.Editedpapers 3
.Editedpapers 3
.Editedpapers 3
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
E. et al., 2000).
production.
2
products.
3
General Objectives
Specific Objectives
response of pechay.
production.
individuals:
response of pechay.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Design.
experimental error.
CHAPTER II
research.
Ding Z., Han L., and Jin Z., et al. (2016) said that
health benefits.
CHAPTER III
Materials
2017).
turning it over.
be sprayed by water.
Methods
BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2
Ctl A B C C B A Ctl
BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4
A Ctl C B B A Ctl C
using the table of random numbers, and each was marked with
Management Practices
size, age, and free from pests and diseases were selected
measuring tape. The hoe, shovel, rake, and bolo are the
every treatment.
FIGURE 7: Planting
seedlings.
23
planting.
plants.
Data Collection
measuring tape.
26
replication.
CHAPTER IV
the study.
PLANT HEIGHT
Replication Treatment
Replication Treatment
and Control with the mean of 4.1124 and 4.2375, which are
statistically non-significant.
29
Replication Treatment
not significant.
30
Replication Treatment
significance.
31
9 9
8
7
6.1 6.2 6.4 6.3
5 5
4.2 4.1
3.3 3 3.4 3.4
DISCUSSION
pechay.
the month and not just the monthly total, we show the
on each day.
32
content, and can vary many folds over the typical range of
WIDTH LEAVES
Replication Treatment
significant.
34
Replication Treatment
Replication Treatment
Replication Treatment
statistically non-significant.
37
5 5 5 5.1
3.02 3.13.1
2.3 2 2 2.2
1.11.11.11.1
soil, spatially.
February (23°C).
39
NUMBER OF LEAVES
Replication Treatment
Replication Treatment
Treatment C and A with the same mean of 5.25 and for the
Replication Treatment
Replication Treatment
7 7 7 7.1
DISCUSSION
rain, strong wind and pests that can cause loss of leaves,
falling from 13.0 to 12.2 miles per hour over the course of
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY
significance.
statistically non-significant.
47
CONCLUSION
that order.
48
pechay production.
RECOMMENDATION
compaction.
49
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
weather-atlas.com
weatherspark.com.ph
52
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A, FORMULA
∑
Treatment SS = C.F.
Error SS = Total SS - Treatment SS
Treatment MS =
Error MS =
F =
53
Grand mean =
√
cv =
54
PLANT HEIGHT
WEEK 1
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.47562 0.15854 2.97847 0.07401 3.49029
Groups 5 3 2 4 1 5
Within 0.05322
Groups 0.63875 12 9
1.11437
Total 5 15
Total 1507 15
WEEK 2
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between 1.10187 0.36729 4.10955 0.03204 3.49029
Groups 5 3 2 7 3 5
Within 0.08937
Groups 1.0725 12 5
2.17437
Total 5 15
WEEK 3
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.77812 0.25937 0.48321 0.70012 3.49029
Groups 5 3 5 4 1 5
Within 0.53677
Groups 6.44125 12 1
7.21937
Total 5 15
1.73708 0.28951
Error 3 6 4
5.51416
Total 7 11
55
WEEK 4
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 2.000469 3 0.666823 0.611676 0.62028 3.490295
Within
Groups 13.08188 12 1.090156
Total 15.08234 15
WIDTH LEAVES
WEEK 1
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.04687 0.01562 0.23809 0.86810 3.49029
Groups 5 3 5 5 2 5
Within 0.06562
Groups 0.7875 12 5
0.83437
Total 5 15
WEEK 2
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 0.035 3 0.011667 0.28866 0.832748 3.490295
Within
Groups 0.485 12 0.040417
Total 0.52 15
56
WEEK 3
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.44187 0.14729 1.38356 0.29518 3.49029
Groups 5 3 2 2 1 5
Within 0.10645
Groups 1.2775 12 8
1.71937
Total 5 15
WEEK 4
ANOVA
Source of P-
Variation SS df MS F value F crit
Between 0.63187 0.21062 1.91840 0.1804 3.49029
Groups 5 3 5 6 7 5
Within 0.10979
Groups 1.3175 12 2
1.94937
Total 5 15
NUMBER OF LEAVES
WEEK 1
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 0.003125 3 0.001042 0.4 0.755545 3.490295
Within
Groups 0.03125 12 0.002604
Total 0.034375 15
57
WEEK 2
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.21736 0.07245 0.39398 0.75964 3.49029
Groups 9 3 6 5 4 5
Within 2.20687 0.18390
Groups 5 12 6
2.42424
Total 4 15
WEEK 3
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.04921 0.01640 0.07154 0.97408 3.49029
Groups 9 3 6 2 2 5
Within 0.22932
Groups 2.75187 12 3
2.80109
Total 4 15
WEEK 4
ANOVA
Source of
Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between 0.57351 0.19117 0.77915 0.52795 3.49029
Groups 9 3 3 1 5 5
Within 2.94432
Groups 5 12 0.24536
3.51784
Total 4 15
58
APPENDIX C, PLATES
Site Evaluation
Collecting Materials
59
Seed Sowing
Land Preparation
60
Layout
Fence Installation
61
Watering
Weeding
62
Data collection
APPENDIX D, LETTERS
Sir/Madame:
May we respectfully request for the presentation of
our thesis entitled: Growth and Yield of Green Onion
(Allium fistulosum) A ffected by Different Levels of
Application of Fresh Grind Pseudo-Stem of Abaca (Musa
textilis) on December 20,2021 at 10:30-11:30 AM.
RHENE A. BARCELON
LIEZL F. PEROL
NELLY E. OFALSA
Favorably endorsed:
MARLON G. GABELO
Adviser
12-20-2021
Date signed
64
Conformed:
Evaluation Committee Members
MICHELL L.MATIENZO
Approved:
AGNES LORIA
Approved:
Note:
Sir/Madame:
This is to request permission for our final
presentation the herein attached copy of report entitled,
on Growth Response of Pechay (Brassica rapa) Applied with
Chopped Rotten Pseudo-stem of Abaca (Musa textilis) at 7:30
- 9:00am, room number 1.
RHENE A. BARCELON
LIEZL F. PEROL
NELLY E. OFALSA
Favorably endorsed:
MARLON G. GABELO
Adviser
04-28-2022
Date signed
66
Conformed:
Evaluation Committee Members
MICHELL L.MATIENZO
Approved:
AGNES LORIA
Approved:
Note:
Sir/Madame:
This is to request permission to reproduce for binding
the herein attached copy of report entitled GROWTH RESPONSE
OF PECHAY (Brassica rapa) APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF
CHOPPED ROTTEN PSUEDO – STEM OF ABACA (Musa textilis),
prepared by the undersigned as a partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the course BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN
AGRICULTURE.
_____________________
RHENE A. BARCELON
_____________________
LIEZL F. PEROL
_____________________
NELLY E OFALSA
_____________________
MARLON G. GABELO
Adviser
68
Approved: