Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (<i>Mangifera indica </i>L<i>.</i>) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Aschalew Emire; Sintayo Demise; Temesgen Giri; Wakeyo Tadele

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

| Peer-Reviewed

Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia

Aschalew Emire, Sintayo Demise, Temesgen Giri, Wakeyo Tadele

Published in American Journal of Plant Biology (Volume 7, Issue 3)

Received: 19 July 2022 Accepted: 8 August 2022 Published: 29 August 2022

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The study was conducted in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. The objective of the study was to evaluate Mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for their vegetative growth and yield performance. The treatments consisted of four mango varieties and the trial was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. A plot size of 10mx6m was used and each plot consisted of two rows of grafted mango seedlings. On each row three grafted mango seedlings were planted and each plots had six mango trees. This study showed that, regarding vegetative growth parameters significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between mango varieties. Based on their survival rate, Keitt variety was significantly higher than the others and the least survival rate was recorded from Apple mango variety. Significantly the tallest tree height (4.693m) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Tommy Atkins (3.557m). Whereas, the shortest tree height was recorded from Keitt variety (2.65m). In terms of canopy spread, the maximum (4.14m) and (3.95m) were recorded from Tommy Atkins and Kent varieties respectively. While, the minimum canopy spread of (2.27m) was scored from Keitt variety. The longest fruit length of (13.87cm) was scored from Keitt variety and from the others statistically similar fruit length was recorded. The highest fruit width of 10.567cm and 9.767cm were obtained from Keitt and Apple mango varieties respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of fruit width were found in Tommy Atkins (6.533cm) and Kent variety (7.21cm). The largest fruit weight was recorded from Keitt (614.1gm) followed by Kent (493.8gm) variety. However, the lowest fruit weight was obtained from Tommy Atkins (388.3gm) and Apple mango (396.4gm). The maximum yield per tree (7.943kg) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Apple mango (6.173kg/tree). Regarding number of fruits per tree, Kent and Apple mango varieties produced highest number of fruits per tree (96.67) and (70) respectively. The maximum yields per plot were recorded from Kent (47.9kg) and Apple mango (47.41kg). Whereas, from Tommy Atkins and Keitt varieties lower number of yield per plot (27.92kg) and (12.72 kg) were scored respectively. In general, the maximum fruit yields per hectare were obtained from Kent (7,983kg) and Apple mango (7,901kg). However, the minimum yields/ha were recorded from Tommy Atkins (4,320 kg) and Keitt variety (2,120kg). Therefore, depending on their yield performances Kent and Apple mango varieties were recommended for mango producers of the study area and for similar agroecologies.

Published in	American Journal of Plant Biology (Volume 7, Issue 3)
DOI	10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
Page(s)	136-142
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Mango, Variety, Vegetative Growth, Yield Performance

References

[1]	FAO. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization, STAT accessed July 2009.
[2]	Rosals, C. A. 2005. Skin color and pigment change during ripening and related post-harvest management of fruit. National Inc, USA. PP 321-345.
[3]	Rymbai H, Laxman RH, Dinesh MR, Sunoj VSJ, Ravishankar KV, Jha AK. 2014. Diversity in leaf morphology and physiological characteristics among mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars popular in different agro-climatic regions of India. Scientia Horticulturae 176: 189-193.
[4]	Takele. H. 2014. “Review of mango value chain in Ethiopia.” Journal of biology, agriculture and health care, Vol. 4, pp. 230-239, 2014.
[5]	Jahurul MHA, Zaidul ISM, Ghafoor K, Al-Juhaimi FY, Nyam KL, Norulaini NAN, Mohd Omar AK. 2015. Mango (Mangifera indica L.) by-products and their valuable components: A review. Food Chemistry 183: 173-180.
[6]	Shi S, Ma X, Xu W, Zhou Y, Wu H, Wang S. 2015. Evaluation of 28 mango genotypes for physicochemical characters, antioxidant capacity, and mineral content. Journal of Applied Botany and Food Quality 88: 264-273.
[7]	Ssemwanga, J. 2003. Assessment of Market Potential for Selected Tree Fruits in Uganda. FORRI-ICRAF Report, ICRAF-Kampala, Kampala.
[8]	Weinberger, k., Lumpkin, T. A. 2005. Horticulture for poverty alleviation – the un-funded revolution, Working Paper No. 15, AVRDC (The World Vegetable Center), Shanhua, NTaiwan.
[9]	Ullah H, Saeed A, Thompson AK, Ahmad W, Azher Nawaz M. 2010. Storage of ripe mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. alphonso in controlled atmosphere with elevated CO₂. Pakistan Journal of Botany 42 (3): 2077-2084.
[10]	Central Statistical Agency (CSA). 2015. Agricultural sample survey time series data for national and regional level, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[11]	Fita T. 2014. White mango scale, Aulacaspis tubercularis, distribution and severity status in east and west wollega zones, western Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal 3 (3): 1-10.
[12]	Yeshitela, TB. and T. Nessel, 2004. Characterization and Classification of Mango Ecotypes Grown in Eastern Hararghe (Ethiopia). Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 19 (2): 179-180.
[13]	Desta H. 2005. Export potential of Ethiopia processed fruit and vegetables, export promotion department of English, P., S. Jaffee and J. J. Okello. 2006. “Exporting out of Africa: The Kenya.
[14]	Central Statistical Agency (CSA).2009. Agricultural sample survey: report on area and production for major crops, stastical bulletin 427. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[15]	Elias. A. 2007. Technical Assessment on Viability of Integrated Fruits Processing in Ethiopia; Master of sciences Thesis, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[16]	Reddy, Y. T. N., Kumar, R. M., Singh, G. and Raghupati, H. B. 2003. Long term effects of nitrogen on growth, leaf nutrient status and fruit yield of Totapuri mango (Mangifera indica L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 73 (4): 206-208.
[17]	Parshant Bakshi, Rakesh Kumar, Amit Jasrotia and V. K. Wali. 2012. Growth and Yield performance of mango varieties under rainfed areas of Jammu. Indian J. ric. Res., 46 (3): 281-285, 2012.
[18]	Sawant SV, Dahatonde KN and Gajbhiye PN. 2018. Performance of different varieties of mango under sub-montane zone of Maharashtra. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2018; 7 (6): 1992-1994.
[19]	Kanpure RN, Singh HP, Reja RK. 2009. Evaluation of mango hybrids for Kymore Plateau of Madhya Pradesh. Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development 4 (2): 1-3.
[20]	Srivastava, S. S., Asati, K. P., Patel, M. P., Tiwary, B. L. and Bhaduria, U. P. S. 1987. Evaluation of mango varieties in Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 44 (3-4): 197-201.
[21]	Sarkar, S. K., Gautham, B., Neeraja, G. and Vijaya, N. 2001. Evaluation of mango hybrids under Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. The Horticulture Journal, 14 (1): 13-21.
[22]	Harada T, W Kurahashi, M Yanai, Y Wakasa, and T Satoh. 2005. Involvement of cell proliferation and cell enlargement in increasing the fruit size of Malus species. Scientia Horticulturae 105: 447-456.
[23]	Anila R, Radha T. 2006. Physico-chemical analysis of mango varieties under Kerala conditions. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 41: 20-2.
[24]	Gopu B, Balamohan TN, Soman P, Jeyakumar P. 2014. Canopy Management in Mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Alphonso with reference to Growth and Physiological Characters under Ultra High Density Planting. Madras Agricultural Journal 2014, 101.
[25]	Kobra K, Hossain M. A, Talukder M. A. H and. Bhuyan M. A. J. 2012. Performance of Twelve Mango Cultivars Grown in different Agro-Ecological Zones of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 37 (4): 691-710.
[26]	Snehapriya MS, Raj Kumar M, Kiran Kumar A and Sathish G. 2021. Performance of different table varieties of mango (Mangifera indica L.) for growth and yield under ultrahigh density planting in Telangana state. The Pharma Innovation Journal 10 (11): 389-392.
[27]	Embree CG, MTD Myra, DS Nichols, and AH Wright. 2007. Effect of blossom density and crop load on growth, fruit quality, and return bloom in Honeycrisp’ apple. Hort. Science 42: 1622-1625.
[28]	Marini RP. 2003. Peach fruit weight, yield and crop value are affected by number of fruiting shoots per tree. Hort. Science 38 (4): 512-514.
[29]	Ddamulira G, Ramathani I, Sebikejje T, Naluyimba R, Otim A, Pariyo A, Maphosa M. 2019. Mango Yield Performance in Lake Victoria Cresent Region of Uganda. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2019, 10, 1142-1153.
[30]	Majumder, P. K. and D. K. Sharma. 1985. Mango. In: Fruits: Tropical and Subtropical. 3rd edn. Vol. 1 (Eds. T. K. Bose and S. K. Mitra), Naya Prokash, 206 Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata, India. Pp. 27.
[31]	Yeshitela, T., Robbertse, P. J. and Stassen, P. J. C. 2004. Paclobutrazol Suppressed Vegetative Growth and Improved Yield as Well as Fruit Quality of Tommy Atkins Mango (Mangifera indica L.) in Ethiopia. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Hort icultural Science, 32, 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2004.9514307
[32]	Singh, S. 2003. Evaluation of mango genotypes for their flowering, fruiting and fruit quality attributes. Annals of Agricultural Research, 24 (2): 234-238.
[33]	Linda, S. 2006. All about avocados. Internet Document, America net/Q-A/News Paper Ltd.
[34]	Smith, B. 2006. The farming Hand book. Technical Center for Africa (CTA), Wageningen, The Netherlands, PP: 310-312.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Aschalew Emire, Sintayo Demise, Temesgen Giri, Wakeyo Tadele. (2022). Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. American Journal of Plant Biology, 7(3), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Aschalew Emire; Sintayo Demise; Temesgen Giri; Wakeyo Tadele. Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am. J. Plant Biol. 2022, 7(3), 136-142. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Aschalew Emire, Sintayo Demise, Temesgen Giri, Wakeyo Tadele. Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am J Plant Biol. 2022;7(3):136-142. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14,
  author = {Aschalew Emire and Sintayo Demise and Temesgen Giri and Wakeyo Tadele},
  title = {Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Plant Biology},
  volume = {7},
  number = {3},
  pages = {136-142},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  abstract = {The study was conducted in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. The objective of the study was to evaluate Mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for their vegetative growth and yield performance. The treatments consisted of four mango varieties and the trial was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. A plot size of 10mx6m was used and each plot consisted of two rows of grafted mango seedlings. On each row three grafted mango seedlings were planted and each plots had six mango trees. This study showed that, regarding vegetative growth parameters significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between mango varieties. Based on their survival rate, Keitt variety was significantly higher than the others and the least survival rate was recorded from Apple mango variety. Significantly the tallest tree height (4.693m) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Tommy Atkins (3.557m). Whereas, the shortest tree height was recorded from Keitt variety (2.65m). In terms of canopy spread, the maximum (4.14m) and (3.95m) were recorded from Tommy Atkins and Kent varieties respectively. While, the minimum canopy spread of (2.27m) was scored from Keitt variety. The longest fruit length of (13.87cm) was scored from Keitt variety and from the others statistically similar fruit length was recorded. The highest fruit width of 10.567cm and 9.767cm were obtained from Keitt and Apple mango varieties respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of fruit width were found in Tommy Atkins (6.533cm) and Kent variety (7.21cm). The largest fruit weight was recorded from Keitt (614.1gm) followed by Kent (493.8gm) variety. However, the lowest fruit weight was obtained from Tommy Atkins (388.3gm) and Apple mango (396.4gm). The maximum yield per tree (7.943kg) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Apple mango (6.173kg/tree). Regarding number of fruits per tree, Kent and Apple mango varieties produced highest number of fruits per tree (96.67) and (70) respectively. The maximum yields per plot were recorded from Kent (47.9kg) and Apple mango (47.41kg). Whereas, from Tommy Atkins and Keitt varieties lower number of yield per plot (27.92kg) and (12.72 kg) were scored respectively. In general, the maximum fruit yields per hectare were obtained from Kent (7,983kg) and Apple mango (7,901kg). However, the minimum yields/ha were recorded from Tommy Atkins (4,320 kg) and Keitt variety (2,120kg). Therefore, depending on their yield performances Kent and Apple mango varieties were recommended for mango producers of the study area and for similar agroecologies.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia
AU  - Aschalew Emire
AU  - Sintayo Demise
AU  - Temesgen Giri
AU  - Wakeyo Tadele
Y1  - 2022/08/29
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
T2  - American Journal of Plant Biology
JF  - American Journal of Plant Biology
JO  - American Journal of Plant Biology
SP  - 136
EP  - 142
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8337
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
AB  - The study was conducted in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. The objective of the study was to evaluate Mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for their vegetative growth and yield performance. The treatments consisted of four mango varieties and the trial was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. A plot size of 10mx6m was used and each plot consisted of two rows of grafted mango seedlings. On each row three grafted mango seedlings were planted and each plots had six mango trees. This study showed that, regarding vegetative growth parameters significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between mango varieties. Based on their survival rate, Keitt variety was significantly higher than the others and the least survival rate was recorded from Apple mango variety. Significantly the tallest tree height (4.693m) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Tommy Atkins (3.557m). Whereas, the shortest tree height was recorded from Keitt variety (2.65m). In terms of canopy spread, the maximum (4.14m) and (3.95m) were recorded from Tommy Atkins and Kent varieties respectively. While, the minimum canopy spread of (2.27m) was scored from Keitt variety. The longest fruit length of (13.87cm) was scored from Keitt variety and from the others statistically similar fruit length was recorded. The highest fruit width of 10.567cm and 9.767cm were obtained from Keitt and Apple mango varieties respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of fruit width were found in Tommy Atkins (6.533cm) and Kent variety (7.21cm). The largest fruit weight was recorded from Keitt (614.1gm) followed by Kent (493.8gm) variety. However, the lowest fruit weight was obtained from Tommy Atkins (388.3gm) and Apple mango (396.4gm). The maximum yield per tree (7.943kg) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Apple mango (6.173kg/tree). Regarding number of fruits per tree, Kent and Apple mango varieties produced highest number of fruits per tree (96.67) and (70) respectively. The maximum yields per plot were recorded from Kent (47.9kg) and Apple mango (47.41kg). Whereas, from Tommy Atkins and Keitt varieties lower number of yield per plot (27.92kg) and (12.72 kg) were scored respectively. In general, the maximum fruit yields per hectare were obtained from Kent (7,983kg) and Apple mango (7,901kg). However, the minimum yields/ha were recorded from Tommy Atkins (4,320 kg) and Keitt variety (2,120kg). Therefore, depending on their yield performances Kent and Apple mango varieties were recommended for mango producers of the study area and for similar agroecologies.
VL  - 7
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Aschalew Emire

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia
Sintayo Demise

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia
Temesgen Giri

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia
Wakeyo Tadele

Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Bore Agricultural Research Center, Bore, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Aschalew Emire, Sintayo Demise, Temesgen Giri, Wakeyo Tadele. (2022). Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. American Journal of Plant Biology, 7(3), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Aschalew Emire; Sintayo Demise; Temesgen Giri; Wakeyo Tadele. Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am. J. Plant Biol. 2022, 7(3), 136-142. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Aschalew Emire, Sintayo Demise, Temesgen Giri, Wakeyo Tadele. Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Am J Plant Biol. 2022;7(3):136-142. doi: 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14,
  author = {Aschalew Emire and Sintayo Demise and Temesgen Giri and Wakeyo Tadele},
  title = {Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Plant Biology},
  volume = {7},
  number = {3},
  pages = {136-142},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajpb.20220703.14},
  abstract = {The study was conducted in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. The objective of the study was to evaluate Mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for their vegetative growth and yield performance. The treatments consisted of four mango varieties and the trial was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. A plot size of 10mx6m was used and each plot consisted of two rows of grafted mango seedlings. On each row three grafted mango seedlings were planted and each plots had six mango trees. This study showed that, regarding vegetative growth parameters significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between mango varieties. Based on their survival rate, Keitt variety was significantly higher than the others and the least survival rate was recorded from Apple mango variety. Significantly the tallest tree height (4.693m) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Tommy Atkins (3.557m). Whereas, the shortest tree height was recorded from Keitt variety (2.65m). In terms of canopy spread, the maximum (4.14m) and (3.95m) were recorded from Tommy Atkins and Kent varieties respectively. While, the minimum canopy spread of (2.27m) was scored from Keitt variety. The longest fruit length of (13.87cm) was scored from Keitt variety and from the others statistically similar fruit length was recorded. The highest fruit width of 10.567cm and 9.767cm were obtained from Keitt and Apple mango varieties respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of fruit width were found in Tommy Atkins (6.533cm) and Kent variety (7.21cm). The largest fruit weight was recorded from Keitt (614.1gm) followed by Kent (493.8gm) variety. However, the lowest fruit weight was obtained from Tommy Atkins (388.3gm) and Apple mango (396.4gm). The maximum yield per tree (7.943kg) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Apple mango (6.173kg/tree). Regarding number of fruits per tree, Kent and Apple mango varieties produced highest number of fruits per tree (96.67) and (70) respectively. The maximum yields per plot were recorded from Kent (47.9kg) and Apple mango (47.41kg). Whereas, from Tommy Atkins and Keitt varieties lower number of yield per plot (27.92kg) and (12.72 kg) were scored respectively. In general, the maximum fruit yields per hectare were obtained from Kent (7,983kg) and Apple mango (7,901kg). However, the minimum yields/ha were recorded from Tommy Atkins (4,320 kg) and Keitt variety (2,120kg). Therefore, depending on their yield performances Kent and Apple mango varieties were recommended for mango producers of the study area and for similar agroecologies.},
 year = {2022}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Growth and Yield Performance Evaluation of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, Southern Ethiopia
AU  - Aschalew Emire
AU  - Sintayo Demise
AU  - Temesgen Giri
AU  - Wakeyo Tadele
Y1  - 2022/08/29
PY  - 2022
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
T2  - American Journal of Plant Biology
JF  - American Journal of Plant Biology
JO  - American Journal of Plant Biology
SP  - 136
EP  - 142
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2578-8337
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajpb.20220703.14
AB  - The study was conducted in Adola Rede District, Guji Zone, in Southern Ethiopia. The objective of the study was to evaluate Mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for their vegetative growth and yield performance. The treatments consisted of four mango varieties and the trial was laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. A plot size of 10mx6m was used and each plot consisted of two rows of grafted mango seedlings. On each row three grafted mango seedlings were planted and each plots had six mango trees. This study showed that, regarding vegetative growth parameters significant differences (P < 0.05) were observed between mango varieties. Based on their survival rate, Keitt variety was significantly higher than the others and the least survival rate was recorded from Apple mango variety. Significantly the tallest tree height (4.693m) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Tommy Atkins (3.557m). Whereas, the shortest tree height was recorded from Keitt variety (2.65m). In terms of canopy spread, the maximum (4.14m) and (3.95m) were recorded from Tommy Atkins and Kent varieties respectively. While, the minimum canopy spread of (2.27m) was scored from Keitt variety. The longest fruit length of (13.87cm) was scored from Keitt variety and from the others statistically similar fruit length was recorded. The highest fruit width of 10.567cm and 9.767cm were obtained from Keitt and Apple mango varieties respectively. Whereas, the lowest values of fruit width were found in Tommy Atkins (6.533cm) and Kent variety (7.21cm). The largest fruit weight was recorded from Keitt (614.1gm) followed by Kent (493.8gm) variety. However, the lowest fruit weight was obtained from Tommy Atkins (388.3gm) and Apple mango (396.4gm). The maximum yield per tree (7.943kg) was recorded from Kent variety followed by Apple mango (6.173kg/tree). Regarding number of fruits per tree, Kent and Apple mango varieties produced highest number of fruits per tree (96.67) and (70) respectively. The maximum yields per plot were recorded from Kent (47.9kg) and Apple mango (47.41kg). Whereas, from Tommy Atkins and Keitt varieties lower number of yield per plot (27.92kg) and (12.72 kg) were scored respectively. In general, the maximum fruit yields per hectare were obtained from Kent (7,983kg) and Apple mango (7,901kg). However, the minimum yields/ha were recorded from Tommy Atkins (4,320 kg) and Keitt variety (2,120kg). Therefore, depending on their yield performances Kent and Apple mango varieties were recommended for mango producers of the study area and for similar agroecologies.
VL  - 7
IS  - 3
ER  -

Copy | Download