, 155 g) and complete
fertilizer at the rate of 100-100-100 kg N-P205-K20/ha were applied in the prepared holes
and mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Planting. The seeds were directly seeded in the well prepared plot and covered
thinly with soil followed by watering. Solution of nitrogenous fertilizer (46-0-0) at the
rate of 10g/16 li water was applied once to the seedlings one week after emergence.
Care and management. Other cultural management practices such as pests
control, weeding, hilling-up, and irrigation were done uniformly to ensure optimum
growth and development of the plants.
Harvesting. All plants were hand harvested using a sharp knife at the marketable
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
9
stage and was based first sign of opening of the first vestigial flower.
Data gathering. The data gathered and subjected to variance of analysis and mean
separation test by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) were as follows:
1. Weekly plant height (week). This was obtained by measuring five randomly
selected sample plants by measuring from the soil line to the tip of the shoot at weekly
intervals until harvest.
2. Days from transplanting to harvesting. This was the number of days from of
direct seeding to harvesting.
3. Yield. The yield were assessed as follows:
a. Average marketable plant weight (kg). This was computed using the
formula:
Average (kg) = Total marketable plant weight (kg/plot) ¸ Number of marketable
plants
b. Marketable yield (kg/plot). All marketable plants without defects were
weighed at harvest.
c. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot). All diseased infected plants were
weighed at harvest.
d. Total yield (kg/plot). This was the weights of marketable and non-
marketable yields per plot.
e. Computed yield (t/ha). The marketable yield per plot was converted to
tons/hectare using the formula:
Yield (t/ha) = Yield (kg/5m2) x 2
where: 2 was a factor used to convert kg/5m2 to t/ha
4. Incidence of insect pests and diseases. Observations on the presence of insect
pests and diseases were done, identified and rated them using the following scale.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
10
a. Insect
Rating
Description
1
No infestation
2
1-25% of the plants/plot were infested
3
26-50% of the plants/plot were infested
4
51-75% of the plants/plot were infested
5
76-100% of the plants/plot were infested
b. Disease
Rating
Description
1
No infestation
2
1-25% of the plants/plot were infested
3
26-50% of the plants/plot were infested
4
51-75% of the plants/plot were infested
5
76-100% of the plants/plot were infested
5. Benefit:cost ratio (BCR). This was obtained by recording the man-days/ha in
transplanting and seedling costs and BCR was computed by using the formula:
BCR = Benefit-Cost ¸ Cost + 1
6. Documentation of the study through pictures.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height
The weekly plant height three weeks after seeding up to first harvesting is shown
in Table 1. During the first week of measurement, plants spaced at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm
were significantly taller that those with wider spacings with the exception of plants
spaced at 15 x 20 cm. On the second week of measurement, plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm
were markedly taller than those spaced at 20 x 15 up to 25 x 25 cm; however, plant
heights measure were comparable to other plant spacings. On the other hand, there were
no significant differences were observed from the third to the fourth and final height at
first harvest.
These results are apparently due to shading at the early stages of growth but
growth was not affected at the latter stages. Plants with closer spacings cannot grow
sidewise, instead they grew upward in search for light. This agrees well with the findings
of Mendoza
Table 1. Plant height three weeks after seeding up to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL WEEKLY HEIGHT MEASUREMENT (cm) FINAL PLANT
SPACING
HEIGHT
(cm x cm)
1
2
3
4
(cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
7.05a
14.92ab
21.39a 33.60a 40.88a
10 x 15
7.06a
15.13ab
21.25a 34.03a 41.29a
10 x 20
7.15a
13.97abc
19.65a 32.09a 41.71a
15 x 10
7.43a
15.47a
22.33a 35.07a 45.55a
15 x 15
7.25a
14.16abc
20.43a 33.63a 41.59a
15 x 20
6.69ab
13.78abc
18.17a 31.24a 41.46a
20 x 10
5.88bc
13.69abc
19.95a 31.30a 42.22a
20 x 15
5.07c
12.10c
18.70a 33.17a 42.25a
20 x 20
5.65c
13.03bc
18.72a 32.32a 39.47a
25 x 25
5.27c
12.41c
20.69a 32.30a 40.84a
(Farmer’s practice)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
(1966) that closer spacing tends to enhance the production of taller plants. However,
Cortez (1978) explained that closer spacing lead to greater competition for moisture, light
and mineral nutrients.
Days from Seeding to First Harvest
Table 1 shows that plants spaced at 20 x 15 and 25 x 25 cm (Farmer’s practice)
were significantly harvested earlier compared to those spaced at 10 x 10 up to 15 x 15 cm
but were comparable in days to harvesting with the other spacings evaluated.
These findings indicated that lower density of planting promotes faster vegetative
growth resulting to earlier maturity supporting similar observations of Bawang and
Kudan (1990) in some vegetable crops such as cabbage and lettuce. The early harvesting
in plants grown at wider spacings was similar to the observations of Villanueva (1979) in
snapbean where plants spaced at 10 x 25 cm flowered earlier than plants grown in the
other spacings studied.
Table 2. Number of days from seeding to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL SPACING (cm x cm)
MEAN (cm)
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
49.0a
10 x 15
48.0a
10 x 20
48.0ab
15 x 10
48.0ab
15 x 15
47.0b
15 x 20
46.0c
20 x 10
46.0cd
20 x 15
45.0d
20 x 20
45.0cd
25 x 25 (Farmer’s practice)
45.0c
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
13
Yields
The average marketable plant weight, marketable, non-marketable, total, and
computed yields and benefit:cost ratio are presented in Table 3. Plants spaced at 25 x 25
cm had considerably increased average marketable plant weight in comparison to the
other spacings evaluated except for plants spaced at 20 x 10 up to 20 x 20 cm. However,
plants spaced at 10 x 10 cm significantly produced higher marketable, total and computed
marketable yields and had higher benefit:cost ratio than plants grown in the other
spacings with the exception of plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm.
These results confirmed the statement of Anon. (1990) that as a rule, all crops
tended to increase their yield per unit area as plant population is increased but up to a
certain limit. Also, this indicates that this crop, Chinese kale, followed the asymptotic
plant density relationship wherein the yield increases as the plant population is increased
which is true for crops where only the vegetative parts are harvested (Bawang and
Kudan, 1990).
Incidence of Insect Pests
and Disease
As presented in Table 4, the occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and
diamond-back moth) and disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer
spacings than with wider spacings.
These results jibe with the findings of Vicente (1978) who found that higher
incidences of insect pests and diseases were observed in carrot planted at closer spacing.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
14
Documentation of the Study in Pictures
Figures 1 and 2 show the overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’)
plants grown from the various rows and spacings treatments.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
16
10 cm x 10 cm
10 cm x 15 cm
10 cm x 20 cm
15 cm x 10 cm
15 cm x 15 cm
15 cm x 20 cm
Figure 1a. Overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’) grown from the various plant rows and
spacings
17
20 cm x 10 cm
20 cm x 15 cm
20 cm x 20 cm
25 cm x 25 cm
Figure 1b. Overview of the harvested Chinese kale (‘Kai-lan’) grown from the various plant rows and
spacings
Table 3. Average marketable plant weight, marketable, non-marketable, total, computed yields and benefit:cost ratio
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL AVERAGE
YIELDS (kg/plot)
COMPUTED
BENEFIT:COST
SPACING
PLANT
──────────────────────────────
MARKETABLE
RATIO
(cm x cm) WEIGHT (kg) Marketable Non-marketable
Total
YIELD (t/ha)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
0.038cd
9.13a
3.22a 12.35a 18.26a
109.57a
10 x 15
0.031d 6.21bc
3.55a
9.86bc 12.42bc
74.53bc
10 x 20
0.040cd
5.21c
2.92a 7.89bc
10.42bc
42.50c
15 x 10
0.045bcd
8.44ab 3.94a
12.38a 16.88ab
101.26ab
15 x 15
0.044bcd
6.02bc
2.90a 9.00bc
12.11bc
72.69bc
15 x 20
0.044bcd
4.95c
2.58a 7.52bc
9.89c
59.37c
20 x 10
0.051bc
6.66bc
3.03a
9.70b 13.33bc
79.97bc
20 x 15
0.057abc
6.38bc
2.65a 9.03bc
12.75bc
76.52bc
20 x 20
0.062ab
5.31c
2.35a 7.66bc
10.43c
63.75c
25 x 25
0.066a
4.58c
2.47a
7.05c 9.16c
54.94c
(Farmer’ practice)
═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
16
Table 4. Occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids, diamond-back moth) and
powdery mildew disease
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ROW X HILL SPACING (cm x cm)
INSECT PESTS
POWDERY
MILDEW
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
10 x 10
3.15a
2.20a
10 x 15
3.00ab
2.07ab
10 x 20
2.87ab
2.00a
15 x 10
2.87ab
2.07ab
15 x 15
2.87ab
1.70c
15 x 20
2.53c
2.00b
20 x 10
2.73c
2.00b
20 x 15
2.73c
2.00b
20 x 20
2.20d
2.00b
25 x 25 (Farmer’ practice)
2.00d
2.00b
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
In a column, means with a common letter are not significantly different at 5% by DMRT
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
17
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Balili Experiment Station, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2006 to January 2007 to determine the
effects of row and plant spacings on the growth and yield, establish the best row and
plant spacings, and assess the economics of the different row and plant spacings for ‘Kai-
lan’ production.
Results revealed that the weekly plant height three weeks after seeding were
significantly taller at 10 x 10 to 15 x 15 cm and 15 x 10 cm spacings during the first and
second measurements. No significant differences were observed from the third to fourth
and final height at first harvest.
Spacing at 25 x 25 cm considerably increased the average marketable plant
weight against the other spacings evaluated except plants spaced at 20 x 10 up to 20 x 20
cm. However, plants at 10 x 10 cm significantly produced higher marketable, total and
computed marketable yields and benefit:cost ratio than the other spacings with the
exception of plants spaced at 15 x 10 cm.
The occurrence of insect pests (flea beetles, aphids and diamond-back moth) and
disease (powdery mildew) was significantly higher with closer spacings than with wider
spacings.
Conclusion
Based from the results of the study, it is therefore concluded that to obtain higher
yield and profitability, plant spacing at 10 x 10 and 15 x 10 cm be used in Chinese kale
production under open field culture.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
18
Recommendation
From the preceeding results and discussion, it is recommended that either 10 x 10
or 15 x 10 cm could be used as plant spacing for Chinese kale production during the cool
and dry season cropping. However, a similar study is further recommended for the rainy
season cropping.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
LITERATURE CITED
ALOS, J.N. 1996. Growth and yield of mustard ‘Taiping P’ as affected by plant spacing.
BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6.
AMBOY, M. 1981. Influence of different types of fertilizer study on the growth and
yield of snapbean. MS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 48.
ANONYMOUS. 2006. Kai-lan. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclop. 210.6.194.214.
_____. 1990. Vegetable Training Manual. AVRDC, Shanhua, Tainan, Taiwan, ROC.
P.
181.
BAWANG, F.T. 2006. Production and Postharvest Technologies of Vegetables in the
Mid- elevation and High Altitude Tropics. Baguio City: Baguio Allied Printers.
P. 39.
_____ and S.L. KUDAN. 1990. Principles of production manual in Horticulture 100.
BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
BILANGO, J.G. 1996. Effect of spacing on the growth and yield of lettuce cv. Great
Lakes 54. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-2.
BURTON, W.H.. 1966. The Potato. Wageningen, The Netherlands: H. Veeman and
Zamen. Pp. 131-132.
COLBONG, Y.G.. 1985. The effect of planting distance on the growth and yield of
radish.
BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 46.
COMPAY, D.F. 1995. Effect of planting distance on the growth and yield of tomato.
BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 14.
CORTEZ, L.C. 1978. Effect of distance of planting on the growth and yield of lettuce.
BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 14.
DAMPILAG, H.B.. 1979. Influence of spacing on the maturity, some postharvest
qualities and profitability of Chinese cabbage. BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 29-30.
GRUBINGER, V. Undated. Row spacing should enhance efficiency. Univ. Vermont
Extension. Vermont. Unpaged.
HILL, M.J. 1987. Seed development, maturity and ripeness. Lecture presented during
the
Certificate on Seed Technology Course. Seed Tech. Centre, Massey
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
Univ., Palmerston North, New Zealand. P. 5.
JANICK, J. 1972. Horticultural Science. California: W.H. Freeman and Co. P.
KINOSHITA, K. 1972. Vegetable Production in the Sub-tropics and Tropics. Tokyo,
Japan: Overseas Tech. Coop. Agency. P. 272.
KNOTT, J.E. and J.R. DEANON. 1967. Vegetable Production in Southeast Asia.
UPLB,
Los Baños, Laguna. P.
MARTIN, J.H. and W.H. LEONARD. 1970. Principles of Field Crop Production. New
York: McMillan. P. 281.
MENDOZA, A.V. 1966. The effect of nitrogen on the yield of snapbeans. BS Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp 16-18.
THOMPSON, H.C.. 1959. Vegetable Crops. New York: McGraw-Hill Publ., Co., Inc.
P.
560.
VICENTE, B.Y.. 1978. Effect of spacing on the root size and yield of carrots. BS
Thesis.
MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 23.
WATTS, R.L.. 1972. Vegetable Gardening. New York: Orange Judd Inc. P. 259.
WILEY, R.W.. 1979. Intercropping: It’s importance and research needs. I.
Competition and yield advantage. Field Crops Abstr. 32:1-10.
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Plant height on the first measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
7.00
7.16
7.00
21.16
7.05
R2
7.32
6.44
7.42
21.18
7.06
R3
6.44
7.66
7.46
21.56
7.19
R4
6.38
8.00
7.92
22.30
7.43
R5
7.06
7.32
7.38
21.76
7.25
R6
6.00
6.20
7.86
20.06
6.69
R7
5.30
6.00
6.33
17.63
5.88
R8
4.20
5.00
6.02
15.22
5.07
R9
5.52
5.61
5.82
16.95
5.65
R10
5.00
5.50
5.30
15.80
5.27
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.455 1.727
Factor A
9
21.633
2.404 10.30** 2.41
5.51
Error
18
4.202 0.233
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
29.290
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.49%
Appendix Table 2. Plant height on the second measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
14.98
14.72
15.06
44.76
14.92
R2
14.68
15.84
14.88
45.40
15.13
R3
14.62
13.72
13.58
41.92
13.97
R4
15.42
16.50
14.50
46.42
15.47
R5
14.84
11.12
16.52
42.48
14.16
R6
14.06
14.50
12.68
41.24
13.78
R7
13.66
14.20
13.20
41.06
13.69
R8
11.76
12.00
12.53
36.29
12.10
R9
13.34
12.56
13.20
39.10
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
23
13.03
R10
11.04
12.40
13.80
37.24
12.41
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.294 0.147
Factor A
9
34.137 3.793
2.71* 2.41
5.51
Error
18
25.223 1.401
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
59.654
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
= Significant
Coefficient of variation = 8.54%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
24
Appendix Table 3. Plant height on the third measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
19.48
22.50
22.20
64.18
21.39
R2
19.96
22.10
21.70
63.76
21.25
R3
18.62
20.92
20.00
59.54
19.85
R4
22.02
22.18
22.80
67.00
22.33
R5
20.97
20.40
19.92
61.29
20.43
R6
13.96
19.90
20.66
54.52
18.17
R7
20.42
19.70
19.72
59.84
19.95
R8
20.30
18.40
17.40
56.10
18.70
R9
16.68
20.38
19.10
56.16
18.72
R10
20.40
17.58
24.10
62.08
20.69
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
11.928 5.964
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
25
Factor A
9
8.275 5.364 1.61ns
2.41 5.51
Error
18
59.809 3.323
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29 120.012
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 9.05%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
26
Appendix Table 4. Plant height on the fourth measurement (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
30.00
36.80
34.00
100.80
33.60
R2
31.40
36.08
34.60
102.08
34.03
R3
29.88
33.70
32.70
96.28
32.09
R4
35.10
34.40
35.70
105.20
35.07
R5
32.04
34.40
34.44
100.88
33.63
R6
31.22
31.30
31.20
93.72
31.24
R7
31.30
31.10
31.50
93.90
31.30
R8
35.70
31.80
32.00
99.50
33.17
R9
29.72
35.00
32.24
96.96
32.32
R10
30.30
30.80
35.80
96.90
32.30
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
21.961 10.980
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
27
Factor A
9
41.127
4.570 1.22ns 2.41
5.51
Error
18
67.496 3.750
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
130.584
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 5.89%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
28
Appendix Table 5. Final plant height at first harvest (cm)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
35.72
45.00
41.92
122.64 40.88
R2
35.32
44.50
44.04
123.86 41.29
R3
36.20
44.34
44.58
125.12 41.71
R4
43.50
44.68
48.48
136.66 45.55
R5
41.08
41.00
42.68
124.76 41.59
R6
41.24
43.84
39.30
124.38 41.46
R7
40.44
43.10
43.12
126.66 42.22
R8
44.60
40.54
41.92
127.06 42.35
R9
36.18
41.90
40.32
118.40 39.47
R10
38.92
38.40
45.20
122.52 40.84
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
88.415 44.207
Factor A
9
66.522
7.391 0.95ns 2.41
5.51
Error
18
140.384 7.799
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
295.321
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 6.69%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
29
Appendix Table 6. Number of days from seeding to first harvest
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
48.0
49.0
49.0
146.0
48.67
R2
49.0
48.0
48.0
145.0
48.33
R3
48.0
48.0
48.0
144.0
48.00
R4
48.0
48.0
48.0
144.0
48.00
R5
47.0
47.0
48.0
142.0
47.33
R6
46.0
46.0
46.0
138.0
46.00
R7
46.0
46.0
45.0
137.0
45.67
R8
45.0
45.0
45.0
135.0
45.00
R9
45.0
46.0
45.0
136.0
45.33
R10
45.0
45.0
45.0
135.0
45.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.067 0.033
Factor A
9
58.533 6.504 35.84**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
3.267 0.181
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
61.867
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 0.91%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
30
Appendix Table 7. Average marketable plant weight (kg)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
0.039
0.040
0.036
0.108
0.036
R2
0.038
0.027
0.028
0.094
0.031
R3
0.047
0.036
0.036
0.114
0.038
R4
0.049
0.025
0.061
0.139
0.046
R5
0.037
0.041
0.054
0.161
0.054
R6
0.042
0.038
0.053
0.141
0.047
R7
0.055
0.048
0.049
0.156
0.052
R8
0.044
0.046
0.081
0.172
0.057
R9
0.058
0.071
0.057
0.189
0.063
R10
0.067
0.065
0.067
0.269
0.090
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.000 0.000
Factor A
9
0.008 0.001 5.85**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.003 0.000
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
0.010
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation =
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
31
23.22%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
32
Appendix Table 8. Marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
9.480
9.330
8.583
27.393 9.13
R2
7.644
5.485
5.500
18.629 6.21
R3
6.275
4.650
4.700
15.625 5.21
R4
9.010
4.805
11.500 25.315 8.44
R5
5.019
5.550
7.500
18.069 6.02
R6
4.689
4.150
6.000
14.839 4.95
R7
7.168
6.125
6.700
19.993 6.66
R8
4.956
5.075
9.100
19.131 6.38
R9
4.913
6.025
5.000
15.938 5.31
R10
4.635
4.500
4.600
13.735 4.58
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
9.218 4.609
Factor A
9
59.317 6.591 3.24*
2.41 5.51
Error
18
36.613 2.034
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
105.148
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 22.68%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
33
Appendix Table 9. Non-marketable yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
2.740
2.715
4.195
9.650
3.22
R2
1.912
4.040
3.500
9.452
3.15
R3
1.460
3.905
3.400
8.765
2.92
R4
3.677
4.685
3.450
11.812 3.94
R5
4.007
2.450
2.250
8.707
2.90
R6
2.176
2.500
3.050
7.726
2.58
R7
3.297
3.000
2.800
9.097
3.03
R8
2.399
3.850
1.700
7.949
2.65
R9
2.045
3.400
1.600
7.045
2.35
R10
1.665
3.100
2.650
7.415
2.47
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.473 1.737
Factor A
9
5.726 0.636 0.94ns
2.41 5.51
Error
18
12.213 0.679
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
21.413
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
ns = Not significant
Coefficient of variation = 28.20%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
34
Appendix Table 10. Total yield (kg/plot)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
12.220 12.045 12.778
37.043 12.35
R2
9.556 9.525 9.000
28.081
9.36
R3
7.735 8.555 7.100
23.390
7.89
R4
12.687 9.490 14.950
37.127
12.38
R5
9.026 8.000 9.850
26.876
9.00
R6
6.865 6.650 9.050
22.565
7.52
R7
10.465 9.125 9.500
29.090
9.70
R8
7.355 8.925 10.800
27.080
9.03
R9
6.958 9.425 6.600
22.983
7.66
R10
6.300 7.600 7.250
21.150
7.05
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
3.877 1.939
Factor A
9
96.379 10.709 6.32**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
30.514 1.695
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
130.769
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Highly significant
Coefficient of
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
35
variation = 14.18%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
36
Appendix Table 11. Computed marketable yield (t/ha)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
18.960 18.660 17.166
54.786
18.26
R2
15.288 10.970 11.000
37.258
12.42
R3
12.550
9.300 9.400
31.250
10.42
R4
18.020
9.610 23.000
50.630
16.88
R5
10.038 11.100 15.200
36.338
12.11
R6
9.378 8.300 12.000
29.678
9.89
R7
14.336 12.250 13.400
39.986
13.33
R8
9.912 10.150 18.200
38.262
12.75
R9
9.826 12.050 10.000
31.876
10.63
R10
9.270 9.000 9.200
27.470
9.16
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
37.377
18.689
Factor A
9
237.069
26.341 3.22*. 2.41
5.51
Error
18
147.155
8.175
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
421.601
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
37
Coefficient of variation = 22.72%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
38
Appendix Table 12. Benefit:cost ratio
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
────────────────────────
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
113.76 111.96 103.00 328.72
109.57
R2
91.73
65.82 66.00 223.55
74.53
R3
75.30
55.80 56.40 187.50
62.50
R4
108.12
57.66 138.00 303.78
101.26
R5
60.23
66.60 91.20 218.03
72.69
R6
56.27
49.80 72.00 178.07
59.37
R7
86.02
73.50 80.40 239.92
79.97
R8
59.47
60.90 109.20 229.57
76.52
R9
58.96
72.30 60.00 191.26
63.75
R10
55.62
54.00 55.20 164.82
54.94
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2 1345.673 672.836
Factor A
9 8534.611 948.290 3.22* 2.41
5.51
Error
18 5297.522 294.307
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29 15177.806
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 22.72%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
39
Appendix Table 13. Incidence of insect pests (rating)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
──────────────────────── TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
3.0
3.2
3.2
9.40
3.13
R2
2.8
3.0
3.2
9.00
3.00
R3
2.8
2.6
3.2
8.60
2.87
R4
2.8
2.8
3.0
8.60
2.87
R5
3.0
2.8
2.8
8.60
2.87
R6
2.6
2.6
2.4
7.60
2.53
R7
2.8
2.8
2.6
8.20
2.73
R8
2.8
2.8
2.6
8.20
2.73
R9
2.0
2.2
2.4
6.60
2.20
R10
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.035 0.017
Factor A
9
3.392 0.377 14.37**
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.472 0.026
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
3.899
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 6.01%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
14
Appendix Table 14. Incidence of powdery mildew (rating)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
──────────────────────── TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
R1
2.2
2.4
2.0
6.60
2.20
R2
2.0
2.2
2.0
6.20
2.07
R3
2.0
2.2
1.8
6.00
2.00
R4
2.0
2.2
2.0
6.20
2.07
R5
1.8
1.8
1.8
5.40
1.80
R6
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R7
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R8
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R9
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
R10
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.00
2.00
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Analysis of Variance
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Source of
Degrees of
Sum of
Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation
freedom
squares square
F
0.05
0.01
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Replication 2
0.075 0.037
Factor A
9
0.261 0.029 3.77*
2.41 5.51
Error
18
0.139 0.008
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Total
29
0.475
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 4.36%
Growth and Yield Response of Chinese Kale (‘Kai-lan’) to Row
and Plant Spacings / Samuel P. Langbis. 2007
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield Response of ChineseKale (�Kai-lan�) to Row and Plant Spacings
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Plant Spacing
- Row Spacing
- Plant Population Density
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Plant Height
- Days from Seeding to First Harvest
- Yields
- Incidence of Insect Pestsand Disease
- Documentation of the Study in Pictures
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES