i

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY

POSTGRADUATE PROGRAM DIRECTORATE

RESPONSE OF COMMON BEANS (PHASEOLUS VULGARIS L.)

VARIETIES TO RATES OF BLENDED NPS FERTILIZER IN DOBA
DISTRICT, WEST HARARGHE, EASTERN ETHIOPIA

Msc. Thesis

By

Arif Adem Rashid

May, 2025
Haramaya University, Ethiopia
RESPONSE OF COMMON BEAN (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)VARIETIES
TO RATES OF BLENDED NPS FERTILIZER DOBA DISTRICT,
WEST HARARGHE, EASTERN ETHIOPI
 ii

A Thesis Submitted to Postgraduate Programs Directorate HARAMAYA

UNIVERSITY (The School of Plant Science)

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF

SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (AGRONOMY)

ARIF ADEM RASHID

May, 2025

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, ETHIOPIA

HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMS

DIRECTORATE
 iii

As Thesis Research Advisers, whereby certify that we have read and evaluated this thesis
prepared under our guidance by Arif Adem Rashid entitled “Response of Common bean
(Phaseolus Vulgaris L.)Varieties to rates of Blended NPS fertilizer in Doba district,
West Hararghe”and we recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling of the Msc thesis
requirement.

Jemal Abdulahi (PhD) __________ ________

Major-Adviser Signature Date

Abdulatif Ahmed(PhD) _____________ ________

Co-Adviser Signature Date

A members of the Board of Examiners of the Msc Thesis open Defense Examination, we
certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Arif Adem Rashid and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the
Thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy).

Chairperson ___________ ____________

Signature Date

Internal examiner ___________ ____________

Signature Date

External examiner ___________ ____________

Signature Date

Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of its final
copy to the Council of Graduate Studies (CGS) through the candidate’s School Graduate
Committee (SGC)
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance

ARC Agricultural Research Center

CEC Cat ion Exchange capacity

CSA Center of Statistics Agency

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organizations of the Unite Nations. Statistics

GFB Gross Field Benefit

HI Harvest Index

LAI Leaf area Index

LSD Least Significance Difference

MAP Months after Planning

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MOARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development

N Nitrogen

NB Net Benefit

OC Organic Carbon

P Phosphorous

RCBD Randomized Complete Block Design

S Sulphur

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

SNNPR South Nation Nationalities and People

SSA Sub-Saharan Africa

WAP Weak after Planning

ii
TABLE OF CONTENT Page
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY POSTGRADUATE PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE.......................iii
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................iiv
TABLE OF CONTENT v
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF FIGURE............................................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX.................................................................................................vii
STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORS..............................................................................................viii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH............................................................................................................ix
ACKNOWLODGEMENT................................................................................................................x
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................xi
1. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................0
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................4
2.1 Origin of Beans.......................................................................................................................4
2.2. Importance and Use of Beans.................................................................................................5
2.3. Beans growth habit.................................................................................................................7
2.4. Beans Production Status.........................................................................................................7
2.5. Production Requirements of Common Beans.........................................................................8
2.6. Nutrient Requirement of Common beans...............................................................................8
2.6.1. Macro Nutrient................................................................................................................8
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS................................................................................................11
3.1. Description of the Study Area..............................................................................................11
3.2. Experimental Materials........................................................................................................11
3.3. Soil Sampling and Analysis..................................................................................................12
3.4. Treatments and Experimental Design...................................................................................13
3.5. Experimental Procedure and Crop Management..................................................................14
3.6. Crop Data Collection............................................................................................................14
3.6.1. Phenological and growth parameters.............................................................................14
3.6.2. Yield Components and Yield.........................................................................................15
3.7. Agronomic Efficiency..........................................................................................................16
3.8. Data Analysis.......................................................................................................................16
 3.9. Partial Budget Analysis........................................................................................................16
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................................................18
4.1. Selected Physio-chemical Properties of Soil of the Experimental Site.................................18
4.2. Common bean Phenological and Growth Parameter............................................................20
4.2.1. Days to 50% flowering..................................................................................................20
4.2.2. Days to90% physiological maturity...............................................................................21
4.2.3. Number of total and effective nodules...........................................................................23
4.2.4. Plant height....................................................................................................................26
4.2.5. Number of primary branches per plant..........................................................................27
4.3. Yield Components and Yield...............................................................................................29
4.3.1. Stand Count...................................................................................................................29
4.3.2. Number of pods per plant..............................................................................................31
4.3.3. Number of seeds per pod...............................................................................................33
4.3.4. Hundred Seeds weight...................................................................................................33
4.3.5. Above-ground dry biomass yield:..................................................................................35
4.3.6. Seed yield......................................................................................................................38
4.3.7. Harvest index:................................................................................................................40
4.4. Agronomic Efficiency..........................................................................................................41
4.5. Partial Budget Analysis........................................................................................................42
5. SUMMARY AND CONCULUSION.........................................................................................44
6. REFERENCE..............................................................................................................................46
7. APPENDICE...............................................................................................................................59

iv
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Description of common bean varieties used for the study 16

2. Details of fertilizer treatments 19

3. Results of selected soil physical and chemical properties of the study site before sowing
of common bean. 23

4. Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on days to 50%flowering 25

5. Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on numbers of total and effective 31

6. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on plant height 34

7. Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on number of primary branch per
plant37

8. Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on stand count of plant common bean
45

9. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on number of pod per plant
common bean 52

10. Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on number seed per pod and hundred
seed weight.55

11. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on above ground dry biomass
yield 60

12. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on grain yield of common bean

13. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on harvest index of common
bean61

14. Agronomic efficiency as ratio of seed yield to NPS fertilizer rates with three common
bean varieties64

15. Summary of partial budget analysis of the response of common bean varieties to the
application of NPS fertilizer65
 LIST OF FIGURE

Figure Page

Location Map of study Area

vi
 LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDIX

Appendix Table Page

1. Mean squares of analysis of variance for phenological and growth parameters of

common bean as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates 67

2. Mean squares of analysis of variance for phenological parameters of common bean as

affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates 68

3. Means squares of analysis of variance for yield components of common bean as

affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates 69

4. Means squares of analysis of variance for yield components and yield of common bean
as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates 74

5. Means squares of analysis of variance for agronomic efficiency of common bean as

affected by NPS fertilizer rates with three varieties 76
 STATEMENT OF THE AUTHORS
By my signature below, I declare and affirm that this thesis is my own work. I have
followed all ethical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data
analysis and completion of this thesis. All scholarly matter that is included in the thesis has
been given recognition through citation. I affirm that I have cited and referenced all
sources used in this document. Every serious effort has been made to avoid any plagiarism
in the preparation of this thesis.

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for a degree from the
School of Graduate Studies at Haramaya University. The thesis is deposited in the
Haramaya University Library and is made available to borrowers under the rules of the
library. I solemnly declare that this thesis has not been submitted to any other institution
anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma.

Brief quotations from this thesis may be used without special permission provided that
accurate and complete acknowledgement of the source is made. Requests for permission
for extended quotations from, or reproduction of, this thesis in whole or in part may be
granted by the Head of the School or Department or the Dean of the School of Graduate
Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of
scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author
of the thesis.

Name: Arif Adem Rashid

Signature: ______________________

Date: 20/7/2022

School/Department: Plant science

viii
 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author, Arif Adem Rashid, was born at Mata lenca near to Woldia town on October 2,
1985, in Mesela District West Hararghe Zone of Oromia Regional state to his father Adem
Rashid Osman and mother Asha Sirajo Omer. He attended his Primary education from
1995 to 2002 (1-8grade) at Waldia Primary School, from 2003 to 2004 at Mesela
secondary school, from 2005-2006 at Mesela preparatory school. And the author joined
Jima University from 2007 to 2009 and graduated on July 6, 2009 EC with Degree in Plant
Sciences. On September 2010, he was employed in the Office of Agriculture at Doba
District as Agronomist expert from 2010 to 2012.On July 2020 GC; he joined the
postgraduate program at Haramaya University, School of Plant Sciences, to pursue his
study for the degree of Master of Sciences in Agronomy.
 ACKNOWLODGEMENT

Initially, I would like to thank Allah (God) Almighty for His mercy and unconditional love
up on my life. I have experienced His blessings all my life and the Lord has been good all
the time. Several people contributed towards the success of this work.

I would like to thank Haramaya University for giving me the opportunity to pursue a
Master of Science degree in Plant science Special thanks go to Mr. Tofik Adem Rashid for
encouraging me to apply the Haramaya University scholarship and believed in my
potential.

It is my great pleasure to express my sincere appreciation and special gratitude to my

major Advisor, Dr. Jemal Abdulahi and co-advisor, Dr. Abdulatif Ahmed for their valuable
advice, sustained guidance, enthusiastic collaboration, and for critically reviewing the
research proposal as well as the thesis manuscript. Their constructive comments and
professional involvement immensely contributed to the accomplishment of the research
work and write-up of this thesis.

I am grateful to Doba Agricultural and Natural Resource Office for providing me with the
financial support that I need for conducting the research and writing this thesis.

I am indebted to my family as a whole and especially to my wife Halima Abdella for their
encouragement, loving support and patience.

I earnestly appreciate my friends Jibril Mohammed and Abdurrahman Nure who provided
me with various supports during my research work.

I also want to express my thanks to Abdella Yusuf and his wife Chaltu for their help in
data collection and creating good working environment during the field research activities
and office work.

x
Response of Common Bean(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Varieties to Rates of
Blended NPS Fertilizer in Doba District, West Hararghe, Eastern
Ethiopia
ABSTRACT
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is highly preferred by Ethiopian farmers because of
its fast maturing characteristics that enable households to get cash income required to
purchase food and household needs when other crops have not yet matured. However, the
current national average yield of common bean is far less than the attainable yield under
good management conditions for most improved varieties. This low yield of common bean
in Ethiopia is attributed to several production constraints. Thus, a field experiment was
conducted to assess the effect of blended NPS rates on growth, yield and yield related
traits of common bean varieties and to estimate economically feasible rates of blended
NPS fertilizer for common bean production. The experiment was conducted in Doba
district sub-site of Lenca Wadessa demonstration site during 2021 to 2022 main cropping
seasons. Treatments consisted of factorial combinations of three common bean varieties
(Awash1, Nasir, and SER-125,) with five NPS fertilizer rates (0, 50,100,150 and 200kg ha -
1
) laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications. The highest days
to 50% flowering (48.73 days), days to 90% physiological maturity (95.8 days), total
nodule number (69) , were recorded from variety Awash1 while the highest number of
primary branch per plant (3.53), effective nodule number (33.67), number of seed per pod
(4.67) , hundred seed weight (45.38 g) and stand count (96.53) were recorded from
variety Nasir. The highest level of NPS rate (200 kg ha-1) resulted in higher values of
number of primary branches per plant, number of total nodules, number of effective
nodules, number of seeds per pod and 100 seed weight. However; the highest number of
pod per plant (25.33), Grain Yield (2565 kg ha-1 and harvest index (41. 30) were recorded
due to application of 150 kg ha -1 of blended NPS for variety Nasir. Variety Nasir gave the
highest plant height (67.60 cm) and above ground dry biomass (6330kg ha -1) with
application of 200 kg NPS ha-1. Agronomic Efficiency (kg seed kg -1 of NPS) as ratio of seed
yield to NPS fertilizer rates with three common bean varieties showed highly significant
(p<0.001) effects with the highest value (5.6 kg seed kg -1 of NPS) in treatment combination
of 150 kg NPS ha-1 fertilizer. Based on this result, the highest net benefit of 53,454 ETBha -1
with Marginal Rate of Return of 850.5% was obtained from the treatment combination of
150 kg NPS ha-1application rate with Nasir variety. Thus, it can be concluded from the
result of present study that the use of variety Nasir with application of 150kg NPS ha -1
could be recommended to enhance the productivity of common bean in the study area.
However, the result of the present study need to be validated and proved in the same agro-
ecologies and seasons with further experiments in order to give a blanket recommendation
for wide range of common bean production.
KEYWORDS: Agronomic Efficiency, Common bean, NPS fertilizer, Partial Budget
 1. INTRODUCTION
Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), is herbaceous annual plant domesticated
independently in ancient Mesoamerica and in the Andes, and now is grown worldwide
for both dry seeds or as a green bean. Thousands of legume species exist but common
bean in any form is the most eaten by human beings compared to any other legumes
(Broughton et al., 2003).When common bean is used for its unripe fruit; it is termed as
green bean or snap bean. It is an important grain legume throughout the world providing a
source of protein, dietary fiber, starch and minerals such as potassium, thiamine, vitamin
B6 and folic acid in diets affordable by the poor (Garden-Robinson and Mc N et al,
2013).About 23.9 million tons of dry bean, 20.7 million tons of green bean, and 1.9
million tons of string or common bean were produced worldwide in 2012 (FAOSTAT,
2014).

It is estimated that the crop meets more than 50% of dietary protein requirements of
households in sub-Saharan Africa. The annual per capita consumption of common bean is
higher among low income people who cannot afford to buy nutritious food stuff, such as
meats and fish. It plays an important role in household nutrition as 80% of total protein
consumed by humans comes from plants and common bean provides dietary protein and
micro nutrients for the populations in SSA. Edaphic and environmental factors that
constrain bean production in most areas where the crop is grown include nitrogen and
phosphorus deficiency, soil acidity (including Aluminum and manganese toxicity) and
drought. Due to these factors, current bean yields in Southern Africa average only 0.6 Mg
ha-1 compared to attainable yields of >1.5 Mg ha-1

Although cereal crops are most important in Ethiopian agriculture in providing staple diet
to the population, pulses are also important components of crop production. Accordingly,
pulse crops provide an economic advantage to small farm holdings as an alternative
source of protein, cash income, and food security (Ferris and Kaganzi, 2008). Among
legumes, it constitutes a significant part of human diet in Ethiopia. Apart from this,
haricot bean has been cultivated as a field crop for a very long time and hence, it is the
important food legume produced in the country. It is a principal food crop particularly in
Southern and Eastern part of Ethiopia, where it is widely inter-cropped with maize and
sorghum, respectively, to supplement farmer’s income. The two major common beans
producing regions are Oromia and Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region
(SNNPR), which produce 70 and 60 thousand tons per year, respectively, and these two
regions make up 85% of the total production. Average national production is
approximately 150 thousand tons per annum. The level of production in 2005 was
approximately 175 thousand tones with a domestic market value of USD 30 million
(Ferris and Kaganzi, 2008). It is highly preferred by Ethiopian farmers because of its fast
maturing characteristics that enable households to get cash income required to purchase
food and other household needs when other crops have not yet matured. Improved
common bean production encompasses proper use of different agronomic practices which
include improved variety, seed rate, spacing, fertilizer rate, and pesticide application as
per recommendations.

However, the current national average yield of common bean (1.48 tons) is far less
than the attainable yield (2500 to 3000 kg ha -1) under good management conditions for
most improved varieties. This low yield of common bean in Ethiopia is attributed to
several production constraints, which include lack of improved varieties for the
different agro-ecological zones, poor agronomic practices such as low soil fertility
management, untimely and inappropriate field operations (Alemitu, 2011). A range of
environmental factors, such as low soil nitrogen and phosphorus levels, and acidic soil
conditions are important constraints for bean production in most areas where the crop
is grown (Girma, 2009).

In general, an increase in grain yield and other agronomic parameters of common bean
were observed as the rate of nitrogen and phosphorus increased till 27 kg N ha -1 and
69 kg P2O5 ha-1 (150 kg DAP ha-1) (Girma, 2009). This fertilizer rate also gave yield
advantages of 39% over the control. Among the nutrients, nitrogen is the critical
limiting element for growth of most plants including common beans due to its
unavailability and poor fixation. Deficiency in N causes reduced growth, leaf
yellowing, reduced branching and small trifoliate leaves in beans. Previous surveys
estimated that over 60% of the bean production areas in Central, Southern, and Eastern
Africa were affected by N deficiency. This caused yield losses of up to 40% as
compared to the N-fertilized areas. Besides, common bean is considered to be a poor
fixer of atmospheric N when compared with other crop legumes and generally
responds poorly to inoculation of rhizobia in the field. As a result, common bean is
being generally considered as more responsive than other legumes to N fertilization.
Bean N fertilizer requirement depends on soil fertility levels; for low soil nitrogen
levels (below 34 kg N ha-1) N fertilizer is generally recommended in order for
deficiency symptoms not to manifest and for full development up to production.
Moreover, up to 60 kg N ha -1 also promotes increased nodule number, mass and size,
giving highest yields. However, nitrogenous activity declines with applied nitrogen
(Davis and Brick, 2009), decreasing the sink strength, and hence, reduce the quantity
of photo-assimilate partitioned to nodules and grain. Early application may also result
in excessive vegetative growth leading to delayed flowering, reduced pod set, lower
seed yield and a greater risk of disease infestation.

The application of inorganic phosphorus fertilizer has positive effect on the yield and
yield components of common bean revealed that grain weight per plant exhibited a
pronounced response to phosphorus application.

Sulfur (S) is one of the essential nutrients for plant growth and it accumulates 0.2 to
0.5% in plant tissue on dry matter basis. It is required in similar amount as that of
phosphorus (Ali et al., 2008).Sulphur plays a vital role in improving vegetative
structure for nutrient absorption, strong sink strength through development of
reproductive structure and production of assimilates to fill economically important
sink. Sulphur nutrition of bean and other plants

Soil fertility mapping project in Ethiopia recently reported the deficiency of K, S, Zn,
B and Cu in addition to N and P in major Ethiopian soils and thus recommend
application of customized and balanced fertilizers (EthioSIS, 2013).To address these
nutrient deficiencies, farmers in Doba district have been using uniform misconception
about Common bean’s nutrient requirement even they say Fertilizer is not necessary
for Common bean because, it’s root produce natural fertilizer by itself.

This emphasizes the importance of developing an alternative means to meet the

demand of nutrient in plants by using blended NPS that contains S in addition to the
commonly used N and P fertilizers. However, no study has been done on response of
common bean varieties to the rates of blended NPS fertilizer in Doba district, eastern

2
 Ethiopia. To emphasizes the importance of developing an alternative means to meet
the demand of nutrient in plants by using blended NPS at Doba District which did not
have any recommended NPS rate for Common bean. Thus, an experiment was
conducted to determine the rate of NPS for those selected common bean’s variety at
the Doba District with the objectives of:

 Evaluate the effect of blended NPS rates on yield and yield related traits of
common bean varieties and
 Estimate economically feasible rates of blended NPS fertilizer for common
production.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Origin of Beans
Common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L) are believed to originate from Mesoamerica, this
comprise five species of genus Phaseolus.sp namely:Phaseolus coccineus, Phaseolus
acutifolius, Phaseolus lunatus, Phaseolus polyanthus and Phaseolus vulgaris
(Goldsworthy and Fisher, 1984).These species grow well under different environments
ranging from temperate, arid and semi-arid, dry and humid warm as well as semi-
temperate humid climatic condition. The Phaseolus vulgaris grows in all climates but
commonly in warm temperate climate (Edith et al., 1997). Debouck et al.; 1996
considered Phaseolus vulgaris L. to be native to the Americas whereby from central
western Mexico to northern Argentina it is found in natural state of wild ancestral types
of Phaseolus vulgaris.

In Africa, common beans were probably introduced by Portuguese and reached Malawi
through Mozambique and the coast hundred years ago (CIAT, 1981).The common bean
was introduced to Ethiopia in the sixteenth century and farmers have been able to adapt,
develop and maintain a large genetic diversity to suit their needs. A range of bean types
are grown in the country, but small white and red beans are the most common and
preferred types. The small white beans are mainly grown in the Oromia (in the Central
Rift Valley) and Amhara regions, for the export market.

Ethiopia exports white beans to the canning industry in Europe (Ferris and Kaganzi,
2008). The small red beans, on the other hand, are grown mainly in the southern parts of
the country and they are used for local and regional markets and for household
consumption (Ferris and Kaganzi, 2008; Rubyogo et al., 2011; CSA, 2015). Recently,
due to the rising demand in the international and domestic market, the common bean is
being grown in almost all parts of the country, with varying intensity (Katungi et al.,
2009; CSA, 2015). Common bean production in the Central Rift Valley (Oromia region)
comprises about 50% of the total bean production of the country. Ninety-five percent of
common bean-growing farmers produce the small white beans (Legesse et al., 2006;
CSA, 2015).

2.2. Importance and Use of Beans

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is the world’s most important food legume.
This is considered as a nearly perfect food mainly because of its high protein content
and abundant fiber, complex carbohydrates, and other daily food needs such as
vitamins (folate) and minerals (Cu, Ca, Fe, Mg, Mn, and Zn). Among major food
legumes, common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is considered the third most important
worldwide, after soybean [Glycine max (L.)Merr] and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea
L.).Among the pulses (annual leguminous food crops that are harvested as dry seeds)

4
the common bean is by far the most important. It also plays an important role in
human health that as it can reduce the risk of colon cancer and heart diseases. It can
also regulate the level of glucose and insulin in the blood (Prolla et al., 2010).

In Latin American countries, national per capita consumption of beans is typically

between 12 and 18 kg per year, and this consumption does not reflect differences in
urban and rural areas (Broughton et al., 2003). In Africa common bean is considered
the second most important source of dietary protein and the third most important
source of calories for lower income African households after cassava and maize
(Pachico, 1993).. It is an important source of protein, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins and
minerals for humans and livestock. Protein content in most varieties is high and
averages 25%. The crop is rich in the amino acids tryptophan and lysine, which are not
typically found in the staple maize crop. Common bean therefore, provides a good
alternative to animal protein to meet minimal daily requirements. In addition, common
bean provides other health benefits that include weight control, reduced proneness to
diabetes, colon cancer and heart problems (Nyau, 2014).

In Ethiopia, common bean is one of the most important cash crops and source of
protein for farmers in many lowlands and mid-altitude zones. The country’s export
earnings is estimated to be over 85 % of export earnings from pulses, exceeding that
of other pulses such as lentils, horse (faba) bean and chickpea (Negash, 2007).
Overall, common bean ranks third as an export commodity in Ethiopia, contributing
about 9.5 % of total export value from agriculture (FAOSTAT, 2010). Total national
production was estimated at 421,418 ton in 2008, with a market value of US$
132,900,609 million (FAOSTAT, 2010).Constraints to common bean production have
been cited as being the use of unimproved varieties, and attack by pests and diseases.
Pests and diseases alone account for 25-50% of the total yield losses. In addition, poor
soil fertility prevalent in the common bean production areas limits its productivity.
Specifically, the leaching of bases in high rainfall areas (agro-ecological region III)
results in an accumulation of hydrogen and aluminum ions in the soils. The resulting
acidity has both direct and indirect effects on plant growth; common bean grows well
in soils with pH ranging from 6.5 to 7.5.
 On the other hand, common bean is particularly sensitive and highly susceptible to
physical and chemical environmental stresses compared to other legumes (Kabahuma,
2013) making the crop very nutrient demanding. In Zambia, most small-scale
producers of common bean do not typically use chemical fertilizers to enhance crop
productivity. While chemical fertilizers are readily available and may provide
immediate answers to current limiting nutrient levels in the soil, they tend to be
expensive and in the long-term, cause soil acidification and pollution of soils and
water. This has resulted in the promotion of more sustainable agricultural practices
such as the use of organic fertilizers to address poor soil fertility. Organic fertilizers
have the advantage of improving soil physical properties, acting as substrates for
beneficial soil microorganisms, buffering soil reaction, controlling erosion and as well
as controlling plant parasitic nematodes and fungi .In addition to supplying plant
nutrients to the soil.

The challenge usually of using organic fertilizers, such as animal and green manures,
is that they tend to be bulky and of variable quality and nutrient release may also be
slow. This, coupled with competition for alternative uses on most small-scale farms,
limits their use as single solutions to limiting soil nutrients.

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The experiment was conducted in Doba District sub-site of Lencha Wadesa, West
Hararghe Zone; eastern Ethiopia The site is located in Doba district at Lencha Wadesa
kebele. Relative location of the site is, in the North Lubu dekeb kebele, in the South
wal-kixuma Ibsa kebeles, in the East kufekas kebeles and in the West weltane kebeles,
of this Distinct, just on the West side of the main road to chiro town, the capital city of
west Hararghe. It is located at about 40kms from Chiro town, 32km from Doba Distinct

6
(kebele administration office manual, 2011) and 432km east from Addis Ababa, capital
city of the country.

The topography of the kebele land area varies from undulated land slope to mountain;
the altitude ranges from about 1200-1685m above sea level. (Office manual
2010).According to the data obtained from the kebele office and Ethiopian Meteorology
Agency, November, 2009, the climate of the sub-district ranges from Weynadega 54%
to dega 3% that influence the suitability for development of different crop species and
forest related activities. The rain fall pattern in the area is the bimodal type i.e., middle
of March through end of May (the Belg rains) and July through September (the kiremt
rains). According to the same source, the Mean annual rain fall in the area varies from
around 750mm to 1200mm and average annual temperature is about 27c o (Ethiopian
Meteorology Agency, November, 2010).

3.2. Experimental Materials

Table1. Common bean varieties namely Awash 1;Nasir; and SER-125, were used as
planting material and the fertilizer material used were NPS (19% N, 38% P2O5 and 7%
S) (HARC, 2012).

Local name Growth Market DF DM Seed wt On Research On

habit class 50% 100 field farmer’s
field

Awash 1 Type-II Small 48.73 95.8 40.7 2400-3500 1500-

white 3000

Nasir Type-II Large 47.53 94.2 47.31 1000-2500 1000-

Red 2500
kidney
SER-125 Type-II Medium 46.33 93.6 42.1 2000-3000 1500-
red 2500
kidney 1000-2100
2200-3000
3.3. Soil Sampling and Analysis
Before sowing of the seed, soil sample was taken from twenty spots of a depth of 0 –
30 cm by zigzag method and one composite sample was formed. From composite
sample, soil physical and chemical properties were analyzed at Haramaya University.
The soil texture, pH, organic carbon, total nitrogen, available phosphorus, available S,
cation exchangeable capacity and soil organic matter were analyzed. Texture of the
soil was determined by the sedimentation method. Soil pH was measured
potentiometericaly in 1:2.5 soil water suspensions with standard glass electrode pH
meter (Van Reewuijk, 1992).

The Walkley and Black (1934) method was used to determine organic matter content
of the soil. Total nitrogen in the soil was determined by Modified Kjeldahl method
with sulphuric acid (Dewis and Freitas, 1970). Available soil phosphorus was
determined using the Olsen extraction method as described by Olsen et al. (1954).
Available S was analyzed by turbid metric method (McGrath et al, 2003). Cations
Exchange Capacity

(CEC) was determined by titrimetrically by distillation of ammonia that was displaced

by Na (Sahlemedhin and Taye, 2000). Finally electric conductivity (EC) was
determined by using Eshani and Sulliva (2006) method

3.4. Treatments and Experimental Design

The treatment consisted of three varieties of common bean (Awash 1, Nasir, and SER-
125) and five levels of NPS fertilizer rates (0, 50, 100, 150, 200 kg ha -1). The experiment
was laid out as randomized complete block design (RCBD) in factorial arrangement with
three replications. The gross plot area was 2.8 m×3.0 m (8.4 m 2) consisting of 7 rows of 3
m length. The spacing between plots and blocks was 0.6 m and 1 m, respectively. The
one outer most row from each side and one plant from both ends of each row were
considered as a border and one row was used for destructive sampling determine the
nodulation parameters and above-ground dry biomass at physiological maturity. Thus, the
net plot size was 1.6 m x 2.4 m (3.84 m2) with 4 net rows.

Table: 2.Details of fertilizer treatments

8
 Rate NPS (kg ha-1) Nutrient contents(kgha-1)
N P2O5 S
R1 0 kg NPS 0 0 0
R2 50 kg NPS 9.5 19 3.5
R3 100 kg NPS 19 38 7
R4 150 kg NPS 28.5 57 10.5
R5 200 kg NPS 38 76 14

3.5. Experimental Procedure and Crop Management.

The experimental field was plowed three times and harrowed once with an Ox to a depth
of 25-30cm and the plots were leveled and ridges were made manually. Treatments were
assigned to each plot randomly. The spacing between rows and plants were 40 cm and 10
cm, respectively. Two seeds per hill at the specified spacing were sown at a depth of
about 2-5 cm to ensure adequate emergence in the month of July, 2021. NPS fertilizer
was hand drilled in rows at the time of sowing. The plants were thinned to one plant per
hill 9-10 days after emergence. Harvesting was done when the bottom of the common
bean pods started to dry (EARO, 2006).

3.6. Crop Data Collection

3.6.1. Phenological and growth parameters
Days to 50% flowering: this was determined by counting the number of days from
planting to the time when first flowers appeared in 50% of the plants in a plot by
counting the number of plants.

Days to physiological maturity: It was determined as the number of days from planting
to the time when 90% of the plants in each net plot showed yellowing of pods. This was
done by counting the number of plants.

Number of total nodules per plant: bulk of the roots of 5 randomly taken plants from
destructive rows in each plot was carefully exposed at 50% flowering and uprooted for
nodulation study. Roots were carefully washed using tap water on a sieve and nodules
were separated and counted.

Effective nodules per plant: For determination of effective number of nodules, the
inside color of nodules was observed by cutting each nodule with the help of sharp blade
and the pink colored nodules were considered as effective nodules, while green colored
nodules were considered as non-effective.

Plant height: it was measured as the height of 10 randomly taken plants from the ground
level to the apex of each plant at the time of physiological maturity from the net plot area.

Number of primary branches per plant: it was determined by counting the total
number of branches on randomly Pre-tagged ten plants in the net plot at physiological
maturity and averaged on per plant basis.

3.6.2. Yield Components and Yield

Crop stand count: the initial plant stand count was recorded by counting the total
number of plants per net plot area immediately after thinning and final plant stand count
was taken at harvesting.

Number of pods per plant: it was recorded based on10 Pre-tagged plants in each net
plot area at harvest and the average was taken as number of pods per plant.

Number of seeds per pod: the total number of seeds in the pods of 10 plants was
counted and divided by the total number of pods to find the number of seeds per pod.

Hundred seeds weight (g): The weight of100 seed was determined for each plot using a
sensitive balance. The weight was adjusted to moisture content of10%.

Total above-ground dry biomass (kg ha -1): At physiological maturity, 10 plants were
randomly taken from the destructive rows of each net plot and used to determine above-
ground dry biomass yield, which was measured after sun drying till a constant weight.
The dry biomass per plant was then multiplied by the total number of plants per net plot
and was converted into kg ha-1. This value was used to calculate the harvest index as well.
Seed yield (kg ha-1): it was determined after threshing the seeds harvested from each net
plot. The seed yield was dried under sun for four days and was converted to kgha-1.

10
Harvest Index (HI): Harvest index was calculated by dividing grain yield per plot by the
total above-ground dry biomass yield per plot multiplied by 100.

HI (%) = Grain Yield ×100

Aboveground dry biomass

3.7. Agronomic Efficiency

The NPS fertilizer agronomic efficiency was calculated using the procedure described by
Crass well and Godwin (1984) as: AE (kg/kg=Gf (kg)-Gu (kg)/Na(kg) where; AE stands
for agronomic efficiency,Gf and Gu for grain yield in fertilized and un fertilized
plots ,respectively, and Na for quantity of NPS fertilizer applied.

3.8. Data Analysis

Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate to factorial
experiment in RCBD according to the Gen stat 18th and interpretations were made
following the procedure described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Whenever the effects of
the treatments were found significant, the means were compared using the Least
Significance Difference (LSD) test at5%level of significance.

3.9. Partial Budget Analysis

An economic analysis was done using partial budget procedure described by CIMMYT
(1988). The cost of NPS and labor cost involved in the application of the fertilizer were
considered as variable costs. The net benefits /returns/ and other economic analysis were
based on the formula developed by CIMMYT (1988) and given as follows:

Adjusted grain yield (AGY) (kg ha-1): is the average yield adjusted downwards by a
10% to reflect the difference between the experimental yield and yield of farmers.

Gross field benefit (GFB) (ETB ha -1): was computed by multiplying field/farm gate
price that farmers receive (23ETBkg -1) for the crop when they sell it as adjusted yield.
GFB= AGY×field/farm gate price for the crop.

Total variable cost (TVC) (ETBha-1) : it was calculated by summing up the costs that
vary, including the cost of NPS(13.00 ETBkg-1)fertilizers at the time of planting(July 15,
2021) and according to Doba, farm daily payment of labor cost for application of NPS (3
person’s ha-1, each 100 ETB day-1). The costs of other inputs and production practices
such as labor cost for land preparation, planting, weeding, harvesting and threshing were
considered the same for all treatments or plots.

Net benefit (NB) (ETBha-1): was calculated by subtracting the total variable costs (TVC)
from gross field benefits (GFB) for each treatment as: NB=GFB–TVC.

Dominance Analysis (identification and elimination of inferior treatments): was

carried out by first listing all the treatments in their order of increasing costs that vary
(TVC) and their net benefits (NB) are then put aside. Any treatment that has higher TVC
but net benefits that are less than or equal to the preceding treatment (with lower TVC but
higher net benefits) is dominated treatment (marked as“D”).

Marginal rate of return (MRR %): was calculated by dividing change in net benefit
(ΔNB)by change in total variable cost(ΔTVC).MRR=ΔNB)/ΔTVC×100 Finally, among
the non-dominated treatments, the treatment which gave the highest net return and a
marginal rate of return greater than the minimum considered acceptable to
farmers(100%)was considered for recommendation.

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Selected Physio-chemical Properties of Soil of the Experimental Site

Selected physio-chemical properties were analyzed for soil samples (0-30 cm depth)
collected from experimental site before planting. The result of the soil analysis is
indicated in. Marx et al. (1996) classified as strongly acidic (below 5.1), moderately
acidic (5.2-6.0), slightly acidic (6.1-6.5), neutral (6.6-7.3), moderately alkaline (7.4-8.4),
and strongly alkaline (above 8.5). Based on this soil pH analysis result (7.85) of the study
site was moderately alkaline. Common bean grows on a wide range of soils but it
performs best on deep, friable and well aerated soil types with optimum PH range of 6.0
to 6.8 (Demelash, 2018). Marx et al. (1996) showed the rating of EC as low (<1.0 ds/m),
medium (1.0-2.0ds/m), and high (>2.0ds/m).

Based on this electrical conductivity (EC) of the soil in the study area was (5.42) rating
under high range. Tekalign et al. (1991) also classified soil total N availability of<0.05%

12
as very low, 0.05-0.12% as poor, 0.12 - 0.25% as moderate and > 0.25% as high.
According to this classification, the total nitrogen of the study site is (0.27) high. The
analysis also revealed that the available P level (15.1 ppm) in the experimental site was
rated as Medium according to Olsen (1954) who stated that <10 ppm as low 10-20 ppm
medium, 20-40ppm high, and>40ppm excessive.

In general, soils high in CEC contents are considered as agriculturally fertile. According
to Landon (1991) top soils having CEC greater than 40 Cmol (+) kg -1 are rated as very
high and 25-40 Cmol (+) kg-1 as high, 15-25 as medium, 5-15 low and < 5 Cmol (+) kg -1
of soil as very low in CEC. According to this classification, the soils of the site had high
CEC of 40.8 Cmol (+) kg-1. This value indicated that the soil has the capacity to hold
nutrient cations and supply to the crop. Tekalign et al. (1991) also classified soil organic
carbon (%) >3.0, 1.5-3.0, 0.5-1.5 and < 0.5 as high, medium, low and very low,
respectively.

Thus, the organic carbon content of the soil in the study area (1.52%) was in medium
range. Marx et al. (1996) rating of Sulphur showed that <2 ppm low, 2-10 ppm medium,
and >10 ppm high. Based on this the available sulphate Sulphur (8.72 ppm) of the soil in
the study area was in the medium range. Thus, considering the soil parameters at the
experimental site of the soil is suitable for common bean production.

Table: 3. Results of selected soil physical and chemical properties of the study site
before sowing of common bean

Soil properties Soil particle size Results Rating Reference

Clay (%) 22 -
Silt (%) 16
Sand (%) 62 -
Textural class Sandy
Soil pH(1:2 H2O) 7.85 Moderately Marx et al.(1996)
Alkaline
Organic Matter (%) 3.54 HighMedium Marx et al.(1996)
 EC(ds/m), 5.42 High Marx et al.(1996)
Organic carbon (%) 2.06 Medium Tekalign et al.(1991)
Available phosphorus (ppm) 15.1 Medium Olsen (1954)
Available sulphur SO4-S(ppm) 8.72(pp) Medium Marx et al.(1996)
Cation exchange capacity(CEC) 40.8 High Landon(1991))
(Cmol +kg-1)

4.2. Common bean Phenological and Growth Parameter

4.2.1. Days to 50% flowering

Main effects of varieties and Blended NPS rates were highly significant (P<0.01) on days
to 50% flowering while the interaction of the factors was non-significant (Appendix
Table 1). Early days to flowering (46.33 days) was recorded for variety SER-125 that
flowered 2.4 days earlier than variety Awash1 (48.73 days) (Table 4). The difference
among the varieties in days to flowering might be due to genetic differences as common
bean has high diversity in such phonological characters.

Days to flowering of common bean were delayed with increment of application rate of
NPS fertilizer where the highest number of days (50.33 days) to reach flowering was
recorded due to application of 200 kg ha -1 of blended NPS while the earliest days to
flowering (44 days) was recorded due to the application of 0 kg ha -1 of NPS. On the other
hand, plot that received blended NPS 100 and 150 kg NPS ha -1 had non-significant
differences. Taminaw (2019) reported Main effects of varieties and NPS rates were
highly significant on days to 50% flowering while the interaction of the factors was non-
significant. In line with this result, Endrias (2017) also reported highly significance
difference in the number of days required to reach 50% flowering among three common
bean varieties that range from 41.22 days for variety Nasir to 42.89 days for variety Red
Wolaita.

Similarly, Shumi (2018) revealed that the main effects of variety and NPS rate were
found to be highly significant (p<0.01) on days to reach 50% flowering where the highest

14
number of days (46.67 days)to reach flowering was reported due to application of 200 kg
NPS ha-1 for variety Nasir. Nchimbi-Msolla and Tryphone (2010) also reported
significant differences in the number of days required to reach 50% flowering among 20
common bean genotypes that ranged from 26.67 to 45 days. The addition of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizer might have contributed to the availability of soil nutrients to plant
growth whereby the nitrogen fertilization delayed days to flowering.

In agreement with this result Endrias (2017) reported that application of NPS rate
significantly influenced days to 50% flowering in common bean. Increasing NPS rate
from 0 kg NPS ha-1 to 100 kg NPS ha-1 increased the number of days required to reach
50% flowering from 42.67 to 49.33 days. The result was also in accordance with that of
Assefa et al. (2017) who reported significantly longest days (45.86 days) of common
bean to flowering due to application of 46 kg P 2O5 ha-1 and 41 kg N ha-1. Similarly,
Shumi (2018) reported that days to flowering of common bean were delayed with
increment of application rate of NPS fertilizer where the highest number of days (46.67
days) to reach flowering was recorded due to application of 200 kg ha -1 of blended NPS
while the earliest days to flowering (38.33 days) was recorded due to the application of
50kgha-1 of NPS.

4.2.2. Days to90% physiological maturity

The analysis of variance showed highly significant (P<0.01) main e ffect of variety and
blended NPS fertilizer application rates on days to 90% physiological maturity, while
their interaction did not significantly influence on days to 90% physiological maturity.
(Appendix Table1).Variety Awash 1 had the longest days to reach 90% physiological
maturity (95.8 days) and it was statistically at par with Nasir(94.2 days), whereas the
variety SER-125 was found earliest to reach 90% physiological maturity (93.6 days)
(Table 4). These variations might be attributed by genotypic differences of the respective
varieties as phonological characteristics are genetically controlled.

This result was in line with Wondwosen and Tamado (2017) who reported that Common
bean varieties showed highly significant (p<0.01) difference on days to 90%
physiological maturity and they reported that variety Red Wolayita was the earliest
(93.33 days) to 90% physiological maturity while Awash Melka was the late maturing
variety (95.27 days). Similarly, Endrias (2017) reported that varieties Nasir and Hawassa
Dume were early maturing which required 78.56 and 80 days respectively than Red
Wolaita which matured on 82.56 days after planting.

Taminaw (2019) also reported that the main effects of varieties and NPS fertilize rates
had highly significant (p<0.01) and significant (p<0.05) effects, respectively, on days to
90% physiological maturity while the interaction of both factors had non-significant
effect .Variety Awash Melka had the longest days to reach 90% physiological maturity
(85.05 days) and it was statistically at par with Awash 2 (83 days), whereas the variety
Awash1 was the earliest to reach 90% physiological maturity (80.78 days). The result
also showed that increasing NPS application from 0 kg ha -1 to 200 kg ha-1 prolonged the
time required to attain 90% physiological maturity.

Early maturity (91.67 days) which was statistically at par with 50 kg NPS ha -1 (87.33
days) was recorded from 0 kg NPS ha -1 which was 13.34 days earlier than 200 kg NPS
ha-1 (100.67 days). This delayed physiological maturity was statistically at par with 150
and 100 kg NPS ha-1, respectively. The delay in days to maturity at highest NPS rate
could be due to the fact that N fertilization increases the vegetative growth of plants. The
longer maturity periods might also have been caused by the promoted vegetative growth
due to enhanced supply of nitrogen through NPS fertilizer application.

In line with this result, Shumi (2018) obtained delayed physiological maturity of common
bean with increase in NPS fertilizer rates where the highest number of days required to
physiological maturity (99.33 days) was recorded for the highest rate of blended NPS
application rate (250 kg ha-1) while the shortest days to physiological maturity (91.33
days) was reported without the NPS application. Similarly, Endrias (2017) reported that
increasing NPS rate from 0 kg NPS ha -1 to 100 kg NPS ha -1 increased the number of days
required to reach physiological maturity of common bean from73.56 day’s to76.72days.

Table: 4 Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on days to 50% flowering and
days to physiological maturity of common bean.

Treatment DFF DPM

Awash1 48.73a 95.8a

16
 Nasir 47.53b 94.2b
SER-125 46.33c 93.6c
LSD(0.05) 2.0 0.85

NPS rates (kgha-1)

0 44d 90.33e
50 46.56c 92.11d
100 45.5c 95c
150 48.56b 96.67b
200 50.33a 99a
LSD(0.05) 1.16 1.1
CV (%) 2.6 1.2

D= Days to 50% flowering; DPM=Days to physiological maturity; LSD (0.05) = Least

Significant Difference at 5% level; CV (%) = Coefficient of variation. Means in the
columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance.

4.2.3. Number of total and effective nodules

The analysis of variance showed highly significant (P<0.01) main e ffect of variety and
blended NPS fertilizer application rates on number of primary branches, while their
interaction did not significantly influence the number of total nodules (Appendix Table1).
Variety Awash1 recorded the highest number of total nodules (69) while the lowest
number of total nodules (49.93) was recorded for variety SER-125 (Table 5). Phosphorus
has got significant effect on legumes yield and agronomic parameters as it promotes the
development of extensive root systems and good nodulation. The increase in total and
effective number of nodules at the highest NPS rate may be due to the application of
nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur fertilizer that stimulate nodule formation and also
enhance yield of pulse including common bean. Phosphorus is also a vital component of
adenosine diphosphate and adenosine triphos phate the “energy unit” (Cabeza et al.,
2014) due to this the metabolic path ways such as N-fixation that occur in bacteroids, as
well as the ammonium assimilation in to amino acids and ureides that occur in the plant
cell fraction of nodules, require a large amount of P in energy transfer during nodule
functioning (Sulieman and Tran, 2015).

This result was In line with Shumi (2018) who reported that the main effects of NPS rate
had highly significant (p<0.01) effect on total number of nodules where the highest
number of total nodules per plant (80.47) was recorded from the application of 200 kg
NPS ha-1 while the lowest number of total nodules (40.94) was recorded from nil
application of NPS fertilizer. Amare et al. (2014) reported that nodule number was
significantly increased with increasing levels of phosphorus with the lowest (12.89) and
the highest (31.85) numbers in common bean obtained from the control and application
of 20kg P2O5 ha-1, respectively.

Number of effective nodules per plant increased with the increasing rate of blended NPS
application rate. Increasing of blended NPS fertilizer from 0 to 200 kg ha -1 enhanced the
number of effective nodules per plant (table 5). The highest number of e ffective nodules
per plant (33.67) was recorded at the rate of 200 kg NPS ha -1 while the lowest number of
effective nodules per plant (27.43) was recorded at the rate of 0 kg NPS ha -1. The
increased number of effective nodules with the increase in NPS application up to 200 kg
NPS ha-1 might be due to the vital role of phosphorus in increasing the number and size
of nodule and the amount of nitrogen assimilated per unit of nodules.

The increased number of effective nodules with the application of NPS over the control
might also be from increased sulphur application which might be due to the high dose of
sulphur and increasing its availability along with other major nutrients. In legume plants
with a high sulfur supply show greater rates of N2 fixation and, conversely, legumes
grown on sulfur poor soils have lower nitrogenase activity and readily respond to sulfur
fertilizers by increasing yield and nitrogen content (Scherer, 2008). In nodulated legumes
sulfur deficiency triggers at least three types of effects: decrease of nodulation, direct
Inhibition of N2 fixation, and general alteration of nodule metabolism in contrast to a
high sulfur supply to plants which markedly increases nodulation and symbiotic nitrogen
fixation (Varin et al., 2009). In conformity with this result, Muller et al. (1993) reported
that application of nitrogen in the range of 22 to 33 kg N ha -1 enhanced both nodulation
and seed yield of common bean varieties. Moreover, Ganesha murthy, and Sammi
18
Reddyv (2000) found a significant increase in the number of active nodules with the
application of sulphur up to 20 kg ha -1, at which point nodule production reached a
plateau and did not increase further. Khandkar et al. (1985) also reported that the
formation of nodules in black gram was increased in response to sulphur application up to
30 kg ha-1 which is involved in the formation of nitrogenous enzyme known to promote
nitrogen fixation in legumes.

Table: 5.Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on numbers of total and
effective nodules per plant of common bean

Treatment Total number Effective number of

of Nodules nodules

Awash 1 69a 33.07a

Nasir 65.27b 33.67a
SER-125 49.93c 24.27b
LSD (0.05) 8.29 6.5
NPS rates (kgha-1)
0 46.44d 22.56b
50 60.78c 30.44a
100 62.67c 31.44a
150 67.89b 33.33a
200 69.22a 33.89a
LSD (0.05) 4.79 3.76
CV (%) 8.1 12.8

LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at5% level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.
Means in the columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5%
level of significance.

4.2.4. Plant height

The analysis of variance showed highly (P<0.01) effect of varieties, blended NPS rates
and their interaction on plant height at physiological maturity (table 6). Variety Nasir
showed the highest plant height (67.60cm) with combined application of 200 kg NPS ha -1
the shortest plants (37.52 cm) was seen for SER-125 without NPS fertilizer. Plant height
was increased from 37.52cm for variety SER-125 with 0kgNPS ha -1 to 67.6cm for variety
Nasir at 200kg NPS ha-1. The increase in plant height in response to the increased blended
NPS application rate might be due to the maximum vegetative growth of the plants under
higher N, P and S availability. Nitrogen helps in chlorophyll formation, phosphorus
establishes strong root system and Sulphur enhanced the formation of chlorophyll and
encouraged vegetative.

In conformity with the current result, Moniruzza man et al. (2008) found that plant height
was significantly increased up to 160 kg N ha -1. Also application of phosphorus at the
highest level (120 kg P2O5 ha-1) increased plant height. The promotion effect of high P
level on plant height of maize may be due to better development of the root system and
nutrient. The increase in plant height might also be ascribed to better root formation due
to sulphur, which in turn activated higher absorption of N, P, K and sulphur from the soil
and improved metabolic activity inside the plant.

Similar results were reported by Jawahar et al. (2017) where sulphur level of 40 kg ha-1
was found to increase the plant height, LAI, chlorophyll content and number of branches
per plant of blackgram (Vigna mungo). In conformity with this result, Moniruzza man et
al. (2008) found that plant height increase with the application of N and P2O5 (120 and
160 kg ha-1) respectively. Similarly, Taj (1996) reported an increase in plant height of
mungbean in response to nitrogen and phosphorus application (20 kg Nha -1 and 69 kg
P2O5 ha-1).

Table: 6.Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on plant height

NPS rates (kgha-1)

Varieties 0 50 100 150 200

Awash1 43.33ij 46.73gh 51.63e 60.00bc 65.93a
Nasir 45.73ghi 53.40d 58.47c 62.47b 67.60a
SER-125 37.52k 40.70j 44.00hi 50.0ef 47.63fg
LSD (0.05) 1.368

20
 CV (%) 3.5

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance

4.2.5. Number of primary branches per plant

The analysis of variance indicated highly significant (P<0.01) effect of blended NPS
fertilizer application rates on number of primary branches (Appendix Table 2) while
variety and their interaction did not significantly influenced on the number of primary
branches (Table 6). Increasing rates of blended NPS fertilizer from 0 to 200 kg ha -1
showed progressive increase in the number of primary branches per plant (table 7). Thus,
the highest number of primary branches per plant (3.89) was recorded at the highest rate
200 kg NPS ha-1of application and it was statistically at par with NPS rates of 200, 150,
100, and 50 kg NPS ha-1, while the lowest number of primary branches per plant (2.33)
was recorded from the control treatment.

The increase in number of primary branches per plant in response to the increased rate of
blended NPS application rate indicates higher vegetative growth of the plants under
higher N, P and S availability. The result was consistent with the finding of Addisu
(2013) who reported that number of primary and secondary branches was highly
significantly different among the chickpea varieties at Bishoftu with the Desi variety
Natoli had significantly higher number of primary (3.21) and secondary branches (6.73)
than the Kabuli variety Acos Dubie with 2.26 and 3.49, respectively. The blended NPS
rate had highly significant (P<0.01) effect on number of primary branches per plant. In
line with this result, Shubha shree(2007)reported significantly higher number of branches
per plant of common bean with 75 kg P2O5 ha -1 over the control. The increment in
number of branches with increased rate of P might also be due to the importance of P for
cell division, leading to the increase in plant height and number of branches. In line with
this result, Moniruzza man et al. (2008) reported that the number of branches per plant
increased significantly with the increase of N up to 120 kg ha -1 on common bean. The
increased primary branches observed under blended fertilizer might be attributed to
readily available form of S that enhanced uptake of nutrients even at the initial stage of
crop growth. The result was also in agreement with the finding of Jawahar et al. (2017)
who reported that application of 40 kg S ha -1 recorded highest number of branches per
plant (7.75) in black gram (V.mungo)

Table: 7.Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates number of primary branches
per plant of common bean

Treatment Number of primary branches per plant

Awash 1 3.07b
Nasir 3.53a
SER-125 3.07b
LSD (0.05) 77
NPS rates (kgha-1)
0 2.33d
50 2.89c
100 3.33bc
150 3.67ab
200 3.89a
LSD (0.05) 0.45
CV% 14.3

LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at5% level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.
Means in the columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5%
level of significance

4.3. Yield Components and Yield

4.3.1. Stand Count

The main effect of varieties and blended NPS rate had highly significant (P<0.01) e ffect
on stand count at harvest while the interaction of varieties and blended NPS rate not
significant effect on stand count at harvest (Appendix Table3). Nasir Variety showed the
highest stand count (96.53 %) and SER-125 variety was the lowest (94.73%) which was
22
statistically at far (95.13) with Awash 1 variety. The highest stand count per plot at
harvest (95.22%) was obtained at applied blended NPS rate of 150 kg ha -1 which was
statistically at par with 100kg of NPS ha -1 (93.89%) and the lowest (88.89) was from
control. However, as blended NPS rate increases, stand count increased up to 150 but,
decreased at 200kgha-1(Table8). The highest stand count at the highest NPS rate might be
due to that increased NPS level that improves plants growth and development by better
up take of all nutrients, increased translocations photosynthetic materials and reduce the
mortality of plants.

Taminaw (2019) reported the number of plants at harvest compared to the initial count
(stand count after thinning) was highly significant (p<0.01) due to the main effects of
NPS fertilizer. However, the main effects of varieties and interaction of both factors were
non-significant. Among the different NPS levels, the highest stand count rate (96.03%)
was exhibited from highest dose of NPS (200 kg ha -1), which was statistically at par with
150 kg of NPS ha-1 (95.79%) while the lowest plant stand count(91.8%) was obtained
from plots which receive no NPS fertilization.

Table: 8.Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on Stand count percent at
harvest of common bean

Treatment Stand count

Awash 1 95.13b
Nasir 96.53a
SER-125 94.73b

LSD (0.05) 1.54

NPS rates (kgha-1)
0 88.89d
50 91.33c
100 93.89b
150 95.22a
 200 93.33b
LSD (0.05) 0.89
CV 1

LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at5% level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.
Means in the columns followed by the same letter are not significantly different at 5%
level of significance

4.3.2. Number of pods per plant

The number of total pods was highly significantly (p<0.01) influenced by varieties,
blended NPS rate and their interaction (Appendix Table 3).Variety Nasir with application
of 150kg blended NPS ha-1 fertilizer scored significantly the highest number of total pods
per plant (25.33) while the lowest number of total pods per plant (20) was from variety
SER-125 with 100 kg blended NPS ha-1 application rate (Appendix Table 3). As Blended
NPS fertilizer rate increases, plant height also increased. The increase in number of pods
per plant with the increased NPS rates might possibly be due to adequate availability of
N, P and S which might have facilitated the production of primary branches and plant
height which might in turn have contributed for the production of higher number of total
pods.

Taminaw (2019) reported the main effects of varieties, NPS fertilize rates and the
interaction of both factors had highly significant (p<0.01) effect on number of pods per
plant. Variety Awash Melka with 200 kg NPS ha-1 produced significantly the highest
number of pods per plant (28.40), which was statistically at par with the application of
150 kg NPS ha-1and 100 kg NPS ha-1 with the same variety. In contrast, variety Awash 1
with 0 kg NPS ha-1 rate gave the lowest number of pods per plant (13.71). In conformity
with this result, Moniruzza man et al. (2008) reported significant effect of N fertilizers on
pod production per plant of French bean with the maximum number of pods per plant
(25.49) obtained at 120-120-60-20-4-1 kg of N-P2O5-K2O-S-Zn-B. Many scientists
agree that the increment of number of pods per plant due to application of P fertilizer
confirms the fact that P fertilizer promotes the formation of nodes and pods in legumes
(Buttery, 1969).

24
In agreement with this result, Dereje et al. (2015) also found that the number of pods per
plant of common bean significantly increased in response to increasing rate of
phosphorus up-to the highest rate (92 kg P2O5 ha -1). On the other hand, Jawahar et al.
(2017) reported that application of 40 kg S ha -1 recorded the highest number of seeds per
pod of black gram. This could be due to the increasing levels of sulphur application
enhanced its availability to the crop and increase photosynthetic activity of crop. In this
study, varieties also exhibited highly significant (P<0.01) difference in the number of
pods per plant. Additionally, (Wondwosen and Tamado (2017) reported increase in
number of pods per plant with increased levels of NP fertilization from 0 kg N; 0 kg P 2O5
to 36 kg N; 92 kg P2O5 ha-1 and the highest number of pods per plant (31.37) was
reported from the application of 36 kg N; 92 kg P 2O5 ha-1 whereas the lowest number of
pods per plant (14.58) was reported from the no fertilizer plot in common bean.
Similarly, Shumi(2018)reported the highest number of pods per plant (18.52) at
application rate of 250 kg NPS ha-1 whereas the lowest number of pods per plant (8.7)
from the unfertilized plot of common bean. Shubha shree (2007); and Shanka et al.
(2015) reported significant increase in number of pods per plant on common bean due to
increased P fertilization up to 69 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 92 kg P2O5 ha-1, respectively

Table: 9. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on number of pods per
plant common bean

NPS (kgha-1)

Varieties 0 50 100 150 200

Awash 1 11k 13.67j 14.67ij 16.00ghi 16.67gh
Nasir 15hij 19ef 22.33bc 25.33a 24ab
SER-125 10k 14.67ij 17.67fg 21cd 20de
LSD (0.05) 0.76
CV (%) 5.8

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance.
4.3.3. Number of seeds per pod
The analysis of variance showed highly significant (P<0.01) main e ffect of variety and
blended NPS fertilizer application rates on number of seeds per pod while their
interaction did not significantly influence the number of seeds per pod (Appendix Table
3). The highest number of seeds per pod (4.67) was recorded from variety Nasir and it
was statistically at par with SER-125 (4.53), whereas the least number of seeds per pod
(3.93) was recorded for variety Awash 1 (Table 10). The highest number of seeds per pod
(5.11) was obtained blended NPS rate of 200 kg ha - 1 applied and it was statistically at par
with 150 kg ha-1(5) and the lowest (3.67) was from control. Consistent with the results of
this study, Taminaw (2019) also reported that main effects of varieties, NPS fertilize rate
and the interaction of both factors had highly significant (p<0.01) effect on number of
seeds per pod.

The variation in the number of seed per pod among the varieties might be related to the
genotypic variation of the cultivars in producing seed. Similarly, Wondwosen and
Tamado (2017) reported that variety Awash Melka gave highest number of seed per pod
(4.65) over Awash 1 (4.55). The increment in number of seeds per pod with increasing
NPS fertilizer application rates might be due to the fact that P is essential component in
seed formation. Phosphorus plays key role in protein synthesis, phospholipids and phytin
all of which are important in the seed formation and development (Rahman et al., 2008).
Likewise, Meseret and Amin(2014) reported that the number of seeds per pod of common
bean was increased from 3.14 to 4.2 with increased levels of P from 0 to 92 kg P2O5 ha-1.

4.3.4. Hundred Seeds weight

The analysis of variance showed highly significant (P<0.01) main e ffect of variety and
blended NPS fertilizer application rates on hundred seed weight while their interaction
did not significantly influenced hundred seed weight. Variety Nasir recorded the highest
hundred seed weight (45.38 g) while the lowest hundred seed weight (35.51g) was
recorded for variety Awash1 Appendix Table3). The highest hundred seed weight(42.21 )
were recorded at the highest application rate of 200 kg NPS ha -1 and it was statistically at
par with 150 and 100 kg NPS ha -1 while the lowest hundred seed weight (35.05 ) were
recorded from 0 kg NPS ha-1(Table 10). This might be because nutrient use efficiency by

26
crop was enhanced at optimum level of N, P and S since grain weight indicates the
amount of resource utilized during critical growth periods.

The increase in 100 seed weight with fertilizer application is in agreement with the
finding of Shamim and Naimat (1987) who related the increment in 100-seed weight to
the influence of cell division, phosphorus content in the seeds as well as the formation of
fat and albumin. The increase in hundred seed weight as a result of increased P
application might be attributed to important roles the nutrient plays in regenerative
growth of the crop (Zafar et al., 2013), leading to increased seed size (Fageria, 2009),
which in turn may improve hundred seed weight. Similarly, Amare et al. (2014) observed
significant increase in thousand seed weights of common bean as a result of phosphorus
application up to 40 kg ha-1. In contrast to the results of this study, Fisseha and Yayis
(2015) reported that the different levels of phosphorus (46, 69 and 92 kg P 2O5 ha-1)
fertilizer used had not resulted in significant difference in 100 seed weight of common
bean.

Variation in hundred seed weight might have occurred due to the presence of difference
in seed size among the common bean varieties as hundred seed weight increases with
increase in the seed size. In line with this result, Tanaka and Fujita (1979) stated that the
number of seeds per pod and weights of hundred seeds were strongly controlled
genetically in field bean (Pisum sativim). The higher 100 seed weight for variety Ibado is
associated with the size of the seed in accordance with Hawtin et al. (1980) who
explained that the larger the seed, the higher its seed weight. Daniel et al. (2014) reported
that common bean varieties had a significant variation among each other for thousand
seed weight. The authors indicated that variety Gobe Rasha produced the highest seed
weight (539.52gm.), while variety Awash1 was the least in seed weight (151.95).

Similarly Amare et al. (2014) stated that there were highly significant differences in1000
seed weight with the value of 388.67 g for Ibado and 174.90 for Dume varieties of
common bean. Wondwosen and Tamado (2017) also obtained highly significant
difference in hundred seed weight among the common bean varieties where the highest
hundred seed weight (21.78 g) was reported for variety Red Wolayita whereas the lowest
hundred seed weight (18.19g) was obtained for variety Awash
Table: 10.Main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on number of seed per pod
and hundred seed weight (g).

Treatment Number of seed per Hundred seed weight(g)

pod

Awash1 3.93b 35.51c

Nasir 4.67a 45.38a
SER-125 4.53a 37.75b
LSD (0.05) 0.77 2.83
NPS rates(kgha-1)
0 3.67c 35.05d
50 3.78c 38.26c
100 4.33b 40.38b
150 5a 41.83ab
200 5.11a 42.21a
LSD(0.05) 0.45 1.63
CV (%) 10.5 4.3

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance.

4.3.5. Above-ground dry biomass yield:

Hundred seed weight was highly significantly (p<0.01) influenced by varieties, blended
NPS rate and their interactions. Variety Nasir with application of 200 kg blended NPS
ha-1 fertilizer scored significantly the highest above ground dry biomass (6330 kg) while
the lowest above ground dry biomass (5142 kg) was for variety SER-125 with 0 kg
blended NPS ha-1 application rate (Table 11). The result generally showed an increase in
biomass production with increase in the rate of blended NPS among the bean varieties
(Appendix Table 4).

The increased in biomass yield of cultivars across blended NPS rates could be attributed
to the fact that the enhanced availability of N significantly increased plant height, number
28
of pods per plant and to the overall vegetative growth of the plants that contributed to
higher above-ground dry biomass yield. Taminaw (2019) reported that the mai on the
above-ground dry biomass of common bean while the interaction effects of both factors
had non-significant effect. The increment in dry matter yield with application of blended
NPS fertilizer might also be due to the adequate supply of P from the NPS that could be
attributed to an increase in number of branches per plant, which increased photosynthetic
area and the number of pods per plant. The increase in the above-ground dry biomass
yield in response to increasing rate of phosphorus application proves that the soil of the
study area is in fact deficient in available soil P and requires external P fertilizer
application for enhancing the yield of the crop.

This result was in conformity with the findings of Agegnew Getal(2006)who reported a
significant linear response of above-ground dry biomass yield to phosphorus application
in faba bean on acidic Nitisols. He also reported that the total above-ground dry biomass
yield of faba bean significantly increased with increased rate of phosphorus fertilizer
application where the soil was low in available phosphorus of acidic Nitisols. In contrast
with this result, Tedesse (2012) also reported that application of Sulphur up to 60 kg S ha -
1
and interaction of nitrogen with Sulphur did not result in significant e ffect on above-
ground dry biomass of common bean.

Amare et al. (2014) reported that dry matter of common bean was significantly (p<0.01)
affected by the main effects of variety. Similarly Daniel et al. (2014) were reported the
highest total biomass from Nasir followed by Dimtu and the lowest biomass were from
Batu. In agreement with this result, Girma (2009) also found a significant increment in
biomass weight of common bean with increased rates of NP fertilizers from 0 N kg + 0
kg P2O5 to 36 kg N + 92 kg P 2O5 ha-1 respectively. Likewise Fazli et al. (2008) reported
that lack of S limits the efficiency of added N; therefore, S addition becomes necessary to
achieve maximum efficiency of applied nitrogenous fertilizer and nitrogen helps to
increases shoot dry biomass, which is positively associated with seed yield in cereals and
legumes (Fageria, 2008) n effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates had highly
significant (p<0.01) effects
On the above-ground dry biomass of common bean while the interaction effects of both
factors had non-significant effect. The increment in dry matter yield with application of
blended NPS fertilizer might also be due to the adequate supply of P from the NPS that
could be attributed to an increase in number of branches per plant, which increased
photosynthetic area and the number of pods per plant. The increase in the above-ground
dry biomass yield in response to increasing rate of phosphorus application proves that the
soil of the study area is in fact deficient in available soil P and requires external P
fertilizer application for enhancing the yield of the crop.

This result was in conformity with the findings of Agegnew Getal(2006)who reported a
significant linear response of above-ground dry biomass yield to phosphorus application
in faba bean on acidic Nitisols. He also reported that the total above-ground dry biomass
yield of faba bean significantly increased with increased rate of phosphorus fertilizer
application where the soil was low in available phosphorus of acidic Nitisols. In contrast
with this result, Tedesse (2012) also reported that application of Sulphur up to 60 kg S ha -
1
and interaction of nitrogen with Sulphur did not result in significant e ffect on above-
ground dry biomass of common bean.

Amare et al. (2014) reported that dry matter of common bean was significantly (p<0.01)
affected by the main effects of variety. Similarly Daniel et al. (2014) were reported the
highest total biomass from Nasir followed by Dimtu and the lowest biomass were from
Batu. In agreement with this result, Girma (2009) also found a significant increment in
biomass weight of common bean with increased rates of NP fertilizers from 0 N kg + 0
kg P2O5 to 36 kg N + 92 kg P2O5 ha-1 respectively.

Likewise Fazli et al. (2008) reported that lack of S limits the efficiency of added N;
therefore, S addition becomes necessary to achieve maximum efficiency of applied
nitrogenous fertilizer and nitrogen helps to increases shoot dry biomass, which is
positively associated with seed yield in cereals and legumes(Fageria,2008).

Table: 11. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on AGDBM Yield of
common bean

NPS (kgha-1)

30
 Varieties 0 50 100 150 200
Awash 1 5977cd 6004cd 6174abc 6212abc 6294ab
Nasir 6065bcd 6135abcd 6205abc 6264ab 6330a
SER-125 5142e 5361e 5965d 6194abc 6243ab
LSD(0.05) 106.1
CV(%) 2.3

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance

4.3.6. Seed yield

Seed yield was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected due to main e ffect of blended NPS
fertilizer rate, varieties and interaction of both factors. Variety Nasir with application of
150 kg blended NPS ha-1 fertilizer scored significantly the highest Seed yield (2565kgha -1
)while the lowest Seed yield (1383kg ha -1) was for variety Awash 1 with 0kg blended
NPSha-1 application rate(table12).(Appendix.Table4).Deference’s in seed yield among
the common bean varieties might be related to the Genotypic variations in P use
efficiency. Hence, the cultivars which produced higher grain yield might have either
better ability to absorb the applied P from the soil solution or translocate and use the
absorbed P for grain formation than the low yielding cultivar.

In agreement with the results of this study, Gobeze L et al (2015) and Mourice et al
(2012) observed significant variations in grain yield for common bean due to genotypic
variations for P use efficiency which may arise from variation in P acquisition and
translocation and use of absorbed P for grain formation in common bean. The result
might be attributed to the fact that applying NPS fertilizer increases crop growth and
yield on soils which are naturally low in NPS and in soils that have been depleted.
Similar results were reported by Murut G et al (2014) that P application at the rate of
46NPS (kgha-1) gave higher number of pods per plant and yield as compared to
unfertilized plots in common bean. This result is also in agreement with that of Negash F
et al (2015). Who reported that the application of 27 kg N and 69 kg P2O5 ha -1 had
significantly improved grain yield of common bean. It might also be due to increased
levels of S, its availability along with major nutrients and higher uptake of crop and
influencing growth and yield components of the crop, which ultimately lead to e ffective,
assimilate partitioning of photosynthates from the source to sink in post-flowering stage
and resulted in highest seed yield. Differences in seed yield among the common bean
cultivars might also be related to their response to applied NPS.

In conformity to this result, Dwivedi et al (1994) found increased yield of common bean
due to increasing levels of nitrogen up to 100 kg ha -1with the difference between 80 and
100 kg N ha-1 being not significant. Boroomanndan P et al. (2009) also reported that seed
yield of soybean increased significantly at 40kgNha -1 compared to the control treatment.
However, application of 80 kg N ha-1 decreased seed yield, indicating that there is a limit
to the maximum level of nitrogen to be supplied to avoid its detrimental e ffect on the
plant. Similarly, Wondwosen and Tamado (2017) reported highly significant (p<0.01)
difference in seed yield among common bean varieties with the highest seeds yield
3127.00 kg ha-1 was recorded for variety Awash Melka with 27 kg N: 69 kg P2O5 ha -1
where as the lowest value of seeds yield(574.00kg ha-1)obtained from variety Awash1.

Similarly the result of Daniel et al. (2014) also reported a significance variation among
common bean varieties in their response to seed yield. The highest yield also reported
from the varieties Nasir and Dimtu with the values of 2866.8 and 2709.3 kg ha -1, treated
level respectively. On the other hand the lowest yielder with the value of 678.2 kg ha -1
was Batu. Similarly, Shanka et al. (2015); and Mourice and Tryphone (2012) reported
significant variations in grain yield for common bean due to genotypic variations for P
use efficiency which may arise from variation in P acquisition and translocation and use
of absorbed P to grain. The increase in seed yield with NPS application might be related
to higher primary branch per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod
and 100 seed weight. The increase in grain yield due to higher rates of NPS fertilizer
clearly indicates the need of balanced fertilizer to achieve maximum grain yield; which is
consistent with the basic principles of plant nutrition (Marschner, 1995).

Table: 12. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on grain yield of
common bean

32
 NPS (kg ha-1)

Varieties 0 50 100 150 200

Awash 1383j 1526i 1870gh 1818f 1952e
Nasir 1734fg 2033e 2279c 2565a 2434b
SER-125 1608hi 1737fg 1933e 2189cd 2076d
LSD(0.05) 44.78
CV(%) 3

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance

4.3.7. Harvest index:

Harvest index was highly significantly (P<0.01) affected by the variety, blended NPS
Fertilizer rate and interaction effect of both factor (appendix Table 4). The highest
harvest index (41.30 %) was recorded from Nasir variety with the application of 150kg
NPS ha-1 whereas the lowest (26.5 %) was obtained from Awash 1 variety with the
application of 0kg NPS ha-1(table13).These variations might be attributed to genotypic
differences of the common bean varieties on seed yield and aboveground dry biomass. In
conformity with this result, Endrias (2017) reported the highest harvest index (40.40%)
for variety Nasir while the lowest harvest index (34.57%) was for variety Red Wolaita
(34.57%). Similarly Daniel et al. (2014) reported the highest harvest indices for the
common bean varieties Beshbesh (0.50) and Nasir (0.48). Taminaw (2019) also reported
that the main effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer application rate had highly significant
(p<0.01) effect on harvest index of the crop while the interaction effect was not
significant. The result of this study was also in agreement with Fageria (2008) who
reported significant improvement of common bean in harvest index within the range of
0.44 to 0.74 due to nitrogen application up to 50 kg ha -1. Similarly Dhanjal et al. (2001)
stated that in the increase of harvest index values from 31.60, to 33.86% was due to
increasing N level zero to 60 and 120 kg Nha-1, respectively on common bean.
Table: 13. Interaction effects of varieties and NPS fertilizer rates on Harvest Index (%) of
common bean

NPS (kgha-1)

Varieties 0 50 100 150 200

Awash1 26.5j 28.37ghi 31.3e 34.93c 33.83cd
Nasir 29.02g 32.29de 36.90b 41.30a 38.70b
SER-15 26.93hi 28.5gh 28ghi 29.3fg 31.17ef
LSD(0.05) 0.854
CV(%) 3.5

LSD (0.05) =Least Significant Difference at5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance.

4.4. Agronomic Efficiency

The agronomic data upon which the recommendations are based must be relevant to the
farmers’ own agro-ecological conditions, and the evaluation of those data must be
consistent with the farmers’ goals and socio-economic circumstances. For instance
agronomic efficiency (kg seed kg-1 of NPS) as ratio of seed yield to NPS fertilizer rates
with three common bean varieties showed highly significant (p<0.001) effects with the
highest value (5.6 kg seed kg-1 of NPS) in treatment combination of 150 kg NPS ha -1
fertilizer with Nasir variety and it was statistically at par with100kg NPS ha -1 from the
same variety while the lowest agronomic efficiency ( 2.4 ) were recorded from 0 kg NPS
ha-1 with Awash1 variety (Table 14). The net benefit was computed for common bean
varieties, application of blended NPS fertilizer and interaction of varieties with
application of blended NPS fertilizer. The economic analysis revealed that highest net
benefit (53,354 B150 kg NPS ha-1 while the lowest net benefit (27,387.8 Birr ha-1) was
obtained from variety Awash1 grown without fertilizer (Appendix Table 5). Therefore,
production of Nasir variety with the application of 150 kg NPS ha -1 with 850.5 MRR%
was found the most productive variety for economical production compared to Awash1
and SER-125 varieties. Anteneh et al. (2015) also stated highest AE of nitrogen in

34
common bean was observed in soil having fertility soil with moderate N content and
lowest AE of nitrogen in the same soil high N content. Similarly Alemu et al. (2018)
reported that Agronomic efficiency (AE) was significantly affected by P rates. In their
report, the highest AE was obtained when it was grown at application of 23 kg P 2O5 ha-1
while the lowest was recorded from 46 kg P 2O5 ha-1. Lower levels suggest changes in
management could increase crop response or reduce input costs up to the optimum level
(Fixen et al., 2015).

Table: 14. Agronomic efficiency as ratio of seed yield to NPS fertilizer rates with three
common bean varieties.irr ha-1) was obtained from combination of variety Nasir treated
with three common bean varieties.

NPS (kgha-1)

Varieties 50 100 150 200

Awash1 2.6cd 3.1bcd 3.9b 2.4d
Nasir 4.1b 5.5a 5.6a 3.5bc
SER-15 2.85cd 2.73cd 2.9cd 2.8cd
LSD(0.05) 0.44
CV(%) 2

LSD (0.05) = Least Significant Difference at 5%level; CV (%) =Coefficient of variation.

Means in the table followed by the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level
of significance

4.5. Partial Budget Analysis

The partial budget analysis of the 15 treatments is shown in (Table 13). Based on this
result, the highest net benefit of 53454 Birr ha-1 with MRR of 850.5% was obtained from
the treatment combination of 150 kg NPS ha -1application rate for variety Nasir According
to CIMMYT (1988), the minimum acceptable marginal rate of return (MRR %) should be
above 100%. Therefore, the most attractive NPS fertilizer application rate for producers
or farmers with higher net return was 150 kg NPS ha -1 fertilizers application rate. In
agreement with this result, Shumi (2018) obtained highest net benefit (34167.56 Birr ha -1)
with the application of 150 kg NPS ha-1 for common bean.
 Table: 15. Summary of partial budget analysis of the response of common bean varieties
to the application of NPS fertilizer

Treatment Adjusted Gross NPS NPS TVC Net Benefit MRR

Combination seed yield Benefit cost applicatio (Birr (Birrha-1) (%)
Variety+ NP (kgha-1) (Birrha-1) (Birrh n cost(Birr ha-1)
S(kgha-1) a-1) ha-1 )

Awash1+0 1244.9 27387.8 0 0 0 27387.8 –

Awash1+50 1523.1 33508.2 650 100 750 32858.2 841.6

Awash1+100 1683 37026 1300 100 1400 35726 441.2

Awash1+150 1799.9 39591.2 1950 100 2050 37641.2 294.6

Awash1+200 1831.7 40297.4 2600 100 2700 38697.4 8.6

Nasir+0 1560.8 37459.2 0 0 0 37459.2 –

Nasir+50 1451.79 42908 650 100 750 42158 722.9

Nasir+100 2051 49224 1300 100 1400 47924 717.9

Nasir +150 2308.5 55404 1950 100 2050 53454 850.8

Nasir +200 2190.2 52564.8 2600 100 2700 49964.8 536.8

SER-125+0 1446.9 31831.8 0 0 0 31831.8 -

SER-125+50 1630.1 35862.2 650 100 750 35212.2 520.2

SER125+100 1817.6 39987.2 1300 100 1400 38687.2 534.6

SER125+150 1849 40678 1950 100 2050 38728 6.3

SER125+200 1868.3 41102.6 2600 100 2700 38502.6 34.7

MRR (%) = Marginal Rate of Return; Fertilizer application cost = 100 Birrha -1; NPS cost
=13.00 Birr kg-1; Common bean grain local selling price =23Birr kg -1; TVC = Total
variable cost; D= Dominated Treatment

36
 5. SUMMARY AND CONCULUSION

Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is highly preferred by Ethiopian farmers because
of its fast maturing characteristics that enable households to get cash income required to
purchase food and other household needs when other crops have not yet matured.
Improved common bean production encompasses proper use of different agronomic
practices which include improved variety, seed rate, spacing, fertilizer rate, and pesticide
application as per recommendations. However, the current national average yield of
common bean is far less than the attainable yield under good management conditions for
most improved varieties.

This low yield of common bean in Ethiopia is attributed to several production constraints,
which include lack of improved varieties for the different agro-ecological zones, poor
agronomic practices such as low soil fertility management, untimely and inappropriate
field operations. Thus, a field experiment was conducted to assess the effect of blended
NPS rates on yield and yield related traits of common bean varieties and to estimate
economically feasible rates of blended NPS fertilizer for common bean production.

Treatments consisted of factorial combinations of three common bean varieties (Awash1,

Nasir, and SER-125,) with five NPS fertilizer rates (0, 50, 100,150 and 200kg ha -1) laid
out in Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. All parameters were
highly significant (p<0.01) on Main effects of varieties and NPS rates. Plant height,
number of pod per plant, aboveground dry biomass, grain yield and, harvest index were
highly significantly (p<0.01) affected due to interaction of both factors while days of
flowering 50%, days physiological maturity, total number of nodule per plant, effective
number of nodule per plant, number of primary branch per plant, stand count, number of
seed per pod and 100 seed weight were non-significant effect. The highest days to 50%
flowering (48.73 days), days to 90% physiological maturity (95.8 days), the highest total
nodule number (69) and were recorded from variety Awash1 while the number of
primary branch per plant (3.53) effective nodule number (33.67), number of seed per pod
(4.67), hundred seed weight (45.38 g) were recorded from variety Nasir. The highest
level of (200 kg ha-1) resulted in higher values of number of primary branches per plant,
number of total nodules, number of effective nodules, number of seeds per pod and 100
seed weight. However, the highest number of pod per plant (25.33), Grain Yield (2565 kg
ha-1 and harvest index (41, 30), were recorded due to application of 150 kg ha -1 of
blended NPS for variety Nasir. Variety Nasir gave the highest plant height (67.60cm) and
above ground dry biomass (6330kgha-1) with application of 200kg NPS ha -1. Agronomic
efficiency (kg seed kg-1 of NPS) as ratio of seed yield to NPS fertilizer rates with three
common bean varieties showed highly significant (p<0.001) effects with the highest
value (5.6 kg seed kg-1 of NPS) in treatment combination of 150 kg NPS ha -1 fertilizer
with Nasir variety and it was statistically at par with (5.5 kg seed kg -1of NPS) in
treatment combination of 100 kg NPS ha -1 from the same variety while the lowest
agronomic efficiency (2.4) were recorded from 0 kg NPS ha -1 with Awash1 variety (table
14). Based on this result, the highest net benefit of 5 3454 ETB ha -1 with MRR of 850.5%
was obtained from the treatment combination of150 kg NPS ha-1application rate with
Nasir variety. Thus, it can be concluded from the result of present study that the use of
variety Nasir with application of 150 kg NPS ha-1 could be recommended to enhance the
productivity of common bean in the study area. However, the result of the present study
need to be validated and proved in the same agro-ecologies and seasons with further
experiments in order to give a blanket recommendation for wide range of common bean
production.

38
 6. REFERENCE
Agengew G, Tsige A (2006).The role of phosphorus fertilization on growth and yield of
faba bean on acidic nitisol of central highland of Ethiopia. Ethiop J Sci 29: 177-
182.

Alamitu M (2011).Factors affecting adoption of improved haricot bean varieties an

associated. Agronomic practices in Dale wordage, SNNPRS M.Sc. Thesis Wassa
University, Was sail, Ethiopia.

Alemu Amanuel, Amsal Nebiyu, Merkeb Getachew. 2018. Growth and yield of common
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars as influenced by rates of phosphorus at
Jmma, South west Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and
Sustainable Development; 10(6):104-15.

Ali Kemal, Ahmed Seid, Beniwal, S., Kenneni Gemechu, Malhotra, R.S., Makkouk,
K .and Halila, M.H. 2006.Food and forage legumes in Ethiopia. Progress and
prospects: Proceedings of the workshop on food and forage legumes 22-26
September2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Ali R, Khan MJ, Khat RA (2008).Response of rice to different sources of sulfur (S) at
various levels and its residual effect on wheat in rice-wheat cropping system.
Application in common bean in a no-tillage system .Communications Beans
(Phaseolus spp.–model food legumes. Plant and Soil, 252, 55-128.78 39:581-
583.And fertilizer recommendation Atlas for Tigray Regional State,

Amare Gizaw, Demelash Assaye, and Ayele Tuma. 2014. The response of haricot bean
varieties to different rates of phosphorus at Arba Minch, Southern
Ethiopia.JournalofAgriculturalandBiologicalScience, 9(10):344-350.
Anteneh Argaw, Eyasu Mekonnen, and Daniel Muleta. 2015. Agronomic efficiency of N
of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in some representative soils of Eastern
Ethiopia.CogentFood&Agriculture, 1(1):1-15.

Arshad, J.Yong-Sun,M. and Malik, Z. A. (2010). Sulphur -a general overview and

interaction with nitrogen. Australian JournalofCropScience7:523-529

Assefa T, Reda F, Amsalu B, Abate T (2006) Integrated approach for the promotion of
common beans for export. In proceedings of first international conferences for
scaling up/out of technologies, 10-15. Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Institute of
Agricultural Research (EIAR).

Assefa T, Sperling L, Dagne B, Argaw W, Tessema D, Beebe S, (2014) Participatory

plant breeding with traders and farmers for white pea bean in Ethiopia. J Agric
Educ Exten. 20: 497-512

Assefa, Habtamu, Birhanu Amsalu, and Tamado Tana. 2017. Response of common bean
(Pharsalus vulgaris L.) cultivars to combined application of Rhizobium and NP
fertilizer at Melkassa, Central Ethiopia. International Journal of Plant & Soil
Science, 14(1):1-10.

Bationo, A., 2004.ManagingNutrient Cycles to Sustain Soil Fertility in Sub- Saharan

Africa.TSBF-CIA. Academy Science Publishers,Nairobi, Kenya.

Bezabih Emana.and Hadera G/medhin. 2007. “Constraints and Opportunities of

Horticultural Production and Marketing in Eastern Ethiopia”.DCG Report No.46..

Broughton, W.J. et al. (2003), “Beans (Phaseolus Spp.) Model food legumes”, Plant and
Soil, Vol.252, No.1, pp.55-128.

Buttery BR (1969). Analysis of the growth of soybeans as affected by plant population

andfertilizer.CanadianJournalofPlantSciences49:675-684.

Cabeza R, Koester B, Liese R, Lingner A, Baumgarten V, Dirks J, Schulze J. 2014b. An

RNA sequencing transcriptome analysis reveals novel insights into molecular
aspects of the nitrate impact on the nodule activity of Medicago truncatula. Plant
Physiology, 164(1):400–411

40
Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2016). Agricultural sample survey, Area and
production of temporary crops, private holdings for the 2015/16.Meherseason.).

CIAT (Centro International de Agricultural Tropical).1987.Bean Program Annual Report,

1987CIAT working Document number 39 CIAT, Cali, Colombia 352p

CIAT(Centro International de Agricultural Tropical). 1986. The cultivated species of

Phaseolus; study guide to be used as a supplement to the audio tutorial unit on the
same topic. Production: Fernando Fernandez O., Cali, Colombia. CIAT 52 p.
(Series04EB09.02

CIMMYT (Centro International De Mesoramiento De Maiz Y Trigo).1988. from

Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendation: An Economic Training Manual.
Completely Revised Edition, Mexico, DF.51.

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.O., and White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food
securityandfoodforthought.GlobalEnvironmentalChange,19,292–305.

Cordell, D., Drangert, J.O., and White, S., 2009. The story of phosphorus: Global food
security and food for thought. Global Environmental Change, 19, 292–305.

CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2018. Report on area and production of major crops
(Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season), The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDREP).Addis Ababa, Ethiopia1:10-29

CSA(Central Statistical Agency).2017. Report on area and production of major crops

(Private Peasant Holdings, Maher Season). The Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia (FDREP).Addis Ababa, Ethiopia1:19-22

CSA (Central Statistical Agency).2017.Agricultural sample survey, area and production

of temporary crops, private holdings for the 2016/2017, Meher season. Statistical
BulletinNo.584.AddisAbaba, Ethiopia

Daniel Tedesse., Teferi Alem., Tesfaye Wossen. And Assefa Sintayehu. 2014. Evaluation
of improved varieties of haricot bean in West Belessa, Northwest Ethiopia.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 3(12):2756-2759
Davis J G, Brick MA (2009).Fertilizing Dry Beans. Colorado State University Available.

Davis JG, Brick MA (2009).Fertilizing Dry Beans. Colorado State University

Available at: http://www.ext.colostate.edu

Debouck, D.G. (1996). Colombian common and Lima Beans views on their origin and
evolutionary significance. CORPOICA 1:7-15.

Degnet Abebaw and Belay Kasa, (2001), ‘Factors Influencing Adoption of High Yielding
Maize Varieties in South West Ethiopia: An Application of Logit Analysis’,
Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Vol.40, No.2, and Pp .149-67.

Demelash BB. 2018. Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Improvement Status in
Ethiopia. Advanced Crop Sciences and Technology, 6:3-47.

Dereje SND, Setegn G (2015).Response of common bean cultivars to phosphorus

application in Boloso Sore and Sodo Zuria Districts, Southern Ethiopia. East
African Journal of Sciences9 (1):49-60.

Dewis, J. and P. Freitas, 1970.Physical and chemical methods of soil and analysis.FAO
Bullet in No.10.Rome.Pp.275.

Dhanjal, R., Prakash, O.M. and Ahlawat, I.P.S. 2001. Response of French bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris) varieties to plant density and nitrogen application.Indian
JournalofAgronomy, 46(2):277-281.

Dubey, O.P. and Khan, R.A. 1993.Effect of Nitrogen and Sulfur on Dry-Matter, Grain-
Yield and Nitrogen-Content at Different Growth-Stages of Mustard (Brassica
juncea) Under Irrigated Vertisol. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 38(2):270-276.

Dwivedi DK, Singh H, Shahi KM, Rai JN (1994). Response of French bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) to population density and nitrogen levels under mid upland situation
in north-eastalluvialplainsofBihar.IndianJournalofAgronomy39:581-583.

E.Katungi, A.Farrow, T. Mutuoki, S.Gebeyehu, D.Karanja, F.Alamayehu, L.Sperling,

S.Beebe, J.C. Rubyogo and R. Buruchara. 2010. Improving common bean
productivity: An Analysis of socioeconomic factors in Ethiopia and Eastern

42
 Kenya. Baseline Report Tropical legumes II. Centro Internacional de
Agricultura Tropical - CIAT. Cali, Colombia

Edith, H.G., Cecilia, B. Pv., Rogelio, J. R. and Jose, S. M. M. (1997). Morphological and
agronomic traits of wild population and an improved cultivar of common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Annals of Botany79:207-213.

Endrias Chinasho. 2017. Effect of Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Sulfur-Blended Fertilizer and

Rhizobium Inoculation on Yield Components and Yield of Common Bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)Varieties at Bolosso Bombe District, Southern
Ethiopia.MS thesis, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.

Eshani, R., and M. Sullivan. 2006. Soil Electrical Conductivity (EC) Sensors, Ohio State
UniversityExtension,.

Ethiopia Soil Information System (Ethiosis) (2014).Soil fertility status Ethiopia.

Available at: https://agriknowledge.org/files/zg64tk92g 2 1

Ethiopia: Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia/Ethiopian

Development Research Institute.

Ethiopian Soil Information System (Ethio SIS)(2013). Soil Analysis Report. Agricultural
Biology 3(3):302-307.Ethiopian Soil Information System (Ethio SIS) (2013).Soil
AnalysisReport.AgriculturalExperimentalBotanyJournal40:953-963.

Ethiopian Soil Information System (EthioSIS) (2013).Soil Analysis Report.

Agricultural Biology 3(3):302-307.Ethiopian Soil Information System
(EthioSIS) (2013).Soil Analysis Report. Agricultural Experimental Botany
Journal 40:953-963.

Fageria, N.K. and Santos, A.D. 2008. Yield physiology of dry bean. Journal of Plant
Nutrition,31(6):983-1004.

FAOSTAT (2014).Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations.

Statistics

Fazli, I.S., Jamal, A., Ahmad, S., Masoodi, M., Khan, J.S. and Abdin, M.Z.
2008.Interactive effect of sulphur and nitrogen on nitrogen accumulation and
 harvest in oilseed crops differing in nitrogen assimilation potential. Journal of
Plant Nutrietion,31(7):1203-1220.

Ferris S and Kaganzi E. 2008. Evaluating marketing opportunities for haricot beans in
Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian
Farmers Project Working Paper 7. ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), Nairobi,Kenya68pp.

Ferris S and Kaganzi E. 2008.Evaluating marketing opportunities for haricot beans in

Ethiopia. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian
Farmers Project Working Paper 7. ILRI (International Livestock Research
Institute), Nairobi, Kenya 68 pp.

Fisseha N, Rezene Y (2015). Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers rate as affecting

common bean production at Areka, Ethiopia. Journal of 178 Afr. J. Plant Sci.
Agriculture and Crops1 (3):33-37

Fixen, P., Brentrup, F., Bruulsema, T., Garcia, F., Norton, R. and Zingore, S. 2015.
Nutrient/fertilizer use efficiency: measurement, current situation and trends.
Managingwaterandfertilizerforsustainableagriculturalintensification, 270:2-7

Frizzone, J.A. 1982.Effect of Irrigation and phosphate fertilizers on bean (Phaseolus

vulgaris L.)Production, UNESP, pp.87-89

Ganesha murthy, A.N. and Sammi Reddy, K.2000. Effect of Integrated Use of Farmyard
Manure and Sulphur in a Soybean and Wheat Cropping System on Nodulation,
Dry Matter Production and Chlorophyll Content of Soybean on Swell‐Shrink
Soils in Central India.Journal of Agronomy and Crop science, 185(2):91-97.

Garden-Robinson, J., and Mc Neal, K., 2013. Nutrition, health benefits, preparation and
use in menus. North Dakota State University Extension Service, North Dakota,
USA

Gebre-Egziabher Murut, Hadush Tsehaye, and Fetien Abay. 2014. Agronomic

performance of some haricot bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with and
without phosphorus fertilizer under irrigated and rain fed conditions in the Tigray

44
 and Afar regional states, northern Ethiopia. Momona Ethiopian Journal of
Science, 6(2):95-109.

Girma A (2009). Effect of NP fertilizer and moisture conservation on the yield and Golds
worthy ,P. R and Fisher, N. M (1984).The Physiology of Tropical Field
Crops.Goldsworthy, P.R.andFisher,N.M,Publishers.NewYork.Pp305-306.

Girma Abebe. 2009. Effect of NP Fertilizer and Moisture Conservation on the Yield and
Yield Components of Common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), in the Semi-Arid
Zones of the Central Rift Valley in Ethiopia. Advances in Environmental Biology,
3(3):302-307.

Gobeze L, Legese H (2015) Evaluation of common bean varieties at P defcient and

sufficient conditions in southern Ethiopia. Ash Ese J AgricSci1:20-27.

Gómez, O(2004).Evaluation of Nicaraguan Common Bean(Phaseolus vulgarisL.)

Gooding, M. J. and Davies, W. P. (1997).Wheat production and utilization system,

quality and the environment.CABI, Walling ford. .

Hailu beyene, 2008. Adoption of improved teff and wheat production in crop livestock
mixed system in northern and western shewa zones of Ethiopia Ph. D. Thesis
University of Pretoria,.

Jawahar, S.V., Vaiyapuri, V., Suseendran, K., Kalaiyarasan, C. and Srirama Chandra
sekharan, M.V. 2017.Effect of sources and levels of sulphur on growth and yield
ofrice fallow black gram (Vigna mungo). International Journal of
ChemistryISSN, pp.2123-2845.

Johnston, J. and Dandiro, J., 1997. Econometrics Methods, fourth Edition,New

York:McGraw Hill Companies,Inc..

Katungi. E., Farrau, A., Chiano, J., Sperting, L. and Beebe, S (2009).Common bean in
Eastern and Southern Africa: A situation and outlook analysis. CIAT,Cali.

Khandkar, U.R., Shinde, D.A., Kandalkak, V.S., Jamley, N.R. and Jain, N.K. 1985.
Growth, Nodulation and Yield of Rainfed Black gram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper)
 as Influenced by Phosphate and Sulphur Fertilization in Vertisol.Indian Journal of
Plant Physiology28 (4):311-322.

Kouas, S., Labidi, N., Debez, A., &Abdelly, C. (2005).Effect of P on nodule formation
and N Fixation in bean.Agron. Sustain. Dev, 25, 389-393.

Landon, J.R. and Manual, B.T.S. 1991.A handbook for soil survey and agricultural land
evaluation in the tropics and subtropics.Hong Kong: Longman Scientific and
TechnicalGroupLtd.

Legese D, GureK,Teshale A (2006). Production and marketing of white pea beans

(Phaseolus vulgaris L) A review. Field Crops Research 4:93-112. 2 2

Legese Dady,.2004.Agricultural Research and Technology Development in Ethiopia.

Proceedings of the workshop held to discuss the socio-economic research results
of 1998-2002. August 6-8, 2002, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. EARO, 2004.

MARC (Melkasa Agricultural Research Center). 1997. Quality Bean Seed Production,
for small scale bean seed producers, Amharic Version.

Marschner, H. 1995.Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants 2nd Edition, Academic Press,

London.

Marx, E.S., Hart, J.M. and Stevens, R.G. 1996. Soil test interpretation guide.pp.1-7
OregonStateUniversity2nd edition.

McGrath, S.P., Zhao, F.J. and Blake-Kalff, M.M. 2003. History and outlook for sulphur
fertilizersinEurope.FertilizersFertilization,2(15):5-27.

Meseret Turko and Amin Mohamed. 2014. Effect of different phosphorus fertilizer rates
on growth, dry matter yield and yield components of common bean (Phaseolus
vulgarisL.).WorldJournalofAgriculturalResearch,2(3):88-92.

MoANR(Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resource). 2016. Plant varieties release,

protection,and seed qualitycontrolDirectorate.AddisAbaba,19:115-122

Mohammed Yesuf, Menale Kassie, and Gunnar Köhlin, 2009 Risk Implications of Farm
Technology Adoption in the Ethiopian Highlands Working paper. Addis Ababa,

46
 Ethiopia:Environmental Economics Policy Forum for Ethiopia/Ethiopian
Development Research Institute.

Moniruzzaman, M., Islam, M.R. and Hasan, H. 2008. Effect of NPKS Zn and B on yield
attributes and yields of French bean in South Eastern Hilly Region of Bangladesh.
JournalofAgriculture&RuralDevelopment,6(1):75-82.

Morgado, L.B. and Willey, R.W. 2003. Effects of plant population and nitrogen fertilizer
on yield and efficiency of maize-bean intercropping. Pesquisa Agropecuária
Brasileira, 38(11):1257-1264.

Mourice SK, Tryphone GM (2012). Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
genotypes for adaptation to low phosphorus. International Scholarly Research
NetworkAgronomy. 2012:1-9.

Mozumder, S.N., Salim, M., Islam, N., Nazrul, M.I. and Zaman, M.M. 2003. Effect of
Bradyrhizobium inoculum at different nitrogen levels on summer mungbean.
Asian JournalofPlantSciences,2(9):675-676.

Muller, S., Pereira, P.A.A. and Martin, P. 1993. Effect of different levels of mineral
nitrogen on nodulation and N2 fixationoftwo cultivarsofcommon bean (Phaseolus
vulgarisL.).PlantandSoil,152(1):139-143.

Murut G, Tsehaye H, Abay F (2014) Agronomic performance of some haricot bean

varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with and without phosphorus fertilizer under
irrigated and rain fed conditions in the Tigray and Afar regional states, northern
Ethiopia.MomonaEthiopJSci6:95-109..

Nebret T (2012). Effect of nitrogen and sulphur application on yield components and
yield of common bean Phaseolus vulgaris L.) In Eastern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis.
Haramaya University of Agriculture, Haramaya. pp. 23-25.

Negash F, RezeneY(2015)Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers rateas affecting common

beanproductionatAreka,Ethiopia.JAgricCrops1:33-37.
Nyau,V.(2014).Nutraceuical perspectives and utilization of common beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris.L):Areview.African Journal of Food, Agriculture Nutrition Development,
14(7).on yield and yield component.

Ohlander, L.J. 1980.Research on haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) production in

Ethiopia1972-1976(No.82).

Olofin toye TJ. 2007. Effects of phosphorous fertilizer on growth and yield of soybean
(Glycine max(L)Merrill),UniversityofIlorin,Nigeria,pp.,1-80

Olsen, S.R. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium
bicarbonate.United States Department of Agriculture; Washington.

Oscar, C,Herán, C. and Mattew, W. B. (2006). Generation means analysis of climbing

ability in common bean(PhaseolusvulgarisL.).JournalofHeredity97:456-465.

Pachico, D. 1993. "The demand for bean technology" in G. Henry (ed.) Trends in CIAT
commodities, CIAT Working Document no. 128: 60-73, Cali Hardarson,
Bliss,F.A., Cigales-Rivero, M.R.,Henson, ,Kipe-Nolt,J.A.,Longeri, L.
Manrique,A.,Pena-Cabriales,J.J., Pereira,P.A.A.,Sanabria,C.A.,and In Growth
and,3rd, Boca Raton,Fl.:CRC Press.

Prajapati, M.P., Patil, L.R. and Patel, B.M. 2003. Effect of integrated weed management
and nitrogen levels on weeds and productivity of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.)underNorthGujaratconditions.LegumeResearch,26(2):79-84.

Prollas, I. R. D., Barbosa, R. G., Veeck, A. P. L.; Augusti, P. R., da Silva, L. P. Ribeiro,
N. D. and Emanuelli, T.(2010). Cultivar, harvest year, and storage common bean
production at Areka, Ethiopia.Journal of 178 Afr. J. Conditions affecting
nutritional quality of common beans consumption by modulated roots of common
bean

Raghothama K G. 1999.Phosphate Acquisition. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and

PlantMolecularBiology, 50:665–693.

48
Rahman MM, Bhuiyan MM, Sutradhar GN, Rahman MM, Paul AK. 2008. Effect of
phosphorus, molybdenum and rhizobium inoculation on yield and yield attributes
of mungbean.International Journal of Sustaining. Crop Production.3 (6):26-33.

Rodino, A. P. Santalla, M., De Ron, A. A. M.,& Drevon, J. J. (2005).Variability in

symbiotic nitrogen fixation among white landraces of common bean from the
IberianpeninsulaSymbiosis, 40, 69-78.

Sahlemedhin Sertsu,and Bekele Taye. 2000. Procedures for soil and plant analysis.
Technical paper,(74), p.110.

Sanchez, P. A. (1976). Properties and management of soil in the tropics.New York, NY:
Wiley.

Sanginga, N. and Woomer, P.L. eds. 2009.Integrated soil fertility management in Africa:
principles, practices, and developmental process, CIAT.

Scherer, H.W. 2008.Impact of sulfur on N 2 fixation of legumes. In Sulfur assimilation

and abiotic stress in plants(pp.43-54).

Shanka, D.,Nigusie D., and Sintayehu G. 2015.Response of common bean cultivars to

phosphorus application in Boloso Sore and Sodo Zuria Districts, Southern
Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 9(1):49-60.

Shubhashree, K.S. 2007. Response of Rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to the levels of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium during rabi in the Northern transition zone.
Doctoral dissertation,UAS, Dharwad)

ShumiDeresa. 2018. Responseof common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties to rates
of blended NPS fertilizer in Adola district, Southern Ethiopia. African Journal of
PlantScience,12(8):164-179.

Singh,S. P. (1999).Production and utilization. In S. P. Singh (Ed.), Common bean

improvement in the twenty-first century(pp.1–24 Situation In north east alluvial
plains of Bihar. Indian Journal of Agronomy situation in north-east alluvial plains
 of Bihar. Indian Journal of status: Evidence of co-regulation of nitrogen and
sulphate intake. Technology (Campinas) 30:96-102.

Springer,Berlin,Heidelberg. Shamim M, Naimat A(1987) Effect of seed inoculation with

Rhyzobium and N, P fertilizersontheyieldofgram.PakJAgricRes8:383-385.

Sulieman S.and Tran LSP. 2015. Phosphorus homeostasis in legume nodules as an

adaptivestrategytophosphorusdeficiency.PlantScince, 239:36–43

Taj, M. 1996.Determining the suitable levels of nitrogen and phosphorus for obtained
maximum yield of mungbean cultivar NMN-51.Msc.Thesis, University of
Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Taminaw , Z. (2019) .Effects of NPS fertilizer rates on growth, yield components and
yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties under irrigation at
gewane, north-eastern Ethiopia.MSc Thesis School of Plant Science. November
2019 Haramaya University,Haramaya PP(34-75)

Tanaka A, Fujita K (1979). Growth, photosynthesis and yield components in relation to

seed yield of the field bean. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture Hokkaido
University59(2):145-238.

Tedesse N, Dechassa N (2012) Effect of nitrogen and sulphur application on yield

components and yield of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)In Eastern
Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis,Haramaya University of
Agriculture,Haramaya,Africa,pp.23-25.

Tekalign Tadese., Haque, I.and Aduayi, E.A.1991.Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal
manure and compost analysis.Working Document No.13.International Livestock
Research Center for Africa, Addis Ababa.

Tesfaye MJ, Liu DL, Vance CP (2007). Genomic and genetic control of phosphate stress
inlegumes.PlantPhysiology144:594-603.

Turuko,M.and Mohammed, A., 2014. Effect of different phosphorus fertilizer rates on

growth, dry matter yield and yield components of Common Bean (Phaseolus

50
 vulgaris L.). World Journal Agriculture Research, 2, 88-92.unit on the same
topic. Production: Fernando Fernandez O., Cali, Colombia.

Van Reewuijk, L.P. 1992.Procedures for Soil Analysis (3rd Edition). International Soil
ReferenceCenter,Wageningen,Netherlands,371p.

Vance CP (2001).Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and Phosphorus acquisition.Plant

Nutrition in a World of Declining Renewable Resources. Plant Physiology
127:390-397.Situation In north east alluvial plains of Bihar. Indian Journal of
Agronomy situation in north-east alluvial plains of Bihar. Indian Journal of
status: Evidence of co-regulation of nitrogen and sulphate intake. Technology
(Campinas) 30:96-102.

Varin, S., Cliquet, J.B., Personeni, E., Avice, J.C. and Lemauviel-Lavenant, S. 2009.
How does sulphur availability modify N acquisition of white clover (Trifolium
repensL.)?.JournalofExperimentalBotany,61(1),225-234.

Veeresh, N.K. 2003. Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to fertilizer levels
in Northern Transitional Zone of Karnataka.MSc.Thesis, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, pp.37-79.

Walkley,A. and Black, I.A. 1934.An examination of the Degtjareff method for
determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid
titration method. Soil science, 37(1):29-38.

Wondwosen Wondimu. And Tamado Tana.2017.Yield Response of common Bean

(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties to combined application of nitrogen and
phosphorus fertilizers at Mechara, eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Biology and
Soil Health, 4(2):1-7.

WortmannCS (2006).PhaseolusvulgarisL.(commonbean).RecordfromPROTA4U.

Yadegari, M., &Rahmani, H. A.(2010). Evaluation of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seeds

inoculation with Rhizobium phaseoliand plant growth promoting Rhizobacteria
(PGPR).
Zafar M, Abbasi MK, Khaliq A (2013).Effect of different phosphorus sources on the
growth, yield, and energy content and phosphorus utilization efficiency in maize
at Rawalako Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan. Journal of Plant Nutrition
36:1915-1934.

7. APPENDICE
Appendix Table: 1. Mean squares of analysis of variance for phonological and growth
parameters of common bean as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rate

Means squares

Sources of variation Df DFF DPM

Replication 2 7.02 1.49
Variety 2 22.8** 29.76**
NPS fertilizer rates 4 49.56** 108.4**
Variety x NPS rate 8 0.49ns 1ns
Error 28 1.48 1.29
CV(%) 2.6 1.2

df= degree of freedom; ns= non-significant; * = Significant at 5% level of significance;

** = Significant at 1% level of significance; DFF =Days to 50% flowering; DPM =
Days to physiological maturity;

Appendix Table: 2. Mean squares of analysis of variance for phonological and growth
parameters of common bean as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates

Means squares
Sources of Df TNN EN PH NPBP
variation

Replication 2 10.87 84.04 2.6 0.02

Variety 2 1531.47** 415.4** 719.6** 1.09**

NPS fertilizer 4 740.14** 187.6** 522.1** 3.5**
rates
Variety x NPS 8 20.33ns 20.15** 22.26ns 0.2ns
rates

52
 Error 28 24.5 15.16 3.35 0.21
CV (%) 8.1 12.8 3.5 14.3

df= degree of freedom; ns= non-significant; * = Significant at 5% level of significance;

** = Significant at 1% level of significance; EN= Effective nodules; TNN= Total
number of nodules NEN=None effective nodules ;PH= Plant height; NPBP= Number of
Primary branches per plan

Appendix Table: 3. Means squares of analysis of variance for yield components of

common bean as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates

Means squares

Sources of variation Df SC NPP NSP HSW

Replication 2 3.2667 1.87 0.02 0.01
Variety 2 26.8667** 176.07** 2.29** 401.71**
NPS fertilizer rates 4 54.9667** 116.64** 4.03** 78.42*
Variety x NPS rates 8 0.6167ns 4.93** 0.23ns 3.07ns
Error 28 0.8619 1.03 0.77 2.86
CV (%) 1 5.8 10.5 4.3

df= degree of freedom; ns= non-significant; * = Significant at 5% level of significance;

** = Significant at 1% level of significance; SC= Stand count; NPP= Number of pod
per plant; NSP=Number of seed per plant; HSW= hundred seed weight;

Appendix Table: 4. Means squares of analysis of variance for yield components and
yield of common bean as affected by varieties and NPS fertilizer rates df= degree of
freedom; ns= non-significant; * = Significant at 5% level of significance

Means squares

Sources of df AGDBM SY HI
variation
 Replication 2 98256 8459 2.67
Variety 2 781397** 714789** 129.18**
NPS fertilizer rates 4 539204** 642546** 94.0**

Variety x NPS 8 146802** 17255** 6.69**

rates
Error 28 20112 3585 1.30
CV (%) 2.3 3 3.

** = Significant at 1% level of significance; AGDBM= above ground dry biomass; SY=

seed yield; HI=Harvest index

Appendix Table: 5. Means squares of analysis of variance for agronomic efficiency of

common bean as affected by NPS fertilizer rates with three varieties

Means squares

Sources of variation Df AE
Replication 2 0.45
Variety 2 23.9**
NPS fertilizer rates 4 9.8**
Variety x NPS rates 8 1.3*
Error 28 0.34
CV (%) 21

df= degree of freedom; ns= non-significant; * = Significant at 5% level of significance;

** = Significant at 1% level of significance; AE=agronomic efficiency

Appendix Table: 6.Partial budget analysis summary of common bean as affected by

varieties and NPS fertilizer rates)

54
 Variable costs

Treatment Fertilizer NPS cost Total variable

application (Birrha-1) cost (Birrha-1)
cost(Birr
ha-1
Awash1+0 0 0 0
Awash1+50 100 750 850
Awash1+100 100 1400 1550
Awash1+150 100 2050 2250
Awash1+200 100 2700 2950
Nasir+0 0 0 0
Nasir+50 100 750 850
Nasir+100 100 1400 1550
Nasir +150 100 2050 2250
Fertilization
Nasir +200 100 2700 2950 application cost =
100 Birr ha-1; NPS
SER-125+0 0 0 0
cost= 13Birr kg-1
SER-125+50 100 750 850
SER125+100 100 1400 1550

SER125+150 100 2050 2250

SER125+200 100 2700 2950