BIBLIOGRAPHY MAURICIO, MAURO D. APRIL 2010....

BIBLIOGRAPHY
MAURICIO, MAURO D. APRIL 2010. Growth and Yield of Snap bean as
Affected by Seed Priming. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
Adviser: Danilo P. Padua, PhD.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to compare the growth and fresh pod yield of the three
snap bean varieties; determine the growth and fresh pod yield of the snap bean varieties
as affected by seed priming; determine the interaction of seed priming and variety on the
growth and fresh pod yield of snap bean; and determine the profitability of the three snap
bean varieties as affected by seed priming.

HAB 63, BBL 274 and Landmark were the varieties used. All varieties emerged 7
days after sowing, with HAB 63 and Landmark being the first to flower and first to set
pod. Landmark was the first to harvest. HAB 63 produced the highest yield of 11.78 tons
per hectare and had the highest return on cash expenses (ROCE). The three varieties
exhibited mild resistance to bean rust and pod borer.

Seeds primed with water, Moringa solution and goat urine emerged, flowered and
set pod earlier. In addition, priming enhanced taller plants, higher percent survival and
higher number and weight of marketable fresh pod. Seeds primed with water had the
highest yield and ROCE.
The yield was not affected by variety and seed priming interaction but a
combination of HAB 63 and water was found to be more profitable.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Seed Priming. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Moringa Leaves and Goat Urine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Planting and Cultural Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Suitable area for snap bean production. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
Data Gathered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Data Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Days from sowing to emergence, flowering pod setting and first harvest . . . . . . .
12
Number of days from sowing to emergence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Number of days from sowing to flowering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Number of days from emergence to pod setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Number of days from sowing to first harvest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12

Plant height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13

Initial plant height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14

ii

Final plant height. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Percent survival. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Plant vigor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Number of flower per cluster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Number of pod per cluster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Percent pod set per cluster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Reaction to bean rust and pod borer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Yield and yield components. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Number and Weight of marketable fresh pod per 5m2 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
19
Number and Weight of non-marketable fresh pods per 5m2. . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Computed fresh pod yield per hectare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Return on Cash Expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30

iii

INTRODUCTION

Snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a common source of protein for human diet
as well as feed supplement for animals. It is rich in vitamins and soluble carbohydrates.
Snap bean thrives well in cool and medium to high area altitude in tropical countries
(World book Encyclopedia, 1991). It is grown for both the fresh market and processing
industry and may not require intensive management (Swiader and Ware, 2002).
Snap bean is a priority under the National Vegetable R&D Program of PCCARD-
DOST. The major producers of fresh snap beans are the Cordillera Administrative
Region (47%) and Cagayan Valley (29%). Last 2006, snap bean production was at 3,493
tons (BAS, 2006).
Farmers in Benguet have many practices done on snap beans to improve
production such as irrigation, application of fertilizer and pesticides, choices of right
varieties and time of planting. Seed priming could be another fruitful practice.

Seed Priming is a process of treating plant seeds before sowing or planting that
enable them to undergo faster and more uniform germination (Lankford, 1999). It is a
form of seed preparation in which the seeds are pre-soaked before planting (Wikimedia
Inc., 2008).
Over the past two decades seed enhancement through seed priming has led to
great improvements in a grower’s ability to routinely achieve this goal in both the field
and greenhouse. Numerous vegetable and ornamental crop species have been primed
successfully. In order to maintain a superior product, seed companies have to maintain
seed quality and longevity in the primed seed. Uniformity and percentage of seedling
emergence of direct-seeded crops have a major impact on final yield and quality. Slow
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

2

emergence results in smaller plants and seedlings, which are more vulnerable to soil-
borne diseases (Cantliffe, 2000).
Seed priming with synthetic chemicals maybe effective in enhancing seed
germination, establishment, and early growth but they are quite hazardous. Finding
suitable substitute such as the use of some animal urine and plant extract could be very
fruitful and environmental friendly. Several studies were conducted on snap bean. This
experiment aim to help farmers to save money for re-seeding, time and weak plants.
The objectives of the study were to:
1. compare the growth and fresh pod yield of three snap bean varieties;
2. determine the effect of seed priming on the growth and fresh pod yield
of the snap bean varieties;
3. determine the interaction of seed priming and variety on the growth and
fresh pod yield of snap bean; and
4. determine the profitability of the three snap bean varieties as affected
by seed priming.
The study was conducted at Benguet State University Experimental Farm, Balili,
La Trinidad, Benguet from December 2009 to March 2010.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Seed Priming
Priming could be defined, as controlling the hydration level within seeds so that
the metabolic activity necessary for germination can occur but radical emergence is
prevented. Lastly, priming has been commercially used to eliminate or greatly reduce the
amount of seed borne fungi and bacteria. The mechanisms responsible for eradication
maybe linked to the water potentials that seed are exposed to during priming, differential
sensitivity to priming salts and or differential sensitivity oxygen concentration (Bradford,
1995).

Priming is a water-based process that is performed in seeds to increase uniformity
of germination and emergence from the soil, and thus enhance growth. Priming decreases
the time span between the emergence of the first and the last seedlings and also increases
the rate of emergence. Primed seed usually emerges from the soil faster, and more
uniformly than the non primed seeds of the same seed lot (Harris, 2008).
In general, most kinds of seed experimented shown an overall advantages over
seeds that are not primed (Harris, 2002). Bradford (1995) stated that the benefits of seed
priming are overcome or alleviate phytochrome, induce dormancy, decrease the time
necessary for germination and for subsequent emergence to occur, and improve the stand
uniformity.
On-farm seed priming is safe, effective and easily adopted by resource-poor
farmers and has the potential to benefit such farmers in many ways. More work is
required to clarify the mechanisms by which priming affects development, growth and
disease resistance and to refine methods for low-cost alleviation of some micronutrient
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

4

deficiencies. Seed priming in chickpea significantly reduced the damage caused by collar
rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) in Bangladesh in two contrasting seasons. Recent work in Pakistan
has demonstrated that mungbean (Vigna radiata) grown from seed primed in water for 8
hours before sowing showed significantly fewer serious symptoms of infection by
Mungbean Yellow Mosaic Virus (MYMV) than a crop established without priming. The
large differences in virus-related damage were associated with significant increases in
pod weight and grain weight due to priming (Harris, 2004).

Farmers can prime their own seed if they know the safe limits, are calculated for
each variety so that germination will not continue once seed are removed from the water.
In most cases, seeds can be primed overnight and simply surface dried and sown the same
day. Primed seed will only germinate if it takes up additional moisture from the soil after
sowing. It is important to note that between priming and pre germination-sowing, pre-
germinated seed under dry land conditions can be disastrous. Apart from and swelling
slightly and weighing more, primed seed can be treated in the same way as non primed
seed (Harris, 2008).

Seed primed or soaked in water has higher percent survival than the seed soaked
in castor bean extract. It provides hint that the castor bean and coconut water or any of
the extract used is not really effective in enhancing crop seed germination (Rivera, 2001).

Moringa Leaves and Goat Urine
Moringa leaves contain high Vitamin A, calcium, iron, Vitamin C potassium and
protein. However, the leaves and stem of M. oleifera are known to have large amounts of
their calcium bound in calcium oxalate crystals (Wikipedia, 2009).
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

5

Goat urine and feces do not contain urea, and for this reason the bedding can be
used directly on the garden for fertilizing and mulching and will not burn plants. A
healthy goat will produce feces that look like black, shiny marbles (MacKenzie, 1993).
Goat urine content 50 percent of the nitrogen and 60 to 70 percent of the potassium.
Frequently, manure has a low fertility value due to failure to incorporate the urine, or the
nitrogen is lost through leaching. Eighteen to 20 mcal of energy inputs are required to
produce one kg of nitrogen fertilizer (McDowell, 1992). Predictions for the future are that
animal wastes will again be viewed more favorably as a useful resource.

Planting and Cultural Management Practices

The seed should be planted 1.27 cm deep, but if the soil is very dry, place the seed
about 3.81 cm in deep so they will obtain adequate moisture and will germinate within a
reasonable number of days after sowing (Maynard, 2001).

Beans can be planted the whole year around. It is commonly direct seeded in the
rows for easy cultivation. Seeding rates may differ depending on seed size, percent
germination, irrigation and row spacing. The planting distance is 20 cm x 20cm both
ways with 2-3 seeds per hill is best for snap bean production. Seed planted during dry
season should be covered with soil equal to avoid rotting of seeds (HARRDEC, 1989).
Beans are moderately deep rooted crops in which a constant supply of moisture in needed
to maximize yield and quality and to maintain uniformity. The plant should use as much
as .508 cm of water per day season. A shortage of moisture during flowering can cause
blossom and pods to drop. Deformed pods can results from water stress due to low soil
moisture or excessive transpiration (Swiader and Ware, 2002).

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

6

Suitable area for snap bean production

Snap bean grows best with temperature 15-210C.This crop can tolerate warmer
temperature up to 250C (HARRDEC, 1989). Growth and yield of snap bean are also best
in high elevation, yield was significantly low in lower elevation and maturity was longer
in higher duration than in lower duration (Bantog and Padua 1999).

It is reported that bean is best on soil that hold water well and have a good air and
water filtration. Soil should have a pH of 5.8 to 6.6. Pacher (2002) stated that snap bean
is a warm season vegetable that can tolerate frost. It requires adequate amount of
moisture for rapid growth, good pod set and early maturity.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

7

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An area of 180 square meters was thoroughly prepared and divided into 36 plots
measuring 1m x 5m. The experiment was laid out using a 3 x 4 factor factorial design
arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with 3 replications.
Processed chicken manure at the rate of 5 kg per 5m2 as basal fertilizer and 1000
kg/ha of Triple 14 was sidedressed during hilling up at 20 days after planting. Before
sowing, the seeds of 3 varieties of snap bean were primed for 8 hours in pure water,
Moringa leaves solution and goat urine solution; other seeds were unprimed and served
as control. Two seeds per hill were sown in double row plot at a distance of 20cm x 20cm
between hills and rows. Cultural management practices were employed to ensure the
normal growths of the plants such as irrigation were done in 3 days interval and weeding
done by hand pulling. Crop protection was also done by spraying the recommended rate
of insecticides and fungicide on the label at seven days interval.

The treatments were as follows:
Factor A- Variety
V1= HAB 63
V2= BBL 274
V3= Landmark
Factor B- Priming materials
P0= control (unprimed)
P1= primed with water for 8 hrs.
P2= primed with Moringa (Moringa oleifera Lam.) solution for 8 hrs.
P3= primed with goat urine solution for 8 hrs
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

8

Data gathered

1. Days from sowing to emergence, flowering pod setting and first harvest
a. Number of days from sowing to emergence. This was recorded when
50% of plants per plot had emerge.
b. Number of days from sowing to flowering. This was recorded by
counting the number of days from sowing to at least 50% of the plants per plot had fully
opened flowers.
c. Number of days from emergence to pod setting. This was recorded by
counting the number of days from emergence to at least 50% of pod sets are developed.
d. Number of days from sowing to first harvest. This was recorded by
counting the number of days from sowing to first harvest.
2. Plant height
a. Initial plant height. The initial plant height was measured 30 days after
planting (DAP) from 10 sample plants using meter stick.
b. Final plant height. This was measured from ground level to the tip of
the plant during last harvest from 10 sample plants.
3. Percent survival. The data was computed using the formula:

% Survival = Total no. of seed emergence x100
Total no. of seed sown

4. Plant vigor. This was rated using the following scale:
Scale

Remarks
1
very poor growth
2 poor growth
3 moderate vigorous
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

9

4
vigorous
5
very vigorous
5. Number of flower per cluster. The number of flower per cluster was obtained
from 10 random sample plants.
6. Number of pod per cluster. The number of flower pod per cluster was obtained
from 10 random sample plants.
7. Percent pod set per cluster. This was computed using the following formula:
% pod set= Total number of pod per cluster x100
Total number of flower per cluster

8. Yield and yield components
a. Number and Weight of marketable fresh pod per plot (kg). This was
recorded by counting and weighing the marketable fresh pods per plot per treatment.
Marketable pods were free from disease and insect damage and not deformed.
b. Number and Weight of non-marketable fresh pods per plot (kg). This
was obtained by counting and weighing the non-marketable pods per plot per treatment.
Non marketable was observed as diseased, insect damaged and deformed pods.
c. Computed fresh pod yield per hectare (t/ha). Total yield per hectare in
tons was computed by using the following formula:

Total yield per plot 10,000 m2
Yield (t/ha) = x

5m2 1,000 kg
9. Return on Cash Expense. This was computed using the following formula:
ROCE= Gross sales-Total expenses x 100
Total expenses

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

10

10. Reaction to bean rust and pod borer. This was determined using the following
scales:
a. Bean rust.

Scale
Description

Remarks

0

No infection per plot

High resistant

1

21-30 % infections per plot
Mild resistant

2

31-45% infections per plot
Moderate

resistant

3

46-60% infection per plot

Susceptible

4

greater than 60% infection

Very

per plot

susceptible

b.
Pod
borer.

Scale
Description

Remarks

0

No infestation per plot

High resistant

1

21-30 % infestations per plot
Mild resistant

2

31-45% infestations per plot
Moderate

resistant

3

46-60% infestation per plot
Susceptible

4

greater than 60% infestation
Very

per plot

susceptible

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

11

Analysis of Data
All quantitative data were analyzed using the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for
three by four factor factorial in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three
replications. The significance of differences among the treatments was tested using
Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

12

RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION

Number of Days from sowing to emergence,
to flowering, emergence to pod setting and
sowing to first harvest

Effect of variety. Table 1 shows the number of days from sowing to emergence,
sowing to flowering, emergence to pod setting, and sowing to first harvest. On the
number of days from sowing to harvesting, the varieties emerged 7 days after sowing. On
the other hand, HAB 63 and Landmark flowered 41 days after sowing while BBL 274
flowered a day later. The same results were noted on the number of days from emergence
to pod setting. HAB 63 and Landmark produced pods 35 days after emergence while
BBL 274 produced pods a day later at 36 days. Lastly, Landmark was harvested the
earliest at 55 days after sowing followed by HAB 63 which was harvested after 57 days
while BBL 274 was harvested after 58 days from sowing. Differences might be due to the
different genetic characteristics of the snap bean varieties.

Effect of priming materials. Primed seeds of snap beans emerged a day earlier
than the unprimed (control) snap bean seeds. This result supports the finding of Harris
(2008) that primed seed usually emerge from the soil faster and more uniformly than non-
primed seed.
On the number of days from sowing to flowering, those seeds primed with water,
Moringa solution and goat urine for 8 hours flowered a day earlier than seeds that were
unprimed. Primed seeds produced pods 35 days from emergence while the unprimed
seeds produced seeds a day later (36 days). In addition, primed seeds were harvested
earlier at 57 days after sowing while unprimed seeds were harvested a day later in 58
days.
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

13

Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence, sowing to flowering, emergence to

pod setting, and sowing to first harvest of bush snap bean varieties as affected by
seed
priming

NUMBER OF DAYS FROM:
TREATMENT
SOWING TO
SOWING TO
EMERGENCE
SOWING
EMERGENCE
FLOWERING
TO POD
TO FIRST
SETTING
HARVEST

Variety (V)

HAB 63
7
41
35
52

BBL 274
7
42
36
58

Landmark
7
41
35
55

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
8
42
36
58

Water
7 41
35
57

Moringa solution
7 41
35
57

Goat urine solution
7 41
35
57

Initial Plant Height

Effect of variety. No significant differences were noted on the initial height of the
different varieties of snap beans (Table 2). It was noted that the average initial height of
the snap beans which was taken 30 days after planting was 11 centimeters.

Effect of priming materials. Significant differences were noted on the initial plant
height of the snap beans as affected by the different priming materials. Snap beans
primed with water and Moringa solution were taller as compared to seeds primed with
goat solution and seeds which were unprimed.
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

14

Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect between variety and priming
materials was noted on the initial plant height of snap beans.

Final Plant Height
Effect of variety. Table 2 shows that the final plant height of the different
varieties of snap beans ranged from 34.18 cm to 34.30 cm.
Effect of priming materials. Highly significant differences were noted on the final
plant height of snap beans as affected by the different priming materials. Snap beans
primed with water and Moringa solutions for 8 hours significantly produced the tallest

Table 2. Plant height of bush snap bean varieties as affected by seed priming

PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
TREATMENT
30 DAP
LAST HARVEST

Variety (V)

HAB 63
11.41
34.18

BBL 274
10.86
34.28

Landmark
11.13
34.30

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
10.65b
33.70c

Water
11.49a
34.43a

Moringa solution
11.45a
34.45a

Goat solution
10.94b
34.36b

VxP ns
ns
CV (%)
5.09
0.69
* Means with common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance
using DMRT
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

15

plants at 34.43 cm and 34.45 cm, respectively. The unprimed snap beans were
significantly shorter as compared to the primed snap beans.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect was noted on the final plant
height of snap beans.

Percentage of Survival

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences were noted on the percentage
survival of the different varieties of snap beans (Table 3). HAB 63 had the highest
percentage of survival (90.08%) followed by Landmark (83.75%). The different
percentage of survival of the snap bean varieties may be attributed to the genetic
characteristics of each variety.
Effect of priming materials. Significant differences were noted on the percentage
survival of snap beans as affected by the different priming materials. Snap beans primed
with water and Moringa solution had the highest percentage of survival (87.33% and
88.11%, respectively), followed by seeds primed with goat urine (85%). Unprimed seeds
had the lowest percentage of survival of 81%. This result supports the finding of Rivera
(2001) that seed primed in water gives higher percent survival. In addition Moringa
solution which resulted to a higher percent survival maybe due to the vitamins, calcium
iron and potassium it contains (Wikipedia, 2009).
Interaction
effect. No significant differences were noted on the interaction effect
of variety and the priming material on the percent survival of snap beans.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

16

Table 3. Percentage survival of bush snap bean varieties as affected by seed priming

SURVIVAL (%)
TREATMENT

Variety (V)

HAB 63
90.08a

BBL 274
82.25c

Landmark
83.75b

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
81.00c

Water
87.33a

Moringa solution
88.11a

Goat urine solution
85.00b

VxP ns
CV (%)
6.37
* Means with common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of significance
using DMRT

Plant Vigor

Effect of variety. No significant differences were noted on the plant vigor of the
different varieties of snap beans (Table 4). All three varieties used showed similar plant
vigor of 3.92 which is a reflection of their plant height.

Effect of priming materials. No significant differences were noted on the plant
vigor of snap beans as affected by priming materials. Priming does not affect the plant
vigor of snap beans.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction was noted between variety and
priming material on the plant vigor of snap beans.
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

17

Table 4. Plant vigor of bush snap bean varieties as affected by seed priming

TREATMENT
PLANT VIGOR

Variety (V)

HAB 63
3.92

BBL 274
3.92

Landmark
3.92

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
3.67

Water
4.00

Moringa solution
4.00

Goat urine solution
4.00

VxP
ns
CV (%)
7.37
*1- very poor growth, 2- poor growth, 3- moderate vigorous, 4- vigorous, 5-very
vigorous

Number of Flower per Cluster, Pod per Cluster,
and Percent Pod Set

Effect of variety. The number of flower per cluster, pod per cluster, and percent
pod set of the different varieties of snap beans show no significant differences (Table 5).
It was revealed that the average number of flower per cluster of the different varieties of
snap beans ranged from 5 to 6 while the number of pods was 5 per cluster. The
percentage of pod set ranged from 81.83% to 85.18%.

Effect of priming materials. No significant differences were noted on the number
of flowers and pods per cluster and percent pod set of snap beans as affected by the
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

18

different priming materials. An average of 5 pods per cluster was observed. Unprimed
and primed snap beans produced an average number of 5 to 6 flowers per cluster and the
percent pod set ranged from 83.42% to 84.56%.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect between variety and priming
material was noted on the number of pods per cluster, flowers per cluster and percent pod
set.

Table 5. Number of pods per cluster, flower per cluster and percentage of pod set of bush

snap bean varieties as affected by seed priming

NUMBER
PERCENT
TREATMENT
POD SET
FLOWER PER POD PER
(%)
CLUSTER
CLUSTER

Variety (V)

HAB 63
5.67
4.64
81.83

BBL 274
5.42
4.58
84.50

Landmark
5.42
4.69
86.53

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
5.33
4.54
85.18

Water
5.56
4.67
83.99

Moringa solution
5.67
4.73
83.42

5.44
4.60
84.56
Goat urine solution

VxP ns
ns
ns
CV (%)
10.50
3.97
4.52

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

19

Pest and Disease Incidence Reaction

Effect of variety. All the varieties of snap beans used had mild to moderate
resistance to bean rust and pod borer.
Effect of priming materials. Primed snap beans had a mild resistance to bean rust
and pod borer as compared to the unprimed snap beans which had moderate resistance.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction between variety and priming
materials was noted on resistance to bean rust and pod borer incidence.

Number and Weight of Marketable Fresh Pod

Effect of variety. Table 6 shows highly significant differences on the number and
weight of marketable fresh pods of the different varieties of snap beans. HAB 63 had the
highest number of marketable fresh pod with (786) followed by BBL 274 (654).
HAB 63 also produced the heaviest marketable fresh pod (5.02 kg) due to its high
number of fresh pods while BBL 274 and Landmark had the lowest weight of marketable
fresh pod due to its low number of marketable fresh pods produced.
Effect of priming materials. Significant differences were noted on the number of
marketable fresh pods of snap beans as affected by the different priming materials. Snap
beans primed with water and Moringa solution had the highest number of marketable
fresh pod of 739 and 702, respectively. On the other hand, seeds primed with goat
solution had 696 fresh pods while the unprimed snap bean had the lowest number of
marketable fresh pod of 605.
In addition, highly significant differences were noted on the weight of marketable
fresh pods of snap beans as affected by the different priming materials. Snap beans
primed with water had the highest weight of marketable fresh pod (4.96 kg/5m2),
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

20

followed by those primed with Moringa solution and goat urine solution (4.45 kg/5m2)
while the unprimed snap beans had the lowest weight of marketable fresh pod (3.97
kg/5m2). Thus, water is still the best material to use for seed priming of snap bean.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect in variety and priming
materials were noted on the number and weight of marketable fresh pod of snap beans.

Table 6. Number and weight of marketable fresh pod (5m2) of bush snap bean varieties as
affected by seed priming

MARKETABLE FRESH POD
TREATMENT
NUMBER WEIGHT
(kg/5m2)

Variety (V)

HAB 63
786a
5.02a

BBL 274
654b
4.26b

Landmark
617b
4.10b

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
605c
3.97c

Water
739a
4.96a

Moringa solution
702a
4.45b

Goat urine solution
696b
4.45b

VxP
ns ns
CV (%)
11.86
9.44
*Means of the same letter are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of
significance using DMRT.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

21

Number and Weight of Non – Marketable Fresh Pod

Effect of variety. Significant differences were noted on the number of non –
marketable fresh pods of the different varieties of snap beans. HAB 63 significantly had
the highest number of non – marketable fresh pods (161) while BBL 274 and Landmark
had lower number of non – marketable fresh pods (136 and 161). HAB 63 had smooth
pods that may have been easily damaged by pod borer resulting to more non-marketable
fresh pods. On the other hand, no significant differences were noted on the weight of non
– marketable fresh pods of snap beans varieties (Table 7).

Table 7. Number and weight of non-marketable fresh pod of bush snap bean varieties as

affected by seed priming

NON-MARKETABLE FRESH POD
TREATMENT
NUMBER WEIGHT
(kg/5m2)
Variety (V)

HAB 63
161b
0.87

BBL 274
136a
0.88

Landmark
136a
0.81

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
148
0.84

Water
141
0.85

Moringa solution
145
0.87

143
0.85
Goat urine solution

VxP ns
ns
CV (%)
14.12
9.25
*Means of the same letter are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of
significance using DMRT.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

22

Effect of priming materials. No significant differences were noted on the number
and weight of non – marketable fresh pods applied with the different priming materials. It
was noted that the average number was 141 to 148 non – marketable fresh pods while the
average weight was 0.84 kg to 0.87 kg.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction was noted on the number and weight
of non – marketable fresh pods of snap beans as affected by the variety and priming
materials.

Computed Fresh Pod Yield per Hectare (tons/ha)
Effect of variety. Highly significant differences were noted on the fresh pod yield
per hectare of the different varieties of snap beans (Table 8). HAB 63 had the highest
fresh pod yield (11.78 tons) per hectare while BBL 274 and Landmark had yields of 1.5
and 2 tons per hectare, respectively. HAB 63 produced higher yield per hectare due to
high fresh pod yield produced.
Effect of priming materials. Highly significant differences were noted on the fresh
pod yield per hectare of snap beans as affected by the different priming materials.
Snap beans primed with water had the highest fresh pod yield per hectare (11.61
tons) while the unprimed snap beans had the lowest fresh pod yield (9.63 t/ha).
Interaction
effect. No significant on the interaction between the variety and
priming materials was noted on the fresh pod yield per hectare of snap beans.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

23

Table 8. Computed fresh pod yield per hectare of bush snap bean varieties as affected by
seed
priming

FRESH POD YIELD
TREATMENT
(t/ha)
Variety (V)

HAB 63
11.78a

BBL 274
10.29b

Landmark
9.78b

Priming Materials (P)

Control (unprimed)
9.63c

Water
11.61a

Moringa solution
10.64b

Goat urine solution
10.60b

VxP ns
CV (%)
8.14
*Means of the same letter are not significantly different from each other at 5% level of
significance using DMRT.

Return on Cash Expenses
Effect of variety. The return on cash expenses of three bush snap bean varieties is
shown in Table 9. High ROCE was registered by HAB 63 (96.56 %) followed by BBL
274 (67.06%) and the lowest was obtained from Landmark (60.50%). The high ROCE
obtained from HAB 63 was apparently due to its higher production of marketable fresh
pods.
Effect of priming materials. Plants treated with water as priming material gave the
highest return of 97.67% followed by goat urine (77.35%). Seeds primed with Moringa
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

24

solution gave lower ROCE than seeds primed with goat urine and water due to high
variable cost.
Interaction effect. Table 10 presents the three varieties of bush snap beans as
affected by the different priming materials. All the treatment combinations were
profitable. HAB 63 primed with water registered the highest return on cash expense of
130.35% followed by HAB 63 primed with goat urine solution (104.45%). The least
ROCE was recorded from Landmark with unprimed seeds. Among the three varieties of
snap bean, HAB 63 is more responsive to priming due to higher yield and ROCE.

Table 9. Return on Cash Expenses of bush snap bean varieties as affected by seed
priming

TREATMENT YIELD

GROSS
NET
ROCE
(kg/5m2 VARIABLE
INCOME
INCOME
(%)
COST
Variety (V)

HAB 63
5.02 66.34 130.52 64.18
96.74

BBL 274
4.26 66.34 110.76 44.42
66.96

Landmark
4.10 66.34 106.60 40.26
60.69

Priming Materials (P)

Control(unprimed)
3.97 65.24 103.22 37.98
58.22

Water
4.96 65.24 128.96 63.72
97.67

Moringa solution
4.45 69.63 115.70 46.07
66.16

Goat urine solution
4.45 65.24 115.70 50.46
77.35

*Variable cost includes seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labor
* Sales was based on average of P 26.00per kilo

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

25

Table 10. Return on Cash Expenses of bush snap bean varieties with seed priming

TREATMENT YIELD VARIABLE
GROSS
NET
ROCE
(kg/5m2
COST
INCOME
INCOME
(%)

V1 P0
4.23
65.24
109.98
44.74
68.58

P1
5.78
65.24
150.28
85.04
130.35

P2
4.92
69.63
127.92
58.29
83.72

P3
5.13
65.24
133.38
68.14
104.45

V2 P0
3.87
65.24
100.62
35.38
54.23

P1
4.82
65.24
125.32
60.08
92.09

P2
4.28
69.63
111.28
41.65
59.82

P3
4.08
65.24
106.08
40.84
62.60

V3 P0
3.82
65.24
99.32
34.08
52.24

P1
4.27
65.24
111.02
45.78
70.17

P2
4.16
69.63
108.16
38.53
55.34

P3
4.13
65.24
107.38
42.14
64.59
*Variable cost includes seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and labor
* Sales was based on average of P 26.00per kilo
Legend: V3 – Landmark

P2 – Moringa solution
V1 – HAB 63 P0 – Unprimed (control)
P3 – Goat Urine
V2 – BBL274 P1 – Water

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

26

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study was conducted to compare the growth and fresh pod yield of the three
snap bean varieties; determine the growth and fresh pod yield of the snap bean varieties
as affected by seed priming; determine the interaction of seed priming and variety on the
growth and fresh pod yield of snap bean; and determine the profitability of the three snap
bean varieties as affected by seed priming.

All varieties emerged 7 days after sowing. HAB 63 and Landmark first flowered
within 41 days after sowing and set pod at 35 days after emergence. Landmark was first
harvested in 55 days after sowing. HAB 63 had the highest percentage of plant survival,
obtained the highest number of marketable fresh pods, highest fresh pod yield per plot
and highest return on cash expenses (ROCE). The three varieties of bush snap beans
showed mild resistance to bean rust and pod borer.
Priming
materials
significantly
affected the number of days from sowing to
emergence, sowing to flowering, emergence to pod setting and sowing to first harvest.
Seeds primed with water, Moringa solution and goat urine emerged, flowered and set pod
a day earlier. The priming materials also enhanced taller plants, higher percentage of
plant survival, and high number and weight of marketable fresh pods. Bush snap bean
primed with water had the highest fresh pod yield per plot and gave the highest return on
cash expenses (ROCE).

No significant interaction effect was observed between the three bush snap bean
varieties and the different priming methods on the weight of marketable pods. Among the
treatment combinations, HAB 63 primed with water was the most profitable.
Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

27

Conclusion

HAB 63 had the highest percent survival, high number of flowers per cluster,
highest number of fresh pods thus, producing the highest yield per plot and highest
ROCE.

Bush snap beans primed with water had higher number and weight of marketable
fresh pods and ROCE. Seeds primed with Moringa solution gave the highest percent
survival and enhanced taller plants. Primed seeds resulted in mild resistance of bean
plants to bean rust.
HAB 63 primed with water was the most profitable among the treatments.

Recommendation

HAB 63 is recommended due to its higher yield and return on cash expenses
(ROCE).
Seed primed with water is recommended in producing high yield and return on
cash expenses (ROCE). The combination of HAB 63 and the use of water as priming
material is recommended.
The use of Moringa solution as priming material is also recommended for better
plant survival.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

28

LITERATURE CITED

BANTOG, N. A. and PADUA, D.P 1999. On-Farm Evaluation of Promising Varieties
and Farmers Varietal Preferences on Pole Snap bean in Different Elevation.
Graduate Research Journal. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.
5-6

BUREAU of AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS. 2006. PCARRD Information Bulletin
No. 274/2008. SnapBean Guide. Accessed December 6, 2009 at http:// maidon.
Pcarrd. dost.gov .ph/ joomla/ index.php

BRADFORD, K. J. 1995. Water Relations in Seed Germination. Accessed November 29,
2009. at http/ /www. decagon com/literature/appnote/seedpriming.pdf.

CANTLIFFE, D.J. 2000. Seed Enhancements. Accessed November 28, 2009. at http://
www. actahort.org/books/ 607/ 607_8.htm.

HIGHLAND AGRICULTURE and RESOURCES RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT
(HARRDEC), 1989. Snap bean Techno Guide for the Highlands. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 1-5.
HARRIS, D. 2008. Seed Priming - Risks and Rewards. Seed Technology newsletter -
volume 4. Accessed December 5, 2009. at http://www.harrismoran. com/ tech
nology/ news let ers/4.htm.
HARRIS, D. 2004. On-farm seed priming reduces risk and increases yield in tropical
crops. Accessed December 5, 2009. at http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/
poster /2/5/5 /403_harrisd.htm.
HARRIS, D. 2002 Seed. Priming. Accessed December 5, 2009. at http: // www. Gaiamov
em ent. Org / files/booklet 29 priming.pdf.

LANKFORD, B.L. 1999. US Patent 5873197 Seed Priming. Accessed December 5,2009.
At http:// www. Patent storm.us/ patents/5873197/ description.html.
MACKENZIE. D. 1993. Goat Husbandry Accessed December 4, 2009. At http://www.
Mo hair connection.Com / goathealth.htm.

MAYNARD, P.N. 2001. The Production Guide for Florida, Accessed December 5, 2009.
At http ://www.edisfar .Ufl. edu university of Florida.
McDOWELL, R. E. and F. W. 1992. Haenlein Goat Manure, Accessed December 6,
2009. at: http://www. Dirt doctor. com/view_question.php?id=356.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

29

PACHER, S. 2002. Kitchen Garden about Snap beans. Accessed December 6, 2009. At
http://www. Mothereach newscom.

RIVERA, A.S. 2001. Enhancing the Germination of Selected Crop Seed Using Plant
Extract (Unpub)BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp.12, 31.

SWIADER, S.M. and G.W. WARE, 2002. Producing Vegetables Crops. The Interstate
Printers and Publishers, Inc., USA. Pp. 252-253.

WIKIMEDIA, FOUNDATION. INC. 2008. Priming (Agriculture). Accessed December
6,2009. At http://en. Wikipe dia .org/wiki/Priming_ (agriculture).

WIKIPEDIA, 2009. Moringa oleifera. Accessed December 6, 2009. At http://en. Wiki
pedia. org/wiki/ Moringa _ oleifera.

WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA, 1991. The World Book Encyclopedia.Volume
2.P.181.

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

30

APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
8
8
8
24
8.00
V1P1
7 7 7
21
7.00
V1P2
7 7 7
21
7.00
V1P3
7 7 7
21
7.00
SUBTOTAL 29
29
29
87
29.00
V2PO 8
8
8
24
8.00
V2P1 7
7
7
21
7.00
V2P2 7
7
7
21
7.00
V2P3
7 7 7
21
7.00
SUBTOTAL 29
29
29
87
29.00
V3PO 7
8
8
23
7.67
V3P1 7
7
7
21
7.00
V3P2 7
7
7
21
7.00
V3P3
7 7 7
21
7.00
SUBTOTAL 28
29
29
86
28.67
BLOCK TOTAL
86
87
87
260
86.67

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

31

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
24
21
21
21
87
21.75

V2
25
21
21
21
88
22

V3
23
21
21
21
86
21.5

TOTAL
72
63
63
63
261

MEAN
24
21
21
21

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

32

Appendix Table 2. Number of days from sowing to flowering

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
V1PO
42
43
42
127
42
V1P1
41 41 41 123 41
V1P2
41 41 41 123 41
V1P3
41 41 41 123 41
SUBTOTAL 165
166
165
496
165
V2PO 42
42
42
126
43
V2P1 42
42
42
126
42
V2P2 42
42
42
126
42
V2P3
42 42 42 126 42
SUBTOTAL 168
169
169
506
169
V3PO 41
42
42
125
42
V3P1 41
41
41
123
41
V3P2 41
41
41
123
41
V3P3
41 41 41 123 41
SUBTOTAL 164
165
165
494
165
BLOCK TOTAL
497
500
499
1,496
499

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

33

TWO-WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
127
123
123
123
496
124

V2
128
126
126
126
506
126.5

V3
125
123
123
123
494
123.5

TOTAL
380
372
372
372
1,496

MEAN
126.67
124
124
124

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

34

Appendix Table 3. Number of days from emergence to pod setting

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
36
36
35
107
36.33
V1P1
35 35 35
105
35
V1P2
35 35 35
105
35
V1P3
35 35 35
105
35
SUBTOTAL 141
141
140
422
141
V2PO 37
37
36
110
37
V2P1 36
36
36
108
36
V2P2 36
36
36
108
36
V2P3
36 36 36
108
36
SUBTOTAL 145
145
144
434
145
V3PO 35
36
36
107
36
V3P1 35
35
35
105
35
V3P2 35
35
35
105
35
V3P3
35 35 35
105
35
SUBTOTAL 140
141
141
422
141
BLOCK TOTAL
426
427
425
1,278
427

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

35

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
107
105
105
105
422
105.5

V2
110
108
108
108
432
108.5

V3
107
105
105
105
422
105.5

TOTAL
324
318
318
318
1,278

MEAN
108
106
106
106

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

36

Appendix Table 4. Number of days from sowing to first harvest.

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
57
59
58
174
58
V1P1
57 57 57
171
57
V1P2
57 57 57
171
57
V1P3
57 57 57
171
57
SUBTOTAL 228
230
229
687
229
V2PO 59
59
58
176
59
V2P1 58
58
58
174
58
V2P2 58
58
58
174
58
V2P3
58 58 58
174
58
SUBTOTAL 233
233
232
698
233
V3PO 56
56
55
167
56
V3P1 55
55
55
165
55
V3P2 55
55
55
165
55
V3P3
55 55 55
165
55
SUBTOTAL 221
221
220
660
221
BLOCK TOTAL
682
684
681
2,045
683

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

37

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
174
171
171
171
687
171.75

V2
176
174
174
174
698
174.5

V3
168
165
165
165
663
165.75

TOTAL
518
510
510
510
2,048

MEAN
172.67
170
170
170

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

38

Appendix Table 5. Initial plant height (cm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
10.42 11.32
11.32
33.06
11.02
V1P1
11.72 11.92
11.70
35.34
11.78
V1P2
11.84 11.90
11.96
35.70
11.9
V1P3
11.12 11.62
10.08
32.84
10.95
SUBTOTAL 45.1
46.7
45.06
136.94
45.65
V2PO 11.36
9.64
9.54
33.06
10.18
V2P1 11.65
11.06
11.24
35.34
11.32
V2P2 11.56
10.16
11.32
33.04
11.01
V2P3
10.30 11.60
11.86
33.76
11.25
SUBTOTAL 44.87
42.46
43.96
131.29
43.76
V3PO 11.84
11.06
10.32
33.22
11.07
V3P1 11.12
11.52
11.50
34.14
11.38
V3P2 11.24
11.34
11.76
34.34
11.45
V3P3
10.12 11.34
11.36
31.82
11.61
SUBTOTAL 44.32
45.26
43.94
133.52
44.51
BLOCK TOTAL
134.29 134.5 132.96
401.75
133.96

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

39

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
33.06
35.34
35.7
33.84
136.94
34.24

V2
29.54
33.95
33.04
33.76
130.29
32.57

V3
33.26
34.19
34.34
31.82
133.56
33.39

TOTAL
95.86
103.43
103.08
98.42
400.79

MEAN
31.95
34.48
34.36
34.48

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01

Replication
2
0.116
0.058
0.18ns

Variety 2
1.843
0.921
2.87ns
3.44 5.72
Priming
Materials
3 4.526
1.509 4.70*
3.05 4.82

V x PM
6
3.262
0.544
1.69ns
2.55 3.76

Error 22
7.069
0.321

TOTAL 35
16.815

ns
–
not
significant
CV=5.09%
* - significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

40

Appendix Table 6. Final plant height (cm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
33.28
33.51
33.84
100.53
33.54
V1P1
34.04 34.78 34.15 107.97 34.32
V1P2
34.13 34.53 34.56 103.22 34.41
V1P3
34.16 34.50 34.65 103.31 34.49
SUBTOTAL 135.61 137.32 137.20
410.30
136.71
V2PO 33.48
33.77
33.95
101.20
33.73
V2P1 34.69
34.49
34.14
103.32
34.44
V2P2 34.26
34.58
34.64
103.48
34.49
V2P3
34.07 34.11 34.57 102.72 34.25
SUBTOTAL 136.50 136.95 137.30
410.75
136.91
V3PO 33.90
33.44
34.09
102.43
33.81
V3P1 34.48
34.29
34.79
103.56
34.52
V3P2 34.19
34.28
34.80
103.37
34.46
V3P3
34.22 34.41 34.58 103.21 34.40
SUBTOTAL 136.79 136.52 138.26
411.57
137.19
BLOCK TOTAL
408.9 410.79 412.76
1,232.45
410.82

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

41

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
100.63
102.97
103.22
103.31
410.13
102.53

V2
101.20
103.32
103.48
102.75
410.75
102.69

V3
101.43
103.36
103.37
103.21
411.57
102.89

TOTAL
303.26
309.85
310.07
309.27
1,232.45

MEAN
101.09
103.28
103.36
103.09

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.618
0.309 5.61*

Variety 2
0.086
0.043
0.78ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 3.531
1.177
21.37**
3.05 4.82
Materials
V x PM
6
0.156
0.026
0.47ns
2.55 3.76

Error 22
1.211
0.055

TOTAL 35
5.602

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
0.69%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

42

Appendix Table 7. Percent Survival

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
94
88
86
268
89.33
V1P1
91 87 92
270
90.00
V1P2
91 94 88
273
91.00
V1P3
88 93 89
270
90.00
SUBTOTAL 364
362
255
1,081
360.33
V2PO 61
78
86
225
75.00
V2P1 84
90
84
258
86.00
V2P2 84
89
88
261
87.00
V2P3
85 78 89
243
81.00
SUBTOTAL 314
335
338
987
329.00
V3PO 82
80
74
236
76.67
V3P1 86
84
88
258
86.00
V3P2 86
84
89
259
86.33
V3P3
74 86 92
252
84.00
SUBTOTAL 328
334
343
1,005
335.00
BLOCK TOTAL
1,006 1,031
1,036
3,073
1,024.33

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

43

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
268
270
273
270
1,081
270.25

V2
225
258
261
243
987
246.75

V3
236
258
259
252
1,005
251.25

TOTAL
729
786
793
765
3,073

MEAN
243
262
264.33
255

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 43.056
21.528
0.73ns

Variety 2
414.889
207.444
7.01**
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 275.417
91.806 3.10*
3.05 4.82
Materials
V x PM
6
114.000
19.000
0.64ns
2.55 3.76

Error 22
650.944
29.588

TOTAL 35
1498.306

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
6.37%
** - highly significant

* - significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

44

Appendix Table 8. Plant Vigor

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
4
4
3
11
3.67
V1P1
4 4 4
12
4.00
V1P2
4 4 4
12
4.00
V1P3
4 4 4
12
4.00
SUBTOTAL 16
16
15
47
16.00
V2PO 3
4
3
10
3.33
V2P1 4
4
4
12
4.00
V2P2 4
4
4
12
4.00
V2P3
4 3 4
11
4.00
SUBTOTAL 15
15
15
45
15.00
V3PO 4
4
3
11
3.67
V3P1 4
4
4
12
4.00
V3P2 4
4
4
12
4.00
V3P3
4 4 4
12
4.00
SUBTOTAL 16
16
15
47
16.00
BLOCK TOTAL
16
16
15
47
16.00

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

45

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
11
12
12
12
47
11.75

V2
10
12
12
12
46
11.5

V3
11
12
12
12
47
11.75

TOTAL
32
36
36
36
140

MEAN
10.67
12
12
12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.167
0.083 1.00ns

Variety 2
0.000
0.000
0.00ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 0.750
0.250
3.00ns
3.05 4.82
Materials

6 0.000
0.000
0.00ns
2.55 3.76
V x PM
Error
22
1.833
0.083

TOTAL 35
2.750

ns – not significant

CV = 7.37%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

46

Appendix Table 9. Number of flower per cluster

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
5.6
5.9
5.2
16.7
5.56
V1P1
5.2 5.6 6
16.8
5.60
V1P2
5.6 6 5.2
17.2
5.60
V1P3
5.9 5.8 5
16.7
5.57
SUBTOTAL 22.3
23.3
21.4
67.4
22.47
V2PO 5.2
5.2
5.1
15.5
5.17
V2P1 5
5.5
5.6
16.1
5.37
V2P2 5.57
5.3
5.5
16.5
5.50
V2P3
5.6 5 5
15.6
5.20
SUBTOTAL 21.5
21.0
21.2
63.7
21.23
V3PO 5
5.1
5.2
15.3
5.10
V3P1 5.3
6
5.4
16.7
5.57
V3P2 6
5
6
17
5.67
V3P3
5.3 5.1 5.5
15.9
5.30
SUBTOTAL 21.6
21.2
22.1
64.9
21.63
BLOCK TOTAL
65.4
65.5
64.7
196.0
65.33

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

47

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
17
17
17
17
68
17.00

V2
15
17
17
16
65
16.25

V3
16
16
17
16
65
16.25

TOTAL
48
50
51
49
198

MEAN
16.00
16.67
17.00
16.33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.000
0.000 0.00ns

Variety 2
0.500
0.250
0.75ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 0.556
0.190
0.56ns
3.05 4.82
Materials

6 0.611
0.100
0.31ns
2.55 3.76
V x PM
Error 22
7.330
0.330

TOTAL 35
9.000

ns – not significant

CV = 10.50%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

48

Appendix Table 10. Number of pod per cluster

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
4.7
4.7
4.4
13.8
4.6
V1P1
4.6 4.7 4.6
13.9
4.69
V1P2
4.5 4.9 4.7
14.1
4.70
V1P3
4.7 4.7 4.5
13.9
4.63
SUBTOTAL 18.5
19.0
18.2
55.7
18.57
V2PO 4.4
4.5
4.6
13.5
4.50
V2P1 4.4
4.6
4.8
13.8
4.60
V2P2 4.8
4.5
4.7
14
4.67
V2P3
4.7 4.4 4.5
13.6
4.53
SUBTOTAL 18.3
18.0
18.6
54.9
18.3
V3PO 4.6
4.5
4.5
13.6
4.53
V3P1 4.5
5.2
4.6
14.3
4.77
V3P2 4.9
4.6
5
14.5
4.83
V3P3
4.7 4.6 4.6
13.9
4.63
SUBTOTAL 18.7
18.9
18.7
56.3
18.76
BLOCK TOTAL
55.5
55.9
55.5
166.9
55.63

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

49

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
13.8
13.9
14.1
13.9
55.7
13.93

V2
13.5
13.8
14.0
13.6
54.9
13.73

V3
13.6
14.3
14.5
13.9
56.3
14.08

TOTAL
40.09
42.00
42.60
41.40
166.9

MEAN
13.63
14.00
14.00
14.00

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.009
0.004 0.13ns

Variety 2
0.082
0.410
1.21ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 0.181
0.060
1.78ns
3.05 4.82
Materials

V x PM
6
0.047
0.008
0.23ns
2.55 3.76

Error
22
0.744
0.034
TOTAL 35
1.063

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
3.97%
**
-
highly
significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

50

Appendix Table 11. Percent pod set per cluster

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO

83.93 79.67 84.62 248.22 82.74
V1P1
88.46 83.93 76.67 249.06 83.02
V1P2
80.36 81.67 90.38 252.41 84.14
V1P3
79.66 82.76 90.00 252.42 84.14
SUBTOTAL
332.41 328.03 341.67 1,002.11 334.04
V2PO
84.62 86.54 90.20 261.36 87.12
V2P1
88 86.79 87.30 262.09 87.36
V2P2
84.21 84.90 85.45 254.56 85.85
V2P3
83.92 88.00 90.00 261.92 87.31
SUBTOTAL
340.75 346.23 352.95 1,039.93 346.64
V3PO
92 88.24 86.54 266.78 88.93
V3P1
84.91 86.67 85.19 275.78 91.86
V3P2
81.67 92 83.33
257.00
85.67
V3P3
88.68 90.20 83.64 262.52 87.51
SUBTOTAL 347.26
357.11
338.7
1,043.07
347.69
BLOCK
TOTAL
1,020.42 1,031.37 1,033.32 3,085.11 1,028.37

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

51

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
248.20
249.06
252.41
252.42
1,002.09
250.52

V2
261.36
262.10
254.56
261.92
1,039.94
299.99

V3
266.78
275.58
257.03
262.9
1,062.29
265.57

TOTAL
776.34
786.74
764.00
777.24
3,104.32

MEAN
258.78
258.78
254.67
259.08

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 9.575
4.788 0.32ns

Variety
2 85.505
42.752
2.86ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
Materials
3 14.689
4.896 0.33ns
3.05 4.82

V x PM
6
29.618
4.936
0.33ns
2.55 3.76

Error 22
329.423
14.974

TOTAL 35
468.810

ns – not significant

CV = 4.52%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

52

Appendix Table 12. Number of marketable fresh pod per plot

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
673
712
501
1,886
628.67
V1P1
822 1,052
729
2,600
866.67
V1P2
886 852 679
2,417 805.67
V1P3
818 803 905
2,526 842.00
SUBTOTAL 3,199 3,419
2,811
9,429
3,143
V2PO 558
617
568
1,743
581
V2P1 695
693
824
2,212
737.33
V2P2 607
759
606
1,972
657.33
V2P3
616 620 679
1,915 638.33
SUBTOTAL 2,476 2,689
2,677
7,842
2,614
V3PO 544
639
634
1,817
605.67
V3P1 564
640
632
1,836
612.00
V3P2 572
639
717
1,928
642.67
V3P3
625 582 614
1,821 607.00
SUBTOTAL 2,305 2,500
2,597
7,402
2,467.34
BLOCK TOTAL
7,980 8,608
8,085
24,673
8,224.34

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

53

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
1,886
2,600
2,417
2,526
9,429
2,357.25

V2
1,743
2,212
1,972
1,915
7,842
1,960.5

V3
1,817
1,836
1,928
1,821
7,402
1,850.5

TOTAL
5,446
6,642
6,317
6,6262
24,673

MEAN
1,818.33
2,216
2,105.67 2,087.33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2
18795.670
9397.750
1.42ns

Variety 2
189268.667
94634.333
14.33**
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 86948.222
28982.741
4.39*
3.05 4.82
Materials

6 57613.111
9602.185 1.45ns
2.55 3.76
V x PM

Error 22
145324.500
6605.659

TOTAL 35
497950.000

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
11.86%
** - highly significant

*
-
significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

54

Appendix Table 13. Weight of marketable fresh pod per plot (kg)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
4.45
4.85
3.4
12.7
4.23
V1P1
5.80
6.40 5.15 17.35
5.78
V1P2
5.05
4.9 4.5 14.75 4.92
V1P3
5.4 4.7 5.3
15.4
5.13
SUBTOTAL 20.7 20.85
18.65
60.2
20.06
V2PO 3.5
4.45
3.65
11.6
3.87
V2P1 4.45
4.8
5.2
14.45
4.82
V2P2 4.05
4.55
4.25
12.85
4.28
V2P3
4.20
3.85 4.20 12.25
4.08
SUBTOTAL 16.2 17.65
17.3
51.15
17.05
V3PO 3.55
4.05
3.85
11.45
3.82
V3P1 3.95
4.45
4.40
12.8
4.27
V3P2 3.75
4.18
4.55
12.48
4.16
V3P3
4.55
3.75 4.1
12.4
4.13
SUBTOTAL 15.8 16.49
16.9
49.13
16.38
BLOCK TOTAL
52.7 54.93
52.85
160.42
53.49

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

55

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
12.70
17.35
14.75
15.40
60.2
15.05

V2
11.60
14.45
12.85
12.25
51.15
12.79

V3
11.45
12.80
12.48
12.40
49.13
12.28

TOTAL
35.75
44.6
40.08
40.05
100.48

MEAN
11.92
14.87
14.87
13.35

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.259
0.129 0.73ns

Variety 2
5.792
2.896
16.36**
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 4.353
1.451
8.20**
3.05 4.82
Materials
V x PM
6
1.149
0.192
1.08ns
2.55 3.76

Error
22
3.895
0.177
TOTAL 35
15.448

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
9.44%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

56

Appendix Table 14. Number of non-marketable per plot

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
181
158
139
478
159.33
V1P1
169 185 113
467
155.67
V1P2
157 178 150
485
161.67
V1P3
156 167 173
496
164.33
SUBTOTAL 663
688
575
1,926
642
V2PO 112
150
141
403
134.33
V2P1 152
139
131
422
140.67
V2P2 142
137
110
389
129.67
V2P3
148 124 144
416 138.67
SUBTOTAL 554
550
526
1,630
543.33
V3PO 191
139
117
447
149.00
V3P1 115
131
134
380
126.67
V3P2 133
171
141
428
142.67
V3P3
116 123 137
376
125.33
SUBTOTAL 555
564
512
1,631
543.67
BLOCK TOTAL
1,772 1,802
1,613
5,187
1,729

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

57

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
478
467
485
496
1,926
481.5

V2
403
422
389
416
1,630
407.5

V3
447
380
428
376
1,631
407.75

TOTAL
1,328
1,269
1,302
1,288
5,178

MEAN
442.67
423.00
434.00
429.33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2
1719.500
859.750
2.08ns

Variety 2
4851.167
2425.583
5.86*
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 205.639
68.546 0.17ns
3.05 4.82
Materials
V x PM
6
1400.611
233.435
0.56ns
2.55 3.76

Error
22
9103.833
413.811
TOTAL 35
17280.750

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
14.12%
* - significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

58

Appendix Table 15. Weight of non-marketable fresh pod per plot (kg)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
1.03
0.85
0.84
2.73
0.91
V1P1
0.88 0.95 0.83
2.66
0.87
V1P2
0.78 0.88 0.80
2.46
0.82
V1P3
0.84 0.90 0.83
2.57
0.86
SUBTOTAL 3.53
3.58
3.30
10.41
3.48
V2PO 0.88
0.90
0.89
2.67
0.89
V2P1 0.98
0.85
0.83
2.66
0.87
V2P2 0.83
0.98
0.79
2.60
0.87
V2P3 0.97
0.75
0.96 2.68 0.89
SUBTOTAL 3.66
3.48
3.47
10.61
3.54
V3PO 0.85
0.61
0.75
2.21
0.74
V3P1 0.78
0.76
0.79
2.33
0.78
V3P2 0.95
0.97
0.85
2.77
0.92
V3P3
0.77 0.75 0.87
2.39
0.80
SUBTOTAL 3.35
3.09
3.26
9.7
3.24
BLOCK TOTAL
10.54 10.15
10.03
30.72
10.26

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

59

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
2.73
2.66
2.46
2.57
10.42
2.61

V2
2.67
2.66
2.60
2.68
10.61
2.65

V3
2.21
2.33
2.77
2.39
9.7
2.43

TOTAL
7.61
7.65
7.83
7.64
30.73

MEAN
2.54
2.55
2.61
2.55

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.012
0.006 0.95ns

Variety 2
0.038
0.019
3.06ns
3.44 5.72

Priming

Materials
3
0.003
0.001
0.19ns
3.05
4.82

V x PM
6
0.069
0.012
1.85ns
2.55 3.76

Error 22
0.137
0.006

TOTAL 35
0.260

ns – not significant
CV = 9.25%

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

60

Appendix Table 16. Computed fresh pod per hectare (tons/ha)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
5.48
5.7
4.24
15.92
5.14
V1P1
6.68 7.35 5.98 20.01 6.67
V1P2
5.83 5.78 5.6 17.21 5.74
V1P3
6.24 5.6 6.13 17.97 5.99
SUBTOTAL 24.23
24.43
21.95
71.11
23.54
V2PO 4.38
5.35
4.54
14.27
4.76

V2P1 5.43
5.65
6.03
17.11
5.70
V2P2 4.88
5.53
5.04
15.45
5.15
V2P3
5.17 4.60 5.16 14.93 4.98
SUBTOTAL 19.86
21.13
20.77
61.76
20.59
V3PO 4.40
4.66
4.60
13,66
4.55
V3P1 4.73
5.21
5.19
15.13
5.04
V3P2 4.70
5.15
5.35
15.2
5.07
V3P3
5.32 4.5 4.97 14.79 4.93
SUBTOTAL
19.5
19.52
20.11 45.12 19.59
BLOCK TOTAL
101.96 101.88 106.05
255.25
103.29

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

61

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
30.84
40.02
34.42
35.94
141.22
35.31

V2
28.54
34.22
30.9
29.86
123.52
30.88

V3
27.32
30.26
30.4
29.58
117.56
29.39

TOTAL
86.7
104.5
95.72
195.38
328.3

MEAN
28.9
34.83
31.91
31.79

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.957
0.479 0.64ns

Variety 2
25.239
12.620
16.87**
3.44 5.72
Priming

Materials
3
17.609
5.870
7.85**
3.05
4.82

V x PM
6
4.766
0.794
1.06ns
2.55
3.76

Error 22
16.457
0.748

TOTAL 35
65.028

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
8.14%
** - highly significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

62

Appendix Table 17. Reaction to Bean rust

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
2
2
1
5
1.67
V1P1
1 1 1
3
1.00
V1P2
1 1 1
3
1.00
V1P3
1 2 1
4
1.33
SUBTOTAL 5
6
4
15
5.00
V2PO 1
2
2
5
1.67
V2P1 1
1
1
3
1.00
V2P2 2
1
1
4
1.33
V2P3
2 1 1
4
1.33
SUBTOTAL 6
5
5
16
4.00
V3PO 1
2
2
5
1.67
V3P1 1
1
1
3
1.00
V3P2 1
1
1
3
1.00
V3P3
2 1 1
4
1.33
SUBTOTAL 5
5
5
15
5.00
BLOCK TOTAL
16
16
14
46
15.33

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

63

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
5
3
3
4
15
3.75

V2
5
3
4
4
16
4.00

V3
5
3
3
4
15
3.75

TOTAL
15
9
10
12
46

MEAN
5.0
3.0
3.33
4.0

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01
Replication 2 0.222
0.111 0.55ns

Variety 2
0.056
0.028
0.14ns
3.44 5.72

Priming
3 2.333
0.778 3.85*
3.05 4.82
Materials

6 0.167
0.028
0.14ns
2.55 3.76
V x PM
Error 22
4.444
0.202

TOTAL 35
7.222

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
35.18%
* - significant

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

64

Appendix Table 18. Reaction to pod borer

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
V1PO
1
2
1
4
1.33
V1P1
1 1 2
4
1.33
V1P2
1 1 1
3
1.00
V1P3
1 1 1
3
1.00
SUBTOTAL 4
5
5
14
4.67
V2PO 2
1
1
4
1.33
V2P1 1
1
1
3
1.00
V2P2 2
1
1
4
1.33
V2P3
2 1 1
4
1.33
SUBTOTAL 7
4
4
15
5
V3PO 1
2
1
4
1.33
V3P1 1
1
1
3
1.00
V3P2 1
1
1
3
1.00
V3P3
2 1 1
4
1.33
SUBTOTAL 5
5
4
14
4.67
BLOCK TOTAL
16
14
13
44
14.34

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

65

TWO - WAY TABLE

VARIETIES
PRIMIMG MATERIALS (P)
TOTAL
MEAN
P0
P1
P2
P3

V1
4
4
3
3
14
3.5

V2
4
3
4
4
15
3.75

V3
4
3
3
4
14
3.5

TOTAL
12
10
10
11
43

MEAN
4.00
3.33
3.33
3.67

ANALLYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREE
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES SQUARES
F
FREEDOM
.05 .01

Replication 2 0.167
0.083 0.48ns

Variety 2
0.167
0.083
0.48ns
3.44 5.72
Priming

Materials
3
0.333
0.111
0.64ns
3.05
4.82

V x PM
6
0.500
0.083
0.48ns
2.55
3.76

Error 22
3.833
0.174

TOTAL 35
5.000

ns
–
not
significant
CV
=
35.78%

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming / Mauro D. Mauricio. 2010

Document Outline

Growth and Yield of Snap bean as Affected by Seed Priming
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES