BIBLIOGRAPHY

KILILIT, DELMAR C. October 2007. Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus
limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry
System in Mankayan, Benguet. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Christopher P. Deponio
ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine the performance of Meyer lemon (Citrus
limon L.) under different irrigation schedules (farmers’ practice-rain fed, and weekly,
fortnightly and monthly irrigation) and fertilizer application schedules (farmers practice-
no fertilizer applied, monthly fertilization, quarterly fertilization, semi-annual fertilization
at recommended rates (Triple 14 at 500 g per tree/year and chicken manure at three
shovelfuls per tree/year) under pine-based agroforestry system; and the interaction
between fertilization and irrigation was also determined.

There were significant differences in the growth performance of Meyer lemon as
affected by the rates of fertilizer and irrigation schedules. Plants treated with semi-annual
fertilization recorded the longest period (days) from treatment application to first harvest;
duration of flower development and duration of fruit development. Semi-annual
fertilization also resulted to the highest average number of flowers; percent fruit set;
number of fruit developed; average length of shoots; rind thickness; polar diameter;
equatorial diameter; average weight per fruit, and average yield per tree but had the
lowest percent of flower drop.

---

In a similar manner, Weekly irrigation resulted to the highest yield, most number
of flowers and fruits developed, high percent fruit set, albeit longer duration of flower
and fruit development. It also recorded comparatively high average weight per fruit,
equatorial diameter, polar diameter and rind thickness. Percent flower drop was the
lowest on plants subjected to weekly irrigation. The yield of intercrop was also highest
under weekly irrigation.

The interaction between fertilization and irrigation schedule is significant on the
days from treatment application to first harvest, duration of flower development, duration
of fruit development, average number of flower, percent of fruit set, number of fruit
development, percent of flower drop, average length of shoots, rind thickness, polar
diameter, equatorial diameter, average weight per fruit, average yield per tree, yield of
inter crop.

Farmers’ practice of fertilizer application and irrigation (no fertilizer application
and rain fed irrigation, respectively) whether independently or combined, resulted to the
shortest period from treatment application to harvest and the fastest flower and fruit
development. However, the percent fruit set was significantly low and the fruit quality
was inferior.



ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………...……………...…….…………...……….…………... i
Abstract ………… …………………….…………………….…...………...…………... i
Table of Contents ……………………………………………….…………...……...….. iii
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………..……...……….………. 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………..………..…...…………… 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS …………………………….…………...…….……… 8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS …………………………………...………….…….. 12

Soil analysis ……………………………………………….……...…… …….. 12

Days from treatment application

to first harvest as affected by
fertilization
and
irrigation …………………………...……….……….…… … 12


Duration of flower development as

affected by fertilization and irrigation ……………………………..…...….…. 14


Duration of fruit development as

affected by fertilization and irrigation …………………..…………...….……. 17


Average number of flower as

affected by fertilization and irrigation ………………………...………...……. 19


Percent fruit set as affected
by fertilization and irrigation ……………………………………...….…….… 21



Number of fruit developed as
affected by fertilization and irrigation ………………………………..…….… 24


Percent of flower drop as affected

by fertilization and irrigation …………………………….……………………. 25


Average length of shoots as affected

by fertilization and irrigation ……………………………...………………….. 28

iii

---

Rind thickness (mm) as affected

by fertilization and irrigation ……………………………...……………....….. 30


Polar diameter (cm) as affected
by fertilization and irrigation …………………………….…………………… 32


Equatorial diameter (cm) as affected

by fertilization and irrigation ………………………………….…...…………. 34


Average weight per fruit (g) as affected

by fertilization and irrigation …………………………...……….…...……….. 35


Average yield per tree (kg) as affected

by fertilization and irrigation …………………………………………....……. 38


Yield of intercrop as affected by

fertilization and irrigation ……………………………..……………...….…… 40
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ……….………………. 43
LITERATURE CITED …………………………………….…..……………...……… 46
APPENDICES …………………………………………..………………….……...…. 48





iv

---

INTRODUCTION

Agroforestry can be defined as combinations of plants, either trees or shrubs, on
the same land management unit with agricultural crops, grass, and/or animals, in some
form of spatial or temporal arrangement or in sequence. Thus, there are four main
components of these systems: trees, crops, grass, and animals. Usually the key criterion
in a classification of agroforestry systems is the type of components involved in the
system. Based on that, it is possible to define three broad subdivisions: agrisilvicultural,
silvopastoral, and agrosilvopastoral (Combe and Budowski, 1979).
Farmers have practiced agroforestry for years. Agroforestry focuses on the wide
range of working trees grown on farms and in rural landscapes. Among these are
fertilizer trees for land regeneration, soil health and food security; fruit trees for nutrition;
fodder trees that improve smallholder livestock production; timber and fuel wood trees
for shelter and energy; medicinal trees to combat disease; and trees that produce gums,
resins or latex products. Many of these trees are multipurpose, providing a range of
benefits (Nair, 1985).

According to PCARRD (1999), citrus is one of the most important fruit trees in
the Philippines. It contributes about Php 80M as income to many farmers dependent on
this industry for their livelihood. Although its commercial production is an important
source of income for growers, the yield of citrus in the country is relatively low due to the
prevailing stiff competition with luxury fruits imported from other countries, lack of
water during dry season, inefficient harvesting, poor post-harvest-handling, and
unsystematic market strategies.
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

2

In the Cordillera, particularly in Benguet and Mountain Province, citrus
production like lemon has become important despite the limited area devoted to its
production compared to the other regions in the country. Lemon could be one alternative
product to vegetable industry. Nowadays, the prices of vegetables are declining because
some vegetable products are being imported. According to Ricardo et al., (2004), records
of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics in 1995 showed that the Cordillera Region ranks
first in lemon Production with 680,000 kilograms.

Lemon tree yields vary considerably with the cultivar, the location and weather
conditions. A yield of 3 boxes per tree is commercially satisfactory. A six-year-old tree
bore 966 fruits and, at 9 years of age, had produced a total of 3,173 fruits (Morton, 1987).

The lemon (Citrus limon L.) is one good source of income for gardeners, who
want a steady supply of fruits all year round. Lemons, limes and lemonades can be used
to make lemon bread, lemon meringue pie, fresh lemonade and juices. The fruit are
cultivated primarily for their juice, though the pulp and rind (zest) are also used,
primarily in cooking or mixing. Lemon juice is about 5% citric acid, which gives lemons
a sour taste and a pH of 2 to 3. This acidity makes lemon juice a cheap, readily available
acid for use in a lot of educational chemistry experiments. Citrus trees are becoming
more and more popular as landscaping plants, offering not only fruit but an attractive
form of year-round, glossy, deep green foliage, and fragrant flowers (Morton, 1987).

Irrigation is one of the most important needs of lemon to produce good quality of
fruits. It has been demonstrated that pest control, pruning, and fertilization improvement
do not lead to high yield if irrigation practice is inferior (PCARRD, 1987).
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

3

Galves (1955) as cited by Wardouski and Grierson (1986), reported that the pH,
calcium and magnesium content of the soil receiving heavy application of ammonium
sulfate in five to six years dropped appreciably while the amount of manganese increased
by as much as ten times. It was predicted that as a consequence of these changes in the
soil, problems will likely to appear in the orchard if this fertilization practice is continued.
Notable in these studies was a complete fertilizer application which resulted in good
growth and increased yield of the trees (Bachelor and Webber, 1968).

The formulation of a sound and economical fertilization program, are not enough,
even more important is the information on the effect of fertilizer on the crop itself. Until
now, there has not been any published data to show the extent of influence upon the
growth and yield of the grown citrus varieties (PCARRD, 1987).

The results of the study may used by the farmers as guide in producing lemon
fruits, especially where major water stress is encountered. In addition, the information
gathered could be used by students and researchers.

This study aimed to determine the effects of irrigation and fertilization on the
performance of Meyer lemon. Specifically, this study aimed to determine the: effect of
time of irrigation on the growth, yield and fruit quality of Meyer lemon; effect of time of
fertilizer on the growth, yield and fruit quality of Meyer lemon and, combined effect of
time of irrigating and fertilizing on the growth, yield and fruit quality of Meyer lemon.

The study was conducted from October, 2006 to April, 2007 at Patpat, Tabio,
Mankayan, Benguet.

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The origin of the name "lemon" is through Persian, akin to the Sanskrit nimbuka.
They were cultivated in Genoa in the mid-fifteenth century, and appeared in the Azores
in 1494. More recent research has identified lemons in the ruins of Pompeii. Lemons
were once used by the British Royal navy to combat scurvy, as they provided a large
amount of vitamin C (Morton, 1987).
Meyer lemon (Citrus Limon L.) responds to irrigation and fertilization to induce
flowering and to advance maturation of fruits. Through proper timing of the application
of fertilizer and irrigation, lemon fruits can be produced off-season to hit a better price
when some of lemon plantations are non-bearing (Coronel, 1983).
Meyer is a hybrid, possibly lemon X mandarin orange, introduced into the United
States as S.P.I. #23028 by the agricultural explorer Frank N. Meyer, who found it
growing as an ornamental pot-plant near Peking, China in 1908. Its fruit is obovate,
elliptical or oblong, round at the base, occasionally faintly necked and furrowed or lobed;
apex rounded or with short nipple; of medium size, 2 1/4 to 3 in (5.7-7.5 cm) wide and 2
1/2 to 3 1/2 in (6.25-9 cm) high; the peel light-orange with numerous small oil glands, 1/8
to 1/4 in (3-6 mm) thick; the pulp pale orange-yellow, usually in 10 segments with tender
walls, melting, juicy, moderately acid with medium lemon flavor; seeds small, 8 to 12.
The tree tends to be ever bearing but fruits mostly from December to April. It is small,
with few thorns, prolific, cold-resistant; produces few water sprouts, and is only
moderately subject to greasy spot and oil spotting. It is easily and commonly grown from
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

5
cuttings. Does well on sweet orange and rough lemon rootstocks; is not grafted onto sour
orange because it is a carrier of a virulent strain of tristeza (Morton, 1987).

Citrus can be harvested four to nine months from flowering depending on the
variety, environment and cultural management practices employed (RP-German Fruit
Tree Project, 1995).

Richter (1916) stated that without question (but also without showing data) all the
blooms of the lemon could be protected from insect visitation without the slightest
reduction in set of mature fruit. Webber (1930) also concluded that pollination by bees
was probably a negligible factor in the production of citrus fruits, at least for the 'Eureka'
and 'Lisbon' lemons, the 'Valencia' and 'Washington Navel' oranges, and the 'Marsh'
grapefruit. However, Webber et al. (1943) stated that although self-pollination occurs
rather commonly without insects, seedlessness sometimes results, and seedlessness is
rather generally a handicap to setting of fruit. Lemon is an early maturing, and cold-
hardly species that sets fruits parthenocarpically (Morton, 1987).
However, where numerous tests have been conducted on caged citrus trees,
Glukhov (1955) stated that lemon trees isolated from bees produced only one-fourth as
much fruit as trees exposed to cross- pollination by bees. Burnaeva (1956) reported that
lemons receiving supplemental pollen from other cultivars or citrus species, produced
more than trees not exposed to cross-pollination. Zavrashvili (1964) reported that lemon
trees caged without bees produced 42.5 percent less than open-pollinated trees, whereas
the trees caged with bees produced only 10 percent less, indicating that bees contribute
by distributing the self- pollen on the tree. Randhama et al., (1961) obtained four mature
'Malta' lemon fruit from 25 cross-pollinated flowers but none from 50 selfed flowers.
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

6

Irrigation after a dry spell has been observed to induce flowering in Lanzones,
Citrus, and Durian. It was observed to flower when a day spell of 7-21 days is followed
by even the lightest shower or rain. Rain in excess of 3 mm can insure blossoming
adequate supply of water, however, is needed for the flower to develop. It also appears
that a period of water stress even for a short period of time is necessary for coffee and
Lanzones trees before irrigation to induce heavy flowering (Bautista et al., 1983).

Reuther (1973) as cited by Tipayno (1989) pointed out that under arid and semi
arid conditions, water is regarded as the life-blood of citrus production. Without water in
sufficient quantity and acceptable quality, there would be no citrus production. This is
quite a discouraging statement to those who can not afford the benefit of mechanized
irrigation. To them, any effort to venture in citrus production would be fruitless.

Coronel (1983) concluded that irrigation on different fruit production induces
flowering and was shown to increase fruit size during fruit development.

In some observations, farmers fail to produce lemon fruits especially on dry areas
where water is very expensive that they only depend on rain for irrigation. This may be
one reason why the Philippines is one of the lowest producers of lemon in the world
(Talbert, 1973).



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

MATERIALS AND METHOD


Three-year-old marcotted lemon trees planted in a private citrus orchard in Patpat,
Tabio, Mankayan, Benguet were used in this study. Soybean and papaya were planted as
intercrop. The area has an elevation of approximately 1000 meters above sea level with a
slope of 75% or 33.75 º, but the area that was planted with citrus has less than 15% or
6.75 º slopes. The soil type is clay loam. The site has an average temperature of 25 º C,
annual rainfall of 2,664 mm, and Type I climate classification with two distinct seasons:
the Dry and Wet seasons. The average sunshine hours in the area is 10 ½ hours (6:30 am
– 5:00 pm).The surroundings are planted with oranges (Citrus sinensis L), pummelo (C.
grandis L.), and trees such as mahogany (Swietenia sp.), and alnus (Alnus sp.). The upper
slope is naturally regenerated with Benguet Pine that had been declared a watershed and
is the source of irrigation in the area.

Description of the Lemon Trees

The trees are neither fertilized nor irrigated. They are slightly normal, some of the
leaves are yellowish in color, and fruits are small and few during dry the season. The
flowers are few sometimes more flowers produce but they fall down. The yield is very
low, they only produce good yield during rainy season.

Land Preparation

Cleaning the area was done before cultivating the base of the trees. Fertilizer was
applied within the radius of the root zone. Complete fertilizer (14-14-14) and
decomposed chicken manure was used in the treatments at the rate of 500 grams and 2-3
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

9
shovelfuls per tree/year, respectively as mentioned by Tipayno (1989) applied as
described in the treatments. Soybean was planted as alley crop where farmer’s practice
was applied.

Care and Maintenance

The plant was irrigated directly around the base of the trees by flooding. The
fertilizers were applied before irrigating. Weeding was also done. “Rono” or “bel-lang”
(Miscanthus sinensis) leaves were used as mulch to minimize water evaporation from the
soil and prevent weed growth around the base of the lemon trees. Weeds removed from
alleys were used as mulch. Appropriate pest management measures were observed.

Treatments

Sixteen lemon trees were randomly selected, and each tree was designated as the
treatment replication. They were tagged to serve as permanent base of observations up to
harvesting. The experiment used the Randomized Complete Block Factorial Design
(RCB-Factorial). The treatments were as follows.
Factor A (fertilizer application schedule)
F0= No fertilizer applied (farmers practice)
F1= monthly fertilization with Triple 14 (500 g per tree/year) and chicken manure
(2-3 shovelfuls per tree/year)
F2= quarterly fertilization with Triple 14 (500 g per tree/year) and chicken manure
(2-3 shovelfuls per tree/year)
F3= semi-annual fertilization with Triple 14 (500 g per tree/year) and chicken
manure (2-3 shovelfuls per tree/year)
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

10

Factor B (Irrigation schedule)

I0= rain fed irrigation (farmers practice)
I1= weekly irrigation (irrigated until soil is saturated).
I2= fortnightly irrigation (irrigated until soil is saturated).
I3= monthly irrigation (irrigated until soil is saturated).
Data Gathered

Data gathered are as follows:
Vegetative Parameters
1. Soil analysis. The pH of the soil in the area was obtained through soil sampling.
2. Days from treatment application to first harvest. The number of days from
treatment application to the first harvest was counted and recorded.
3. Duration of flower development. The number of days from flower bud emergence
to 50% fruit set was counted and recorded.
4. Duration of fruit development. The number of days from fruit set to 50% maturity
was counted and recorded.
5. Average number of flowers. The number of flowers developed was recorded from
sample trees per treatment replication.
6. Percent fruit set. The number of fruits developed was counted then divided by the
total number of flowers produced and then multiplied by 100
7. Percent of flower drop. This was obtained using the formula:
= Number of flowers formed - number of fruits X 100
Total number of flowers formed
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

11
8. Average number of new shoots. The number of new shoots/branches developed
after treatment application was counted and recorded.
9. Average length of shoots (cm). The average shoot length was measured using a
foot rule.
Yield
10. Fruit quality. The polar and equatorial peel/rind and diameter of the fruit were
measured using a caliper from 10 sample fruits per treatment.
A. Rind thickness (mm). The thickness of the rind was measured using
caliper from 10 sample fruits.
B. Average size of fruit (cm). The size of the fruit in terms of polar and
equatorial diameters was measured using a caliper from 10 sample fruits.
11. Fruit yield (kg). The yield per tree was recorded.
A. Average weight per fruit. The average weight per fruit was recorded.
B. Average yield per tree. The average yield per tree was recorded.
12. Yield of intercrop. The total yield of soybean intercrop was recorded; areas of
intercrop were taken from 3 square meters per tree.

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Soil Analysis

Soil pH was obtained after the experiment from aggregate soil samples through
the use of portable pH meter. The pH of the soil in the area was 5.5 (slightly acidic),
which is a normal pH for growing of lemon. The pH was taken after the experiment.

Days from Treatment Application to First Harvest
Effect of fertilizer. The number of days from treatment application to first harvest
is shown in Table 1. Farmers’ practice, (F0 = no fertilizer application) resulted to
significantly earlier harvesting with a mean of 143.33 days as against the semi-annual
fertilization (F3), which produced harvestable fruits in a 185.50 days. Monthly (F1) and
Quarterly fertilization (F2) with means of 154.92 and 170.08 days, respectively, were
comparable to either the farmers’ practice (F0) or semi-annual fertilization (F3).
Effect of irrigation. The rain fed lemon trees (I0 = Farmers’ practice) resulted to
the least number of days to first harvest with a mean of 129.08 days, followed by
fortnightly (I2) and monthly irrigation (I3) with a mean of 168.58 and 174.83 days,
respectively. The weekly irrigation (I1) had the longest number of days to first harvest
with a mean of 181.33 days.

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

13
Table 1. Days from treatment application to first harvest as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT







MEAN (Days)

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 143.33b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 154.92ab

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 170.08ab

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 185.50a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice)

129.08b

I1 = Weekly irrigation





168.58a

I2 = Fortnightly irrigation 174.83a

I3 = Monthly irrigation 181.33a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Interaction effect. A significant interaction effect between the time of fertilizer
application and irrigation on the number of days to produce lemon fruits (Appendix Table
1) was revealed by statistical analysis. Figure 1 shows the graphical illustration of the
combined effect of time of fertilizer application and irrigation schedule on the number of
days to first harvest. The combination of farmers’ practice (no fertilizer application + rain
fed irrigation) or F0I0 resulted to the lowest number of days to first harvest with a mean of
51.00 days. Semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) and semi-annual
fertilization + fortnightly irrigation (F3I2) took the longest to produce harvestable fruits,

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

14
250
F0I0
F0I1
203 203
7 .33
7
200
F012
.67
.67
.6 192
.6
181.67
F0I3
175
175
5
171
16 171 175
181
171
165
F1I0
150
F1I1
4.67
F1I2
12
F1I3
108
100
F2I0
F2I1
F2I2
51
50
F2I3
F3I0
F3I1
0
F3I2
Treatment Combinations
F3I3

Figure 1. Number of days from treatment application to first harvest as affected by
fertilization and irrigation


both with a mean of 203.00 days. All other treatment combinations were comparable to
farmers’ practice (F0I0) or semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1).

The result indicates that fertilizer and irrigation schedules influence the earliness
of harvesting of fruits. Lemon trees need greater amount of water especially during dry
months of the year to improve their root environment and have better crop yield,
corroborating the study of Coronel (1983).

Duration of Flower Development
Effect of fertilizer. Table 2 shows the effect of time of fertilizer application on the
duration of flower development. Shorter duration of flower development was effected by
Farmers’ practice (F0 = no fertilizer application) with a mean of 20.33 days, which is
significantly lower than semi-annual fertilization (F3) with a mean of 27.67 days.
Meanwhile, monthly fertilization (F1) and quarterly fertilization (F2) had means of 24.75
and 26.33, respectively, which are comparable to either F0 or F3.
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

15
Effect of irrigation. Farmers’ practice (I0 = rain fed irrigation) effected the fastest
flower development with a mean of 19.25 days, which is significantly lower than weekly
irrigation (I1) and monthly irrigation (I3) which had means of 27.92 and 26.58 days,
respectively. Fortnightly irrigation (I2) was comparable to all treatments.

Table 2. Duration of flower development as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT


MEAN
(Days)

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice)


20.33b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 24.75ab

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 26.33ab

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 27.67a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 19.25b

I1 = Weekly irrigation 27.92a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 25.33ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 26.58a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT






Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

16
1833
F0I0
30
30
28
F0I1
27.67
26.67
27
27
27.33 26.67
28
27
F0I2
F0I3
24
25.67 25.67
F1I0
F1I1
20
F1I2
18
F1I3
F2I0
F2I1
F2I2
10
9.33
F2I3
F3I0
F3I1
F3I2
F3I3
0

Figure 2. Duration of flower development as affected by fertilization and irrigation

Interaction effect. Figure 2 shows the graphical illustration of the interaction
effect of time of fertilizer application and irrigation on the duration of flower
development. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences resulting from the
interaction between the time of fertilizer application and irrigation on the duration of
flower development (Appendix Table 2). However, semi-annual fertilization + weekly
irrigation (F3I1) resulted to the longest duration of flower development with a mean of
30.00 days. Nevertheless, most of the flowers developed to produce harvestable fruits as
shown in Figure 6. The shortest duration of flower development was observed in plants
treated farmers’ practice (F0I0 = no fertilization + rain fed irrigation) with a mean of 9.33
days, which produced the least number of harvestable fruits as shown in Figure 6.



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

17
Duration of Fruit Development
Effect of fertilizer. The effect of time of fertilizer application on duration of fruit
development is presented in Table 3. Statistical analysis revealed that there was no
significant effect. However, semi-annual fertilization (F3) resulted to the longest duration
of fruit development with a mean of 12.0 days, compared to farmers’ practice (F0 = no
fertilizer applied) which had the lowest mean of 10.33 days. Quarterly fertilization (F2)
and monthly fertilization (F1) had means of 11.583 and 11.83 days, respectively.
Nevertheless, semi-annual fertilization resulted to the most fruits developed (Table 6),
and bigger size of fruits (Tables 10 and 11).

Table 3. Duration of fruit development as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN (Days)

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice)


10.33a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 11.83a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 11.58a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 12.00a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 9.42b

I1 = Weekly irrigation





12.08ab

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 10.17ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 14.08a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

18
Effect of irrigation. In terms of effect of irrigation, plants that were rain fed
(I0=Farmers’ practice) had the developed fruits within the shortest duration with a mean
of 9.42 days, as against the monthly irrigation (I3) with a mean of 14.08, followed by
weekly irrigation (I1) and fortnightly irrigation (I2) with means of 12.08 and 10.17 days,
respectively. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences on the duration of fruit
development.
Even though fruits developed longer in weekly irrigation, weekly irrigation (I1) and
fortnightly irrigation (I2) produced comparatively bigger fruits (Tables 10 and 11), which
confirms Coronel’s findings (1983) that more water will increase fruit size during fruit
development.
Interaction effect. Figure 3 shows the graphical illustration of the interaction
effect of fertilizer and irrigation on the duration of fruit development which means that
the semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) combination took fruits longer to
develop with a mean of 15.33 days, but with less fruits drop. On the other hand, the
shortest duration of fruit development (8.0 days) was observed in farmers’ practice (F0I0
= no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation) although fruit set was only 0.53% as shown in
Figure 5.
Shorter duration of fruit development and the occurrence of small fruit were
probably caused by low water availability during dry months.

Statistical analysis shows significant interaction between fertilization and
irrigation on duration of fruit development.

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

19
16
F0I0
15.33
F0I1
14.33
14
14.67
14
F0I2
14.33
12.67
F0I3
13
12
F1I0
F1I1
11.33 12.33
11.67
10.33
10
9.67
10
F1I2
F1I3
8
8
F2I0
6.33
F2I1
6
F2I2
5
4
F2I3
F3I0
2
F3I1
F3I2
0
F3I3
Figure 3. Duration of fruit development as affected by fertilization and irrigation

Average Number of Flower
Effect of fertilizer. The farmers practice (F0 = no fertilizers applied) were
significantly lower in the average number of flower produce with a mean of 57.67, as
against the semi-annual fertilization (F3), which produce more flowers with a mean of
138.42 (table 4), followed by monthly fertilization (F1) and quarterly fertilization (F2)
with a mean of 91.92 and 89.08 respectively as shown in Table 4.
Effect of irrigation. Table 4 showed no significant effect on the average number
of flower, the farmers practice (I0 = rain fed irrigation) had the lowest with a mean of
71.75 compare with weekly irrigation (I1) with a mean of 117.83 average numbers of
flowers.




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

20
Table 4. Average number of flower as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice)


57.67b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 91.92ab

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 89.08ab

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 138.42a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 71.75a

I1 = Once a week irrigation 117.83a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 97.92a

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 89.58a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Interaction effect. Figure 4 shows the graphical illustration of the interaction
effect of fertilizer and irrigation on the average number of flowers. Combination of semi-
annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) result a higher average number of flowers
produce with a mean of 178. While (F0I0 = no fertilizers applied + rain fed irrigation) was
the lowest average flowers produce with a mean of 18.33, respectively; this result was
due to lack of water and fertilizer on trees.

This clearly indicates that application of irrigation and of fertilization during dry
months helps in the initiation of more flowers as noted by Wardowski and Grierson
(1986) in their study of citrus flowering.
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

21

180
F0I0
178
.67
F0I1
175
160
F0I2
F0I3
140
.33
F1I0
120
.67
130
F1I1
116
118.67
.33
F1I2
100
107
67
F1I3
95.
80
67
F2I0
33
67
33
67
79.
67
F2I1
74.
73.
73.67
69.
60
68.
69.
F2I2
58.67
F2I3
40
F3I0
20
33
F3I1
18.
F3I2
0
F3I3
Figure 4. Average number of flower as affected by fertilization and irrigation


Statistical analysis shows the significant interaction effect between fertilization
and irrigation on the average number of flowers.

Percent Fruit Set
Effect of fertilizer. Statistical analysis shows the significant effect of fertilization
on percent fruit set as shown in Table 5. Semi-annual fertilization (F3) had the highest
percentage of fruit set with mean of 34.90%, followed by monthly fertilization (F1) and
quarterly fertilization (F2) with a mean of 22.18% and 21.79 %, while the Farmers
practice (F0 = no fertilizer applied) was the lowest percentage of fruit set with a mean of
14.70%.
Effect of irrigation. The percentage of fruit set produced by the plants is shown in
Table 5. The plant treated with weekly irrigation (I1) produce significantly higher
percentage of fruit set with a mean of 35.87 %, followed by fortnightly irrigation (I2) and
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

22
Table 5. Percent fruit set as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN (%)

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice)


14.70b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 22.18b

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 21.79b

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 34.90a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice)


10.34c

I1 = Weekly irrigation 35.87a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 26.02ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 21.33bc
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

monthly irrigation (I3) with a mean of 26.02% and 21.33%, while the plants treated with
farmers practice of rain fed irrigation (I0) produce the lowest percentage of fruit set with a
mean of 10.34% percent.
Interaction effect. Statistical analysis shows that the interaction between
fertilization and irrigation on percent fruit set is not significant (Figure 5). However,
semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) had the highest percentage on fruit
setting with a mean of 50.82, as against the no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation (F0I0)
with 0.53% of mean. All other treatments combination were comparable to either the
semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) or the farmers’ practice (F0I0 = no
fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation).
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

23
60
F0I0
F0I1
F0I2
50
50.82
F0I3
F1I0
40
F1I1
F1I2
34.73
34.3
F1I3
30
31.67
F2I0
29.63
28.3 31.4
F2I1
25.33
20
F2I2
18.7
19.4 22.8
F2I3
F3I0
10
13.07 15.57
F3I1
10.33
7.7
F3I2
F3I3
0
0.53

Figure 5. Percent fruit set as affected by fertilization and irrigation


This indicates that fertilization and irrigation still affects fruit setting of lemon to
a certain extent. The low percentage was generally attributed to the nature of citrus
species having high flowering ability but tends to be less successful in fruit setting as
indicated in this study. According to Batchelor and Webber (1968), although citrus trees
usually bloom heavily, a comparative small percentage of flowers and flower buds drop
before fruit is set.

Statistical analysis revealed that the interaction effect did not significantly affect
the fertilization and irrigation on the percentage of fruit setting. Figure 5 shows the
graphical illustration of the interaction effect of fertilizer and irrigation on the percent
fruit set.





Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

24
Number of Fruit Developed
Effect of fertilizer. Semi-annual fertilization (F3) is significant higher in the
number of fruits developed with a mean of 43.75, compare from monthly fertilization
(F1) with a mean of 22.75, followed by quarterly fertilization (F2) and farmers practice
(F0 = no fertilizer applied) with a mean of 20.42 and 9.92.
Effect of irrigation. The final number of fruit developed is shown in Table 6. The
effect of irrigation on the number of fruit developed is significant. The treatments with
irrigation are significantly different from rain fed irrigation. The weekly irrigation (I1)
had the highest number of fruit developed with a mean of 41.92, followed by fortnightly

Table 6. Number of fruit developed as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 9.917b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 22.75b

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 20.42b

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 43.75a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 9.25c

I1 = Once a week irrigation 41.92a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 27.92b

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 17.75bc
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

25
irrigation (I2) and monthly irrigation (I3) with a mean of 27.92 and 17.75 respectively.
The rain fed irrigation (farmers’ practice) (I0) had the lowest number of fruit developed
with a mean of 9.25.
Interaction effect. Figure 6 shows the graphical illustration of the interaction
effect of fertilizer and irrigation on the number of fruit developed. Application of
fertilizer two times a year with the weekly irrigation (F3I1) produce more fruits developed
that is harvestable with a mean of 86.33, as against the farmers’ practice (F0I0 = no
fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation) produce less fruits with a mean of 1.67.

Statistical analysis shows the significant affect of interaction between fertilization
and irrigation on number of fruit developed.

90
F0I0
86.33
F0I1
80
F0I2
70
F0I3
F1I0
60
F1I1
F1I2
53
50
F1I3
F2I0
40
F2I1
34.67
30
F2I2
F2I3
27.33
20
24.33
F3I0
22.33
24.33 21
19.33
19
F3I1
16.67
10
10
9
F3I2
8.67 9.67
F3I3
0
1.67

Figure 6. Interaction effect of fertilization and irrigation on the number of fruit developed

Percent of Flower Drop
Effect of fertilizer. The percent of flower drop by the plants on fertilization is
shown in Table 7. The plant treated with semi-annual fertilization (F3) produce
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

26
significantly lower percentage of flower drop with a mean of 65.02 percent, the farmers
practice (F0 = no fertilization applied) has the higher percentage of flower drop with a
mean of 80.80 %, followed by quarterly fertilization (F2) and monthly fertilization (F1)
with a mean of 78.16 and 76.29 percent.
Effect of irrigation. Irrigation has a significant effect on the percentage of flower
drop (Table 7). Weekly irrigation (I1) had the lowest percentage of flower drop with a
mean of 64.50%, followed by fortnightly irrigation (I2) with a mean of 71.51%. Farmers
practice (rain fed irrigation) (I0) had the highest percentage of flower drop followed by
monthly irrigation (I3) with a mean of 85.95% and 78.78%.

Table 7. Percent of flower drop as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 80.80a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 76.29a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 78.17a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 65.02b
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 85.95a

I1 = Once a week irrigation 64.50c

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 71.51bc

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 78.78ab
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

27

F0I0
100
F0I1
F0I2
90
91.69
92.26
F0I3
F1I0
F1I1
80
80.33 84.36 83.91
81.91
80.57
F1I2
77.17
F1I3
73.32
74.61
70
F2II0
70.31
68.56
F2I1
65.22
65.5 68.27
F2I2
60
F2I3
F3I0
50
F3I1
49.14
F3I2
F3I3
40

Figure 7. Percent of flower drop as affected by fertilization and irrigation

Interaction effect. Figure 7 shows the graphical illustration on the effect of
fertilizer and irrigation on the percent of flower drop. Statistical analysis showed that the
quarterly fertilization + farmers’ practice irrigation (F2I0) were the highest percentage of
flower drop with a mean of 92.26 % followed by (F0I0 = no fertilizer applied + rain fed
irrigation) with a mean of 91.69%. Finally, the semi-annual fertilization + weekly
irrigation (F3I1) gave the lowest of percentage on flower drop with a mean of 49.14%,
respectively.

Statistical analysis showed no significant interaction between fertilization and
irrigation on percent of flower drop.



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

28
Average Length of Shoots (cm)
Effect of fertilizer. Statistical analysis shows that fertilization has significant
effect on average length of shoots (table 8). Semi-annual fertilization (F3) had the highest
mean of 166 cm followed by quarterly fertilization (F2) with a mean of 134 cm,
respectively. Farmer’s practice (F0 = no fertilizer applied) had the lowest average length
of shoots with a mean of 82.50 cm followed by monthly fertilization (F1) with a mean of
95.73 cm, respectively.
Effect of irrigation. The effect of irrigation on the average length of shoots is
significant as revealed by statistical analysis. Weekly irrigation (I1) had the highest mean

Table 8. Average length of shoots as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 82.50b

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 95.73b

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 134.00a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 166.00a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 85.08b

I1 = Once a week irrigation 143.00a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 133.58a

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 116.57ab
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

29
average of 143 cm, as against the rain fed irrigation (I0) with a mean of 85.08 cm;
Fortnightly irrigation (I2) and monthly irrigation (I3) had a mean of 133 cm and 116.57
cm, respectively.
Interaction effect. Figure 8 shows the graphical illustration effect of fertilizer and
irrigation on average length of shoots. Maintaining of water present and available of
nutrients from fertilizer on the root zone of lemon especially during dry months helps the
growth of lemon. In this study, treated with semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation
(I1F3) were the highest average length of shoots with a mean of 203.67 cm, as against the
farmers’ practice (I0F0 = no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation) with mean of 58.67
cm.
Statistical analysis showed a significant interaction between the fertilization and
irrigation on average length of shoots, which means that using both fertilization and
irrigation effect significant on growth performance of lemon.

250
F0I0
F0I1
F0I2
200
F0I3
203.67 191
F1I0
177
F1I1
150
F1I2
151
151.33
F1I3
126.33
132.67
F2I0
100
106
108.33 118
F2I1
F2I2
86.33
80.27 99.67
64
F2I3
50
F3I0
51.67 58.67
F3I1
F3I2
0
F3I3

Figure 8. Average length of shoots as affected by fertilization and irrigation
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

30
Rind Thickness (mm)
Effect of fertilizer. The effect of fertilization on rind thickness is significant as
revealed by statistical analysis. Semi-annual fertilization (F3) of lemon trees had the
highest mean rind thickness with 0.42, followed by the monthly fertilization (F1) and
quarterly fertilization (F2) with 0.36 and 0.34 mm. The farmer’s practice (F0 = no
fertilizer applied) had the lowest mean of 0.33 mm.
Effect of irrigation. Table 9 shows significant effect of irrigation on rind
thickness. The rain fed irrigation (I0) was significantly lower in the rind thickness of
fruits with a mean of 0.26 mm, as against the monthly irrigation (I3) which has thicker

Table 9. Rind thickness (mm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 0.33a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 0.36a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 0.34a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 0.42a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 0.26b

I1 = Once a week irrigation 0.42a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 0.33ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 0.43a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

31
rind with a mean of 0.42750 mm. Weekly irrigation (I1) and fortnightly irrigation (I2) of
lemon trees gave a mean of 0.42 mm and 0.33 mm. however, this did not differ
significantly from either the monthly irrigation (I3) or farmer practice irrigation (I0).
Interaction effect. Statistical analysis shows the significant interaction effect of
fertilization and irrigation on rind thickness of the fruit (Appendix Table 9). Figure 9
shows the graphical illustration on the effect of fertilizer and irrigation on rind thickness.
The highest mean number of 0.48 mm was obtained from no fertilizer applied + monthly
irrigation (F0I3) while the lowest was noted from the plants using farmers’ practice (F0I0
= no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation) with a mean of 0.15 mm.

0.5
F0I0
0.48
F0I1
0.45
0.44
F0I2
0.43
0.44
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.41 0.43 0.4 0.43
F0I3
0.35
0.37
F1I0
F1I1
0.3
F1I2
0.28
0.25
F1I3
0.26
F2I0
0.23
0.23
0.2
F2I1
0.15
F2I2
0.15
F2I3
0.1
F3I0
0.05
F3I1
F3I2
0
F3I3

Figure 9. Rind thickness (mm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

32
Polar Diameter (cm)
Effect of fertilizer. Statistical analysis shows the not significant effect of
fertilization on polar diameter (Table 10). Semi-annual fertilization (F3) had the highest
with 6.32 cm, followed by monthly (F1) and quarterly (F2) irrigation with a mean of 5.35
cm and 5.09 cm polar diameter. (F0 = no fertilizer applied) had the lowest with 4.59 cm
polar diameter.
Effect of irrigation. Polar diameter as affected by irrigation is shown in Table 10.
The results revealed that irrigation significantly affected the polar diameter. The plants
treated with monthly irrigation (I3) obtained the highest number of polarity diameter with

Table 10. Polar diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 4.59a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 5.36a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 5.09a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 6.32a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 3.95b

I1 = Once a week irrigation 6.11a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 4.99ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 6.31a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

33
a mean of 6.31 cm followed by weekly irrigation (I1) and fortnightly irrigation (I2) had a
mean of 6.11 and 4.99 respectively, while the lowest mean number of 3.95 cm was
obtained from plants treated with rain fed irrigation (I0).
Interaction effect. Interaction effects between the fertilization and irrigation
schedule had no significant affect on the polar diameter. Figure 10 shows the graphical
illustration effect of fertilizer and irrigation on polar diameter. Plants treated with
farmers’ practice, no fertilizer applied + monthly irrigation (F0I3) combination obtain the
highest with a mean of 6.80 cm. the lowest mean with 2.09 cm was noted from the plants
treated with (F0I0 = no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation).

7
F0I0
6.803
F0I1
6.38
6
6.137
6.233
F0I2
5.81
6.013 6.52 6.33 6.433
F0I3
5.533
5.643
5
F1I0
F1I1
F1I2
4
F1I3
3.947
3.833
3.863
3.897
F2I0
3
F2I1
F2I2
2
F2I3
2.093
F3I0
F3I1
1
F3I2
F3I3
0

Figure 10. Polar diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

34
Equatorial Diameter (cm)
Effect of fertilizer. The effect of fertilization on equatorial diameter is not
significant with the semi-annual fertilization (F3) having 5.43 cm, monthly fertilization
(F1) with 4.59 cm, quarterly fertilization (F2) and farmer’s practice (F0 = no fertilizer
applied) with 4.34 and 4.04 cm, respectively (Table 11).
Effect of irrigation. The equatorial diameter in irrigation schedule is showed in
Table 11. The effect of irrigation on equatorial diameter is significant with monthly
irrigation (I3), weekly irrigation (I1) and fortnightly irrigation (I2) with a mean of 5.37 cm,
5.27 cm and 4.32 cm, respectively. Rain fed irrigation (I0) had the lowest mean with
3.4442 cm.

Table 11. Equatorial diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 4.04a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 4.59a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 4.34a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 5.43a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 3.44b

I1 = Once a week irrigation 5.27a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 4.32ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 5.37a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

35
F0I0
6
F0I1
5.89
F0I2
5.43
5.34
5
5.19
5.21
5.54
5.56
5.4
F0I3
4.93
4.95
4.85
F1I0
4
F1I1
F1I2
3.41
3.39
F1I3
3.24
3.36
3
F2I0
F2I1
2
F2I2
1.93
F2I3
1
F3I0
F3I1
F3I2
0
F3I3

Figure 11. Equatorial diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

Interaction effect. Statistical analysis showed no significant interaction between
fertilization and irrigation on equatorial diameter. Figure 11 shows the graphical
illustration effect of fertilizer and irrigation on equatorial diameter. However, plants
treated with farmers’ practice, no fertilizer applied + monthly irrigation (F0I3) obtained
the highest mean of 5.89 cm on equatorial diameter, while the lowest mean of 1.93 cm
was noted from the (F0I0 = no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation).

Average Weight per Fruit (g)
Effect of fertilizer. Table 12 shows that the effect of fertilization on average
weight per fruit is not significant with the semi-annual fertilization (F3) with 92.86 g,
followed by quarterly fertilization (F2) and monthly (F1) fertilization with a mean of
69.17 g and 68.08 g. Farmer’s practice (F0 = no fertilizer applied) had the lowest with a
mean of 67.70 g respectively.
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

36
Table 12. Average weight per fruit (g) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 67.70a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 68.08a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 69.17a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 92.86a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 56.25b

I1 = Weekly irrigation 82.83ab

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 69.67ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 89.05a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Effect of irrigation. The effect of irrigation on average weight per fruit is
significant. Rain fed irrigation (I0) with 56.25 g had the lowest mean. While, monthly
irrigation (I3) with a highest mean of 89.05 g, followed by weekly irrigation (I1) and
fortnightly irrigation (I2) with a mean of 82.83 g and 69.67 g, respectively.


Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

37
120
F0I0
F0I1
108.12
100
F0I2
100.33 98.33
F0I3
92.67 88
F1I0
84
80
84.77
F1I1
75.33
F1I2
71.67
70.67
F1I3
60
F2I0
55
53.67
52.67
F2I1
47.33
40
F2I2
36
F2I3
F3I0
20
F3I1
F3I2
F3I3
0

Figure 12. Average weight per fruit (g) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

Interaction effect. There was significant interaction effect between fertilizer and
irrigation on the average weight per fruit. Figure 12 shows the graphical illustration effect
of fertilizer and irrigation on average weight per fruit. The lowest average weight per
fruit was obtained from (F0I0 = no fertilizer applied + rain fed irrigation) with a mean of
36.00 g. The highest average weight per fruit was noted from the no fertilizer applied +
monthly irrigation (F0I3) with a mean of 108.12 g.






Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

38
Average Yield per Tree (kg)
Effect of fertilizer. The effect of fertilization on the average yield per tree is
shown in Table 13. lemon trees that were not fertilized (F0 = Farmers’ practice-no
fertilizer applied) yielded a mean of 3.03 kg, which is significantly lower than those
fertilized with semi-annually (F3) with a mean of 15.25 kg fruits per tree. Monthly (F1)
and quarterly fertilizer schedule (F2) yielded a mean of 9.42 kg and 7.21 kg, respectively,
comparable to either the farmers’ practice or the semi-annual fertilization.

Table 13. Average yield per tree (kg) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 3.03c

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 9.42b

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 7.21bc

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 15.25a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice) 2.95c

I1 = Weekly irrigation 15.58a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 10.59ab

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 5.78bc
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

39
Effect of irrigation. Weekly irrigation (I1) resulted to a mean yield per tree of
15.58 kg compared to monthly irrigation (I3) and rain fed (I0) with a mean of 5.78 kg and
2.95 kg, respectively.
Interaction effect. Statistical analysis showed significant interaction of fertilizer
and irrigation schedule on average yield per tree. Figure 13 shows the graphical
illustration effect of fertilizer and irrigation schedule on average yield per tree. Figure 13
further shows that the semi-annual fertilization + weekly irrigation (F3I1) were the highest
average yield per tree with a mean of 31.17 kg after harvesting, while the (F0I0 = no
fertilizer applied + rain fed) was the lowest average mean of 0.15 kg. This was due to the
rates of fertilizer applied and irrigation schedule.

35
F0I0
F0I1
30
31.17
F0I2
F0I3
25
F1I0
F1I1
20
F1I2
F1I3
19.17
F2I0
15
F2I1
14.33
13.33
F2I2
12.03
10
F2I3
8.67
F3I0
5
5.83
6.17
F3I1
5.33 5.67 4.5
3.5
3.5
F3I2
2.62 3.67
0
F3I3
0.15

Figure 13. Average yield per tree (kg) as affected by fertilization and irrigation


Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

40
Yield of Intercrop
Effect of fertilizer. Statistical analysis shows no significant effect of fertilization
on yield of intercrop (Table 14). However, monthly fertilization (F1) had the highest
mean with 1.02, followed by farmers’ practice (F0 = no fertilizer applied) and semi-
annual fertilization (F3) with a mean of 0.94 and 0.93, respectively. Quarterly fertilization
(F2) has the lowest mean with 0.92.
Effect of irrigation. The rain fed irrigation (I0) is significantly lower in term of
yield in three square meters around on yield of intercrop during irrigation schedule with a
mean of 0.68, Compared from weekly irrigation (I1) has higher mean with 1.10, followed

Table 14. Yield of intercrop as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT MEAN

Fertilizer Schedule

F0 = No fertilizer applied (Farmers’ Practice) 0.94a

F1 = Monthly Fertilization 1.02a

F2 = Quarterly Fertilization 0.92a

F3 = Semi-annual Fertilization 0.93a
Irrigation Schedule

I0 = Rain fed irrigation (Farmers Practice)


0.68b

I1 = Weekly irrigation





1.10a

I2 = Fortnightly Irrigation 1.01a

I3 = Monthly Irrigation 1.02a
Means with the same letter superscripts are not significantly different at 5% level by
DMRT

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

41
by monthly irrigation (I3) and fortnightly irrigation (I2) with a mean of 1.02 and 1.01,
respectively.
Interaction effect. Statistical analysis showed significant interaction between
fertilizer and irrigation schedule on yield of intercrop. Figure 14 shows the graphical
illustration effect of fertilizer and irrigation schedule on yield of intercrop. The highest
mean of 1.47 was obtained from the plants treated with monthly fertilization + weekly
irrigation (F1I1). The lowest mean of 0.50 was observed from plants treated with monthly
fertilization + rain fed irrigation (F1I0).

1.6
F0I0
F0I1
1.4
1.47
F0I2
F0I3
1.2
F1I0
1.1
1.13
1.1
1.1
F1I1
1
1
1
1.03
F1I2
0.97
0.97
F1I3
0.8
0.8 0.87
0.8
F2I0
0.7
0.73
F2I1
0.6
F2I2
0.5
F2I3
0.4
F3I0
F3I1
0.2
F3I2
0
F3I3
Figure 14. Yield of intercrop as affected by fertilization and irrigation


Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The study aimed to determine the effect of irrigation and fertilization on the
performance of Meyer lemon, independently or in combination, on the growth, yield and
fruit quality of Meyer lemon; effect of fertilizer on the growth, yield and fruit quality of
Meyer lemon, and effect of irrigating and fertilizing Meyer lemon on the yield of soybean
intercropped. The study was conducted from October 2006 to April 2007 at Patpat,
Tabio, Mankayan, Benguet.

The schedules of fertilizer application using 14-14-14 with chicken manure, and
irrigation at different intervals were evaluated. The Randomized Complete Block (RCB)
design in a factorial arrangement was used in the experiment. The parameters for
evaluating the effects of the treatments were: days from treatment application to first
harvest, duration of flower development, duration of fruit development, average number
of flowers, percent fruit set, percent of flower drop, average no. of new shoots, average
length of shoots, rind thickness, size of the fruit, average weight per fruit, average yield
per tree, yield of intercrop.

Fertilizer application significantly improved flower development, number of
flowers, fruit set, and number of fruit developed, flower drop, length of shoots, rind
thickness, polar diameter, equatorial diameter, weight of per fruit, and yield per tree but
had no significant effect on fruit development and yield of intercrop. However, it took
plants fertilized semi-annually significantly longer to produce flowers and harvestable
fruits. Fruit development, fruit setting to maturation also took longer; but percentage of
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

44
flower and fruit drop was lowest. Farmers’ practice (no fertilizer applied) resulted to
earlier harvesting, shorter duration of flower and fruit development, and low fruit setting
due to high percentage of flower and fruit drop. Fruit size and yield were also
significantly reduced. Monthly and quarterly fertilization were comparable to both the
farmers’ practice and semi-annual fertilization.
Meanwhile, weekly irrigation significantly lengthened the period from treatment
application to first harvest, duration of flower and fruit development, and increased the
number of flowers, fruit set, number and size of fruits developed, length of shoots, rind
thickness, polar diameter, equatorial diameter, weight per fruit, yield per tree and yield of
intercrop but reduced flower drop.

Weekly irrigation and semi-annual fertilization resulted to the longest duration of
flower and fruit development, and gave the highest number and percentage of fruit set.
However, monthly irrigation and no fertilizer applied resulted to significantly higher
mean on rind thickness, polar diameter, equatorial diameter and weight per fruit. On the
other hand, it was observed that the plants treated with farmers’ practice (no irrigation
and no fertilizer applied) combined to produce the least number of fruit, high percentage
of flower and fruit drop, and some plants not setting fruit.

Conclusion


The result of this study concluded that irrigation enhances the number of flowers
and fruit developed and fruit set, especially on the growth of the plant. On the other hand,
fertilization improves the number of fruits developed; fruit set and improve the growth
and yield of the plant. Apparently, the combination of irrigation and fertilization is most
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

45
effective for improving lemon trees, especially during dry months of the year when water
is needed to dissolve nutrients needed by the plants.

Recommendation

This study recommends weekly irrigation be adapted during dry months to
maintain the required volume of water for normal growth and development combined
with semi-annual fertilization to supplement the essential elements in the soil to increase
economic return from harvest. In addition pest and diseases control should be also
observed.

This study, however, recommends further related studies particularly on the yield
of the intercrops.


Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

46
LITERATURE CITED

BACHELOR, L.D. and H. WEBBER. 1968. The Citrus Industry. A Centennial
Publication of the University of California. P. 97.

BAUTISTA, O.K., H.V. VALMAYOR, P.C. TABORA Jr, and R. ESPINO. 1983.
Introduction to Tropical Horticulture. UPLB, College of Agriculture, Laguna. P.
220.

BURNAEVA, N. L. 1956. An Experiment on Supplementary Pollination of Citrus Fruits.
Agrobiologiya 3: 124-128. [In Russian, abstract translated.]

COMBE, J. and G. BUDOWSKI. 1979. Classification of Agroforestry Techniques. In: de
las Salas, G. (ed.), Proceeding of Working Shop on Agroforestry System in Latin
America, Pp. 17-47.

CORONEL R.E. 1983. Promising Fruit of the Philippines. College of Agriculture UPLB,
Laguna, Philippines. P. 77.

GLUKHOV, M. M. 1955. [Honey Plants] 512 pp. Izd. 6, Peres. iDop. Moskva, Gos. Izd-
voselkhoz Lit-ry. [In Russian]

MORTON, J. 1987. “Lemon”. In: Fruits of warm climates. P. 160-168. Retrieved May
2005. from www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/morton/lemon.html

NAIR, P.K.R. 1985. Classification of agroforestry system. Agroforestry system 3: 97-
128.

PCARRD. 1987. Citrus Research. Philippine Agriculture and Resources Research
Foundation Inc. (PARRFI). P. 1.

PCARRD. 1999. The Citrus Industry. PCARRD-DOST, Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 38

PHILIPPINE-GERMAN FRUIT TREE PROJECT. 1995. Technology Guide Series.
Production Guide for Citrus. Series # 1

RANDHAMA, G. S., NATH, N., AND CHOUDHURY, S. S. 1961. Flowering and
Pollination. Studies In Citrus with Special Reference to Lemon (Citrus limon
Burm). Indian Tour. Hort. 18: Pp. 135-147.

RICHTER, C. M. 1916. From the California Stand Point. Gleanines Bee Cult. 44:271

TALBERT, T. J. 1973. Growing fruits and vegetable crops. Philadelphia: Lea and
Febiger. p. 45
Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

47

TIPAYNO, T. J. 1973. Initial Growth Performance of Citrus Using Various Scions and
Root Stocks Under Two Soil Moisture Regimes. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6.

WARDOWASKI, E., N. GRIERSON . 1996. The Citrus Fruit. Florida: Van Nostrand
and Reihold Campony. Pp. 91, 118.

WEBBER, H. J., REUTHER, W., and BACHELOR, L. D. 1968. The Citrus Industry.
2v., rev. University of California Press, Berkely and Los Angeles.

ZAVRASHVILI, R. M. 1964. Bees and the Citrus Crop. Pchelovodstvo 84(8): 19. [In
Russian] AA. 347/66.

Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

APPENDICES


APPENDIX TABLE 1. Days from treatment application to first harvest as affected by
fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 153 153 51
I0F1 153 0 171 324 108
I0F2 203 171 203 577 192.33
I0F3 153 171 171 495 165
Sub-Total 509 342 698 1549 129.08
I1F0 171 153 203 527 175.66
I1F1 171 171 153 495 165
I1F2 171 171 203 545 181.66
I1F3 203 203 203 609 203
Sub-Total 716 698 762 2176 181.33
I2F0 153 171 203 527 175.66
I2F1 171 171 171 513 171
I2F2 0 171 203 374 124.66
I2F3 203 203 203 609 203
Sub-Total 527 716 780 2023 168.58
I3F0 171 171 171 513 171
I3F1 153 171 203 527 109
I3F2 203 171 171 545 181.66
I3F3 171 171 171 513 171
Sub-Total 698 684 716 2098 158.16
Grand Total 2450 2440 295 7846 163.46


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 78304.41666667 4606.14215686 2.63 0.0100
Rep 2 10883.16666667 5441.58333333 3.11 0.0594
Irig 3 19881.75000000 6627.25000000 3.78* 0.0205
Fert 3 12092.41666667 4030.80555556 2.30* 0.0972
Irig x Fert 9 35447.08333333 3938.56481481 2.25* 0.0464
Error 30 52533.50000000 1751.11666667
Total 47 130837.9166667
* - Significant Coefficient of Variation = 25.60062 %


Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

49

APPENDIX TABLE 2. Duration of flower development as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 28 28 9.33
I0F1 25 0 29 54 18
I0F2 27 28 29 84 28
I0F3 31 29 30 90 30
Sub-Total 83 57 116 256 21.33
I1F0 28 22 30 80 26.66
I1F1 22 31 28 81 27
I1F2 27 28 29 84 28
I1F3 31 29 30 90 30
Sub-Total 108 110 117 335 27.91
I2F0 25 30 0 55 18.33
I2F1 30 27 25 82 27.33
I2F2 27 28 28 83 27.66
I2F3 28 28 28 84 28
Sub-Total 110 113 81 304 25.33
I3F0 28 27 26 81 27
I3F1 25 28 27 80 26.66
I3F2 27 22 28 77 25.66
I3F3 24 33 24 81 27
Sub-Total 104 110 105 319 26.58
Grand Total 397 381 411 1166 24.29


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 1267.31250000 74.54779412 1.33 0.2430
Rep 2 28.16666667 14.08333333 0.25 0.7801
Irig 3 527.72916667 175.90972222 3.13* 0.0403
Fert 3 366.22916667 122.07638889 2.17* 0.1122
Irig x Fert 9 345.18750000 38.35416667 0.68ns 0.7189
Error 30 1687.16666667 56.23888889
Total 47 2954.47916667
* - Significant Coefficient of Variation = 30.27455 %
ns – Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

50

APPENDIX TABLE 3. Duration of fruit development as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 15 15 5
I0F1 13 0 11 24 8
I0F2 0 17 14 31 10.33
I0F3 14 14 15 43 14.33
Sub-Total 27 31 55 113 9.41
I1F0 12 11 15 38 12.66
I1F1 9 9 17 35 11.66
I1F2 14 13 16 43 14.33
I1F3 10 10 9 29 9.66
Sub-Total 45 43 57 145 12.07
I2F0 18 16 0 34 11.33
I2F1 9 14 16 39 13
I2F2 0 11 8 19 6.33
I2F3 7 13 10 30 10
Sub-Total 34 54 34 122 10.16
I3F0 13 12 12 37 12.33
I3F1 15 14 15 44 14.66
I3F2 14 17 15 46 15.33
I3F3 19 8 15 42 14
Sub-Total 61 51 57 169 14.08
Grand Total 167 179 203 549 11.44


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 460.47916667 27.08700980 1.02 0.4690
Rep 2 42.00000000 21.00000000 0.79 0.4639
Irig 3 157.39583333 52.46527778 1.97* 0.1399
Fert 3 20.56250000 6.85416667 0.26ns 0.8556
Irig x Fert 9 240.52083333 26.72453704 1.00* 0.4591
Error 30 799.33333333 26.64444444
Total 47 1259.81250000
* - Significant Coefficient of Variation = 45.13072 %
ns – Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

51

APPENDIX TABLE 4. Average number of flowers as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 25 0 30 55 18.33
I0F1 28 0 148 176 58.66
I0F2 16 83 140 239 75.66
I0F3 124 29 238 391 130.33
Sub-Total 193 112 556 861 70.74
I1F0 106 48 54 208 69.33
I1F1 93 107 150 350 116.6
I1F2 243 51 28 322 107.33
I1F3 171 94 269 534 178
Sub-Total 613 300 501 1414 117.81
I2F0 53 153 0 206 68.6
I2F1 35 115 71 221 73.66
I2F2 15 122 84 221 73.6
I2F3 254 126 147 527 175
Sub-Total 357 516 302 1175 97.71
I3F0 112 96 15 223 74.33
I3F1 60 183 113 356 118.6
I3F2 50 131 106 287 95.66
I3F3 157 19 33 209 69.66
Sub-Total 379 429 267 1075 89.56
Grand Total 1542 1357 1626 4525 94.27


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 82115.02083333 4830.29534314 0.99 0.4895
Rep 2 2367.54166667 1183.77083333 0.24 0.7853
Irig 3 13171.72916667 4390.57638889 0.90ns 0.4509
Fert 3 39854.06250000 13284.68750000 2.73* 0.0611
Irig x Fert 9 26721.68750000 2969.07638889 0.61ns 0.7778
Error 30 145768.45833333 4858.94861111
Total 47 227883.47916667
* - Significant Coefficient of Variation = 73.94244 %
ns – Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

52

APPENDIX TABLE 5. Percent fruit set as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 1.6 1.6 .53
I0F1 14.2 0 16.8 31 10.33
I0F2 0 9.6 13.5 23.1 7.7
I0F3 16.9 44.8 6.7 68.4 22.8
Sub-Total 31.1 54.4 93 124.1 10.34
I1F0 21.6 22.9 44.4 88.9 29.63
I1F1 25.8 20.5 38.6 84.9 28.3
I1F2 20.9 33.3 50 104.2 34.73
I1F3 53.8 56.3 42.37 152.47 50.82
Sub-Total 122.1 133 175.37 430.47 35.87
I2F0 30.1 9.1 0 39.2 13.06
I2F1 34.2 41.7 18.3 94.2 31.4
I2F2 0 23.7 52.3 76 25.33
I2F3 17.3 55 30.6 102.9 34.3
Sub-Total 81.6 129.5 101.2 312.3 26.02
I3F0 16 4.1 26.6 46.7 15.56
I3F1 21.6 21.3 13.2 56.1 18.7
I3F2 6 18.3 33.9 58.2 19.4
I3F3 24.2 31.5 39.3 95 31.66
Sub-Total 67.8 75.2 113 256 21.31
Grand Total 302.6 392.1 428.17 1122.87 23.39


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 7557.28369375 444.54609963 2.55 0.0121
Rep 2 522.48166250 261.24083125 1.50 0.2393
Irig 3 4046.93847292 1348.97949097 7.75* 0.0006
Fert 3 2543.39197292 847.79732431 4.87* 0.0071
Irig x Fert 9 444.47158542 49.38573171 0.28ns 0.9742
Error 30 5224.10493750 174.13683125
Total 47 12781.38863125
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 56.41013%
ns- Not Significant




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

53

APPENDIX TABLE 6. Number of fruit developed as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 5 5 1.66
I0F1 4 0 25 29 9.66
I0F2 0 8 19 27 9
I0F3 21 13 16 50 16.66
Sub-Total 25 21 65 111 9.25
I1F0 23 11 24 58 19.33
I1F1 24 22 58 104 34.66
I1F2 51 17 14 82 27.33
I1F3 92 53 114 259 86.33
Sub-Total 190 103 210 503 41.91
I2F0 16 14 0 30 10
I2F1 12 48 13 73 24.33
I2F2 0 29 44 73 24.33
I2F3 44 70 45 159 53
Sub-Total 72 161 102 335 27.92
I3F0 18 4 4 2 8.66
I3F1 13 39 15 67 22.33
I3F2 3 24 36 63 21
I3F3 38 6 13 57 19
Sub-Total 72 73 68 189 17.75
Grand Total 359 358 445 1162 24.21


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 19282.37500000 1134.25735294 4.22 0.0003
Rep 2 311.79166667 155.89583333 0.58 0.5658
Irig 3 7113.58333333 2371.19444444 8.83* 0.0002
Fert 3 7231.58333333 2410.52777778 8.97* 0.0002
Irig x Fert 9 4625.41666667 513.93518519 1.91* 0.0884
Error 30 8057.54166667 268.58472222
Total 47 27339.91666667
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 67.69799%




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

54

APPENDIX TABLE 7. Percent of flower drop as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 100 X 83.37 183.33 61.11
I0F1 85.71 X 83.10 168.81 56.27
I0F2 100 90.36 86.42 276.78 92.26
I0F3 83.06 55.17 93.27 231.5 77.16
Sub-Total 368.77 145.53 328.16 860.42 71.7
I1F0 78.30 77.08 55.55 210.93 70.31
I1F1 74.19 79.43 61.33 214.95 71.65
I1F2 79.01 66.66 50 195.67 65.22
I1F3 46.19 43.61 57.62 147.42 49.14
Sub-Total 277.69 266.78 224.5 768.97 64.08
I2F0 69.81 90.84 X 160.65 53.55
I2F1 65.71 58.28 81.69 205.68 68.56
I2F2 100 76.22 47.61 223.83 74.61
I2F3 82.67 44.44 69.38 196.49 65.49
Sub-Total 318.19 587.97 198.68 786.65 65.55
I3F0 83.92 95.83 73.33 253.08 84.36
I3F1 78.33 78.68 88.72 245.73 81.91
I3F2 94 81.68 66.03 241.71 80.57
I3F3 75.79 68.42 60.60 204.81 68.24
Sub-Total 332.04 324.61 288.68 945.33 78.77
Grand Total 1296.69 1006.7 1057.98 3361.37 70.03


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 6140.77110942 361.22182997 2.17 0.0350
Rep 2 1064.61976165 532.30988082 3.20 0.0568
Irig 3 2824.67161990 941.55720663 5.65* 0.0039
Fert 3 1668.83193247 556.27731082 3.34* 0.0340
Irig x Fert 9 582.64779540 64.73864393 0.39ns 0.9301
Error 27 4497.05005502 166.55740945
Total 44 10637.82116444
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation%
ns- Not Significant




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

55

APPENDIX TABLE 8. Average length of shoot (cm) as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 53 81 42 176 58.66
I0F1 47 51 94 192 64
I0F2 46 143 110 299 99.66
I0F3 81 158 115 354 118
Sub-Total 227 433 361 1021 85.08
I1F0 80 36 60 176 58.6
I1F1 159 108 131 398 132.66
I1F2 175 146 210 531 177
I1F3 140 210 21 611 203.66
Sub-Total 554 500 422 1716 142.98
I2F0 107 105 47 259 86.33
I2F1 149 70 99 318 106
I2F2 134 167 152 453 151
I2F3 253 122 198 573 191
Sub-Total 643 464 496 1603 133.58
I3F0 187 108 84 379 126.33
I3F1 98 103.8 39 240.8 80.26
I3F2 89 90 146 325 108.33
I3F3 104 206 144 454 151.33
Sub-Total 478 507.8 413 1398.8 116.56
Grand Total 1902 1904.8 1932 5738.8 119.56


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 94689.17666667 5569.95156863 3.20 0.0026
Rep 2 34.32666667 17.16333333 0.01 0.9902
Irig 3 23324.25666667 7774.75222222 4.47* 0.0104
Fert 3 51676.09000000 17225.36333333 9.90* 0.0001
Irig x Fert 9 19654.50333333 2183.83370370 1.26* 0.3008
Error 30 52192.90000000 1739.76333333
Total 47 146882.07666667
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 34.88713%




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

56

APPENDIX TABLE 9. Rind thickness as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 .46 .46 .15
I0F1 .32 0 .36 .68 .22
I0F2 0 .4 .37 .77 .25
I0F3 .41 .43 .39 1.23 .41
Sub-Total .73 .83 1.58 3.14 0.25
I1F0 .42 .35 .43 1.2 .4
I1F1 .48 .46 .37 1.31 .43
I1F2 .42 .43 .44 1.29 .43
I1F3 .42 .44 .44 1.3 .43
Sub-Total 1.74 1.68 1.68 5.1 0.42
I2F0 .43 .42 0 .85 .28
I2F1 .37 .38 .44 1.19 .39
I2F2 0 .37 .33 .7 .23
I2F3 .43 .32 .44 1.19 .39
Sub-Total 1.23 1.49 1.21 3.93 0.32
I3F0 .46 .43 .55 1.44 .48
I3F1 .39 .31 .4 1.1 .36
I3F2 .53 .36 .42 1.31 .43
I3F3 .46 .45 .37 1.28 .42
Sub-Total 1.84 1.55 1.74 5.13 0.42
Grand Total 5.54 5.55 6.21 17.3 0.36


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 0.44082083 0.02593064 1.39 0.2083
Rep 2 0.01842917 0.00921458 0.49 0.6146
Irig 3 0.23407500 0.07802500 4.19* 0.0137
Fert 3 0.05527500 0.01842500 0.99ns 0.4111
Irig x Fert 9 0.13304167 0.01478241 0.79ns 0.6245
Error 30 0.55877083 0.01862569
Total 47 0.99959167
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 37.86617%
ns- Not Significant




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

57

APPENDIX TABLE 10. Polar diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 6.28 6.28 2.09
I0F1 5.52 0 5.98 11.51 3.83
I0F2 0 5.67 5.92 11.59 3.86
I0F3 5.66 6.32 6.06 18.04 6.01
Sub-Total 11.18 11.99 24.24 47.42 3.94
I1F0 5.7 4.99 5.91 16.6 5.53
I1F1 6.22 6.45 5.74 18.41 6.13
I1F2 6.44 6.03 6.23 18.7 6.23
I1F3 6.45 6.76 6.35 19.5 6.52
Sub-Total 24.81 24.23 24.23 73.21 5.38
I2F0 6.14 5.70 0 11.84 6.52
I2F1 6.05 5.79 5.59 17.43 5.81
I2F2 0 5.88 5.81 11.69 3.89
I2F3 6.29 6.05 6.65 18.99 6.33
Sub-Total 18.48 23.42 18.05 59.95 5.63
I3F0 6.75 6.76 6.9 20.41 6.80
I3F1 5.84 5.64 5.45 16.93 3.94
I3F2 7.43 5.97 5.74 19.14 6.38
I3F3 6.12 7.1 6.08 19.3 6.43
Sub-Total 26.14 25.47 24.17 75.78 5.88
Grand Total 80.62 85.11 90.69 2566.42 53.47


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 87.31688125 5.13628713 1.31 0.2527
Rep 2 3.18735000 1.59367500 0.41 0.6699
Irig 3 43.02415625 14.34138542 3.65* 0.0234
Fert 3 19.03118958 6.34372986 1.62* 0.2064
Irig x Fert 9 22.07418542 2.45268727 0.62ns 0.7666
Error 30 117.76165000 3.92538833
Total 47 205.07853125
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 37.08921%
ns- Not Significant




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

58

APPENDIX TABLE 11. Equatorial diameter (cm) as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 5.8 5.8 1.93
I0F1 4.81 0 5.37 10.18 3.39
I0F2 0 4.72 5.01 9.73 3.24
I0F3 4.91 5.41 5.3 15.62 5.20
Sub-Total 9.72 10.13 16.18 41.33 3.44
I1F0 4.98 4.54 5.27 14.79 4.93
I1F1 5.02 5.42 5.13 15.57 5.19
I1F2 5.53 5.33 5.43 1.29 5.43
I1F3 5.28 5.99 5.36 16.63 5.54
Sub-Total 20.81 21.28 21.19 48.28 5.27
I2F0 5.22 5.01 0 10.23 3.41
I2F1 5.27 4.87 4.71 14.85 4.95
I2F2 0 5.09 4.98 10.07 3.35
I2F3 5.53 5.57 5.57 16.67 5.55
Sub-Total 16.02 20.54 15.26 51.82 4.31
I3F0 5.57 6 6.1 17.67 5.89
I3F1 5.01 4.94 4.59 14.54 4.84
I3F2 6.1 4.99 4.92 16.01 5.33
I3F3 5.12 6 5.08 16.2 5.4
Sub-Total 21.8 21.93 20.6 64.42 5.36
Grand Total 68.35 73.88 78.62 220.85 4.60


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 62.45897708 3.67405748 1.23 0.2993
Rep 2 3.30252917 1.65126458 0.55 0.5804
Irig 3 29.50795625 9.83598542 3.30* 0.0337
Fert 3 12.75362292 4.25120764 1.43* 0.2545
Irig x Fert 9 16.89486875 1.87720764 0.63ns 0.7624
Error 30 89.40567083 2.98018903
Total 47 151.86464792
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 37.52025%
ns- Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

59

APPENDIX TABLE 12. Average weight per fruit (g) as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 108 108 36
I0F1 67 0 94 161 53.66
I0F2 0 67 75 142 47.33
I0F3 71 102 91 264 88
Sub-Total 138 169 368 675 56.24
I1F0 77 52 86 215 71.66
I1F1 6 87 73 226 75.33
I1F2 60 93 99 252 84
I1F3 107 102 92 301 100.33
Sub-Total 250 334 350 994 82.83
I2F0 89 76 0 165 55
I2F1 91 60 67 218 72.66
I2F2 0 79 79 158 52.66
I2F3 101 87 107 295 98.33
Sub-Total 281 302 253 836 69.66
I3F0 107 126.6 90.75 324.35 108.11
I3F1 79 76 57 212 70.66
I3F2 140 80 58 278 92.66
I3F3 68 103.3 83 254.3 84.76
Sub-Total 394 385.9 288.75 1068.65 89.03
Grand Total 1123 1190.9 1259.75 3573.65 74.45


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 20418.57442708 1201.09261336 1.12 0.3846
Rep 2 584.40197917 292.20098958 0.27 0.7641
Irig 3 7652.18682292 2550.72894097 2.37* 0.0903
Fert 3 5435.20265625 1811.73421875 1.68 * 0.1917
Irig x Fert 9 6746.78296875 749.64255208 0.70ns 0.7068
Error 30 32292.47302083 1076.41576736
Total 47 52711.04744792
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 44.06758%
ns- Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

60

APPENDIX TABLE 13. Average yield per tree (kg) as affected by fertilization and
irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 0 0 0.450 0.54 0.15
I0F1 4 0 7 11 3.66
I0F2 0 8 2.5 10.5 3.5
I0F3 7 4 2.5 13.5 4.5
Sub-Total 11 12 12.45 35.54 2.95
I1F0 2 4 4.5 10.5 3.5
I1F1 30 5 23 58 19.33
I1F2 16 19 8 43 14.33
I1F3 30 22 41.5 93.5 31.16
Sub-Total 78 50 77 205 17.08
I2F0 4.5 13 0 17.5 5.83
I2F1 12 15.6 8.5 36.1 12.03
I2F2 0 11 5 16 5.33
I2F3 15 22.5 20 57.5 19.16
Sub-Total 31.5 62.1 33.5 77.1 10.58
I3F0 7 0.380 0.480 7.86 2.62
I3F1 12 12.5 1.5 26 8.66
I3F2 0.420 6 10.6 17.02 5.67
I3F3 12 0.520 6 18.52 6.17
Sub-Total 31.42 19.4 18.58 69.4 5.78
Grand Total 151.92 143.5 141.62 437.04 9.11


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 2789.04986042 164.06175650 4.30 0.0002
Rep 2 26.57686250 13.28843125 0.35 0.7089
Irig 3 1109.72473958 369.90824653 9.69* 0.0001
Fert 3 934.35677292 311.45225764 8.16* 0.0004
Irig x Fert 9 718.39148542 79.82127616 2.09* 0.0629
Error 30 1145.29627083 38.17654236
Total 47 3934.34613125
*- Significant *coefficient of Variation =70.79088%
ns- Not Significant



Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

61

APPENDIX TABLE 14. Yield of intercrop as affected by fertilization and irrigation

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II III
I0F0 .9 .9 .3 2.1 0.7
I0F1 .7 .5 .3 1.5 0.5
I0F2 1.4 .8 .4 2.6 0.86
I0F3 1.2 .5 .5 2.2 0.73
Sub-Total 4.2 2.7 1.5 8.4 0.69
I1F0 1.1 1.2 .6 2.9 0.96
I1F1 2 1.1 1.3 4.4 1.46
I1F2 1.4 .8 .4 2.6 0.86
I1F3 1.4 1.1 .8 3.3 1.1
Sub-Total 5.9 4.2 3.1 13.2 1.0
I2F0 1.5 .8 1 3.3 1.1
I2F1 1.8 .7 .9 3.4 1.13
I2F2 1.3 1.1 .6 3 1
I2F3 1.2 .6 .6 2.4 .8
Sub-Total 5.2 3.2 3.1 12.1 4.03
I3F0 1.3 1.3 .4 3 1
I3F1 1.1 1.8 2.9 .9 6
I3F2 1.2 1 .9 3.1 1.03
I3F3 1.1 1.8 .4 3.3 1.1
Sub-Total 4.7 5.9 4.6 10.3 9.13
Grand Total 20.6 14.9 10.3 45.8 0.95


ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DF SUM OF MEAN FREQUENCY Pr > F
VARIANCE SQUARES SQUARE VALUE
Model 17 5.56041667 0.32708333 4.34 0.0002
Rep 2 3.32791667 1.66395833 22.10 0.0001
Irig 3 1.23083333 0.41027778 5.45* 0.0041
Fert 3 0.06416667 0.02138889 0.28ns 0.8365
Irig x Fert 9 0.93 7550000 0.10416667 1.38* 0.2392
Error 30 2.25875000 0.07529167
Total 47 7.81916667
*- Significant Coefficient of Variation = 28.75737%
ns- Not Significant




Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer
Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet / Delmar C. Kililit. 2007

---

Document Outline

• Performance of Meyer Lemon (Citrus limon L.) Under Different Irrigation and Fertilizer Schedules in Pine-based Agroforestry System in Mankayan, Benguet
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • MATERIALS AND METHOD
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDIXES

---