University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh UNIVERSITY OF GHANA COLLEGE OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES EFFECT OF SEED PELLETING AND BIOCHAR ON NODULATION, GROWTH AND YIELD OF SOYBEAN (Glycine max L.) BY IRENE EYRAM AFI CAMARA-WILLIAMS (ID: 10303861) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL CROP SCIENCE DEGREE DEPARTMENT OF CROP SCIENCE JULY, 2019 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT Pelleting materials and soil amendments have the ability to enhance nitrogen fixation through improved nodulation in leguminous species. Pot and field experiments were conducted in the Sinna Garden, Department of Crop Science, and University Farm, University of Ghana, Legon, during the 2018 minor and 2019 major rainy seasons respectively, to access the effect of seed pelleting with different materials and different soil amendments on nodulation, growth and yield of soybean (Glycine max L.). Data were taken on the following: days to emergence, days to flowering, plant height, number of branches, plant girth, leaf number, leaf area, nodule number, nodule fresh weight, nodule dry weight, leaf dry weight, shoot dry weight, root dry weight, total dry matter, number of pods per plant and N. P. K. content of the plant. The pot experiment was laid in a Completely Randomized Design with four replicates and 12 treatments comprising 2 soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) inoculated with rhizobium and pelleted using 6 pelleting materials (rice straw biochar, rice husk biochar, saw dust biochar, groundnut husk biochar, rock phosphate and calcium carbonate). The field experiment was conducted using split plot design with 3 replicates made up of the two soybean varieties, 4 soil amendments (rice husk, saw dust, rice straw biochar and rock phosphate fertilizer at 200 g/plot), inoculated soybean only and an uninoculated check. Data were taken on seed yield per plant, 100 seed weight, seed weight per plant, seed yield per plot, total seed yield, harvest index, leaf area index, relative growth rate, organic carbon, soil pH in addition to data as taken in the pot experiment. All data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using GENSTAT 12th edition and means separated using LSD (P<0.05). In both experiments, mean nodule number, nodule fresh weight and nodule dry weight were significantly improved by both seed pelleting and soil amendments for the two soybean varieties. ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Groundnut husk biochar produced highest nodule number of 126 for Quarshie variety in the pot experiment. In the field experiment soil amendments resulted in significantly increasing nodule number, nodule dry weight and shoot dry weight over the inoculated alone and uninoculated check at week five. However, no significant differences in plant height, crop growth rate, relative growth rate, leaf area index, harvest index, 100 seed weight, total dry matter and root dry weight among all treatments were observed. Strong positive correlations were observed for number of pods per plant and total dry matter (r = 0.73, P < 0.001); total dry matter and root dry weight were (r = 0.70, P < 0.001) and total dry matter and shoot dry weight (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences (P>0.05) in yield among the treatments but soybean with seeds pelleted and addition of soil amendments recorded slightly higher yields over the control. iii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION To my Husband Mr. Bill Benjamin Camara-Williams whose insistence and motivation for me to pursue a higher education, my father C. B. K. Ahiataku and my uncle Patrick K. Mensah for giving me the opportunity to have my first degree, my sister Ellen Xornamm Afi Dotsey whose love and support throughout the entire program, my mother Joyce Nana Boatemaa Mensah and Geovanni and Geovanna Camara-Williams. iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am thankful to the Almighty God for the knowledge, wisdom and understanding given to me and also for His guidance and protection throughout this study. I also take this opportunity to express my profound gratitude to my distinguished supervisors Rev. Prof. Frank Kofi Kumaga and Dr. (Mrs.) Christiana Amoatey for their unflinching support, patience and guidance as well as the tutelage throughout this research. I want to acknowledge Leventis Scholarship Foundation for the support to the research work for my MPhil. My sincere gratitude to Dr. V. Y Eziah for the processing, access to funding and also advice throughout the study. My appreciation to all Senior Members, who contributed in one way or the other to the success of this work especially Mr. B. A Boateng, my heartfelt appreciation to Mr. W. A. Asante, Mr. S. Haruna, Mr. Samuel Osabutey and Mr. Apeletey for their tremendous support and Mr. Nicholas Agyekum, Daadia and other workers at the Department of Crop Science and University farm for their immerse contribution during the research. Your inputs were most valuable. Finally, am highly indebted to Mr. S. Y. Bonna, Ellen Xornam Afi and Mr. J. Dorkenoo for their support and encouragement throughout this study. Thank you and God richly bless you all. v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENT DECLARATION ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ v TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... xiii CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER TWO ............................................................................................................................ 4 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 4 2.1 ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION....................................................................................... 4 2.2 CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................................................... 5 2.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DESCRIPTION.............................................. 5 2.4 CLIMATIC REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 7 2.5 SOIL AND NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 7 2.6 NUTRIENT ELEMENT EFFECT ON SOYBEAN GROWTH ....................................... 8 2.7 ROOT SYSTEM AND NODULATION .......................................................................... 9 2.8 NODULATION AND NITROGEN FIXATION ............................................................ 10 2.9 Response of Soybean to Inoculation in the Field ............................................................ 11 2.10 The Nodulation Process ................................................................................................. 12 2.11 BIOCHAR ..................................................................................................................... 13 2.12 Biochar Feedstock ......................................................................................................... 13 vi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.13 STABILITY OF BIOCHAR IN THE SOIL.................................................................. 14 2.14 EFFECT OF BIOCHAR ON PLANT GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY ................ 14 2.15 AGRONOMIC BENEFITS OF BIOCHAR .................................................................. 15 2.16 NITROGEN FERTILIZER AND BIOCHAR INTERACTION ................................... 17 2.17 EFFECT OF BIOCHAR ON SOYBEAN GROWTH .................................................. 17 2.18 PELLETING OF LEGUME SEED ............................................................................... 18 2.19 CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH SEED PELLETING ...................................... 18 2.20 CHALLENGES OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC NUTRIENT SOURCE APPLICATION ..................................................................................................................... 18 2.21 APPROACHES TO IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF SOIL FERTILITY ............ 20 CHAPTER THREE ...................................................................................................................... 21 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................ 21 3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................................... 21 3.2 PLANTING MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP ....................................... 21 3.3 PELLETING MATERIALS ............................................................................................ 22 3.4 Pot Experiment ................................................................................................................ 22 3.5 Inoculation ....................................................................................................................... 22 3.6 Field Experiment ............................................................................................................. 23 3.7 Pod Harvesting ................................................................................................................ 24 3.8 Sampling of Soil .............................................................................................................. 24 3.9 Bulk density ..................................................................................................................... 24 3.10 Soil pH ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.11 Analysis of pelleting material (Biochar) ....................................................................... 25 3.12 Treatment combinations with soybean varieties ........................................................... 25 3.13 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 26 vii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.14 Vegetative Parameters ................................................................................................... 27 3.15 Yield and Yield Components ........................................................................................ 28 3.16 Growth Analysis ............................................................................................................ 29 3.17 Total Nitrogen Determination ....................................................................................... 29 3.18 Determination of Total Phosphorus (P) ......................................................................... 30 3.19 Exchangeable Bases ...................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 31 4.0 RESULTS............................................................................................................................ 31 4.1 Pot experiment ................................................................................................................. 31 4.2. Field experiment ............................................................................................................. 49 CHAPTER FIVE .......................................................................................................................... 83 5.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 83 5.1 Effect of biochar on soil characteristics .......................................................................... 83 5.2 Effect of pelleting materials on vegetative and yield parameters of soybean in pot experiment ............................................................................................................................. 86 5.3 Effect of nutrient uptake on vegetative and crop growth in field experiment ................. 88 5.4 Correlation among growth and yield variables ................................................................ 95 CHAPTER SIX ............................................................................................................................. 96 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 96 6.1. Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 96 6.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 97 7.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 98 8.0 APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................... 117 viii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1. Days to emergence in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 4.2. Days to flowering in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 33 Figure 4.3. Plant height of soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and Saw Dust biochar. ......................................................................................................................... 34 Figure 4.4. Number of Branches at flowering in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. .................................................................................... 35 Figure 4. 5. Plant girth in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ........................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 4.6. Number of leaves in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 39 Figure 4. 7. Leaf area for two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ........................................................................................................................... 40 Figure 4. 8. Nodule numbers in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4. 9. Nodule numbers in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 42 Figure 4. 10. Nodule dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 43 ix University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4. 11. Leaf dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 44 Figure 4. 12. Shoot dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 45 Figure 4. 13. Root dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4. 14. Number of pod per plant in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar.............................................................................................. 47 Figure 4. 15. Days to emergence in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 49 Figure 4. 16 . Number of leaves per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 51 Figure 4. 17. Plant height in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. .............................. 52 Figure 4. 18. Plant or stem girth in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 55 Figure 4. 19. Nodule number on Jenguma and Quarshie variety in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................................... 60 Figure 4. 20. Nodule dry weight (A&B) in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 61 Figure 4. 21. Root dry weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 63 Figure 4. 22. Shoot dry weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 64 Figure 4. 23. Total dry matter in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 66 x University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4. 24. Number of Pods per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 67 Figure 4. 25. Pod weight per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 68 Figure 4. 26. 100 Seed weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 69 Figure 4. 27. Seed weight per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 70 Figure 4. 28. Seed weight per plot in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 70 Figure 4. 29. Yield (tons / ha) of two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 72 Figure 4. 30. Harvest index in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 72 Figure 4. 31. Crop Growth Rate in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 73 Figure 4. 32. Relative Growth Rate in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ....... 74 xi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table 1.Treatment code and description ...................................................................................... 26 Table 2. Characterization of soil, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar, Groundnut husk biochar and Saw dust biochar. ................................................................................................................... 31 Table 3: Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium concentration in the two soybean varieties above ground dry matter with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and Saw Dust biochar. ............................................................ 48 Table 4: Days to flowering in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 53 Table 5: Number of branches in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................... 56 Table 6: Leaf area in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. ...................................... 57 Table 7: Leaf area index in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. .............................. 58 Table 8. Residual Effect of soil amendment on Total N, Nitrogen %, Phosphorus %, Potassium %, Organic Carbon and pH Soil. .................................................................................................. 78 Table 9: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium content of soybean grown with soil amendments of rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar, saw dust biochar, rock phosphate and inoculation. ...... 79 Table 10. Correlation coefficient r among variables .................................................................... 82 xii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CGR Crop growth rate FAO Food and Agriculture Organization IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture K Potassium LAI Leaf area index MoFA Ministry of food and agriculture mm Millimeter Mt/ha Metric tonnes per hectare N Nitrogen n.d Not dated P Phosphorus RHB Rice husk biochar RSB Rice straw biochar SSA Sub-Saharan Africa S Sulphur RGR Relative Growth Rate INS Inoculation alone/ inoculated seed GHB Groundnut husk Biochar WAP Weeks after Planting xiii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) is one of the leading leguminous crops in the world in terms of total production, with 352,643,548 tonnes in 2017 (FAOSTAT, 2019). It is high in protein and an abundant source of vegetable oil (Mahamood, 2008; Dogra et al., 2014; Yagoub et al., 2015). Soybean is cultivated in different Ecological Zones in Africa (IITA. 2008 cited in Kolapo, 2011). In Ghana, it is cultivated in nearly all ecological zones including semi deciduous rain forest, rain forest, Guinea savannah and costal savannah. Soybean production is done in Volta region, Upper West Region, Upper East Region, Central Region and Northern Region. Among these regions, Northern Region is known to be the largest producer of soybeans in Ghana (Lawson et al., 2008), producing about 77% of the national total production with the average yield of 509 to 642 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha) (SRID, 2012). Soybean production in Ghana is done on small scale with low yield because it is usually intercropped with other crops like maize and cassava by local farmers. Farmers produce an average yield of 1.9 metric tonnes per hectare (mt/ha) which is below the achievable yield of 2.3 mt/ ha in the country (Ministry of Food and Agriculture Ghana, 2013). In Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) the average soybean yield has remained at 1.1t/ha in the last forty years below the world average of 2.4t/ha (Khojely et al., 2018). Fertilizer applications, varieties and lack of rhizobia inoculant application may contribute greatly to the small returns in soybean cultivation in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) (Khojely et al., 2018). Another constraint affecting soybean production and yield is low soil fertility. Growth and nodulation of the crop is also affected by soil acidity and soil phosphorus status (Ferguson et al., 2013). 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Despite the crop’s ability to grow on marginal soils, the genetic potential of improved varieties may not be fully exploited resulting in low yield as a result of nutrient deficiency which affects the growth and yield of the crop (Xiang et al., 2012). The tropical and subtropical soils are low in nutrients, caused by weathering, Erosion also causes low nutrients when rainfalls are erratic and immobilization and fixation of some major nutrients (FAO, 2005; Agwe et al., 2007; Muntala, 2012). Soybean does very well in fertile soil and it is capable of fixing nitrogen due to the symbiotic relationship with Bradyrhizobium Spp. Soils in Ghana are highly weathered soils and have a moderate to strongly acidic surface soil (Owusu-Bennoah et al., 1995; Ghartey et al., 2012;FAO, 2005; Issaka et al., 2012). These have resulted in low organic carbon content with nitrogen and phosphorous being the most limiting nutrients in the Ghanaian soils (Owusu-Bennoah et al., 1995). The presence of Aluminium ion (Al3+) that gets its way into the soil during weathering increases the pH of the soils. This results in the lack of pH dependent nutrients like phosphorus and nitrogen leading to high level of these nutrients not being available for plants to use. The most effective means of improving soil fertility is to increase productivity by the use of mineral fertilizers; however, usage is very minimal due to high cost (Bump, 1994 and Gerner et al., 1995 as cited in Quansah, 2010; Tetteh et al., 2002). In many places, the low level of fertility has a tendency of worsening due to leaching and erosion. There is a severe imbalance in nutrient resources of soils in the country causing a major problem to sustainable management of soils for improved crop growth and yield (Bumb, 1994 and Gerner et al., 1995 as cited in Quansah, 2010; Tetteh et al., 2002). Biochar is a technology that ensures a retention of organic materials in the soil by preventing rapid degradation of organic materials. It provides conditions suitable for crop production by creating conducive environments for the activities of soil microorganisms, improvement of soil texture, 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh provision of some necessary nutrients especially P and K as a cheap source of organic fertilizer for growth, development as well as the yield. Soybean is a heavy feeder of nitrogen and fixes more than 70% of its required N nutrient by forming a symbiotic association with effective rhizobia (Herridge et al., 2008). Soybean requires as much K as N, but P and K uptake are usually required in large amount in the early pod filling stages. Although fertilization is quint essential for the growth and yield of soybean, most farmers are unwilling to apply fertilizers to soybean due to high cost of fertilizers and irregular supply. Soybean production is the greatest in the northern part of Ghana where the soils are generally poor in P and K which are necessary for nodulation and seed formation. Soybean production is the greatest in the northern part of Ghana where the soils are generally poor in P and K which are necessary for nodulation and seed formation (FAO, 2005). Inoculation with rhizobia has been introduced to farmers in the northern regions of Ghana and biochar has been found to increase nodulation when applied to either the soil or the inoculated seed (Kumaga, 2020). Hence, a huge amount of biochar needs to be applied to the soil aside the application of the biochar which requires much labor. Therefore, the essence of the seed pelleting is to use small quantity of the biochar which will be coated on the inoculated seeds thereby making the farmer reduce or avoid huge spending on purchasing of biochar and labor cost during application. The objectives of this study were therefore:  To assess the effect seed pelleting on nodulation, growth and yield of soybean  To evaluate the impact of different types of amendments on growth and yield of soybean.  To compare the growth response of the two soybean varieties to pelleting and soil amendments. 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 ORIGIN AND DISTRIBUTION The origin of soybean is uncertain, but many botanists believe it to have been derived from Glycine ussuriensis, a legume native to Central China (Hymowitz, 2008). However, cultivation of soybeans which has been long confined mainly to China has gradually spread to other countries. Other articles have however stated that it originated from South East Asia, from where it spread into many parts of the world (Crawford et al., 2003 and Xu et al., 2002) and was introduced for the first time to sub Saharan Africa by Chinese traders in the 19th century. Cultivation as an economic crop was as early as 1903 in South Africa (Khojely et al., 2018). It was cited that about 70% of the world’s production of soybean was in the United States of America (USA) followed by Mainland China (Asamoah, 2009). The story is not so different from today because the United States of America is still the leading producer with 112.95 million metric tonnes for 2017/2018, China ranking fourth with Brazil and Argentina taking the second and third position respectively (USDA, 2019). Soybean is a native to East Asia and China is where the spread started from to Europe and America and other parts of the world (USDA, 2011). History shows its existence more than 5,000 years ago, being used as food and a component of drugs (Norman et al., 1995). The earliest known cultivation of the crop in Africa was in 1885, in Algeria (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2010). In 1908 there was increase in soybean cultivation in Africa and serious attempts to establish the crop in Ghana took off in the early 1970s (Mercer-Quarshie and Nsowah, 1975; Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2010). This was as a result of collaborative breeding efforts between Ghana’s Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) and The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) (Tweneboah, 2000). IITA has since introduced, different soybean varieties belonging to different maturity groups into Ghana and are being cultivated together with some local varieties such as 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh “Salintuya I” and “Salintuya II” , Anidaso, Ahoto and Nangbaar released by Crop Research Institute (CRI) in 2005 (MoFA and CSIR, 2005). More new varieties have now been introduced namely Favour, Afayak, Quarshie, Jenguma, among others (SARI, 2017). 2.2 CLASSIFICATION The genus name Glycine was originally introduced by a Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1737) in first edition of Genera Plantrum (Hymowitz and Newell, 1981). The book Species Plantarum, (Published in 1753) reveals that the cultivated soybeans appeared in the species Plantarum, Linnaeus under the name Phaseolus max L.; and the other was Dolichos soja based on what have been described by Hermann and Kaempfer (Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2010). The contribution, Glycine max (L.) Merr., as proposed by Elmer Drew Merrill in 1917, has become the name of this advantageous plant; Due to the confusion concerning the selection of botanical name for soybean plant, the combination name “Glycine max (L) Mer” as proposed by Elmer Drew Merrill in 1917, has since become the valid botanical name (Hymowitz and Newell, 1981). Appiah-Kubi (2012) revealed Glycine is the genus of the wild species of soybean which is composed of the subgenera Soja and max (Moench). Wild soybean of the genus Glycine is a group of about 6 species that are perennial (Singh et al., 1984). These wild types have varying forms, cytology and genetic makeup (Singh et al., 1988). 2.3 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND DESCRIPTION Soybean is an annual crop growing up to 2 meters (2m) tall, it is usually erect, (Townley-Smith, 1993). Kim et al. (1995) reported the crop varies in growth habit and height which may grow prostate, not higher than 20 centimeters (cm) or grow up to a height of 2 m. Soybean is an herbaceous plant ranging in height from 30 to 183 cm, depending on the genotype (Ngeze, 1993). 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Various soybean genotypes have varied growth habits: determinate and indeterminate type (MoFA and CSIR, 2005). The intermediate genotypes grow taller; produce more leaves and pods right from the stem to shoot than the determinate type. However, many varieties have been developed to have the determinate growth habits (Norman et al., 1995). The main leaves of soybean are alternate, unifoliate, ovate and opposite. The stipules of the leaves are broadly ovate about 3 to 7 millimeters (mm) long, and the petioles of the lower leaves are about 2 to 20cm long. The secondary leaves of soybean are alternate and trifoliate which are mostly compound with approximately four leaflet (Appiah-Kubi, 2012). The flowers of the crop are mostly purple or white, or purple and white borne on the same plant, and these are borne in axillary racemes on peduncles found on the nodes of the plant (Appiah-Kubi, 2012). The flower which is papilionaceous in nature have a tubular calyx and corrolla of five sepals and petals respectively, a pistil, about nine stamens borne on separate single posterior stamen (Acquaah, 2007). The collection of stamen forms a kind of ring at the basal section of the stigma which elongate about a day to pollination, and the elevated anthers make a ring around the stigma (Townley-Smith, 1993). Soybean plants are self-pollinated and produce many flowers but only a few of about two-thirds or about 25% of the flowers produce pods which are pubescent and either light-yellow or black at maturity (Appiah-Kubi, 2012). The shapes of the pods are mostly curved or straight with varying length which ranges between 2 to 7cm and comprises of carpels which are fused by a dorsal and ventral suture in two halves (Asafo-Adjei et al., 2005). The pod of soybean mostly contains about one to three seeds and four sometimes. Soybean seeds are usually oval but some cultivars have flattened, spherical and elongated seeds which are typically straw-yellow, brown, green, black and sometimes greenish-yellow (Acquaah, 2007). 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.4 CLIMATIC REQUIREMENTS Soybean is a grain legume that grows well in the temperate, tropical and subtropical climates (IITA, 2007). Cultivation is successful in climates with hot summer, with optimum growing conditions in mean temperature of 20- 30 oC (Nzege, 1993) the minimum temperature at which soybean develops is 10 oC and that of the optimum and the maximum being 22 oC and about 40 oC respectively. Optimum temperature for germination is 23 oC to 25 oC. For better seed production it is suitable to select a place having wide range of day and night temperature (cooler night in mountain foot areas) so that it can produce more fulfilled large seeds. From seed development stage to harvesting time it needs dry conditions but humid condition during pod setting. Through plant breeding, several varieties have been produced and have performed differently in the various climatic or ecological zones in the world (FAO, 2009). 2.5 SOIL AND NUTRIENT REQUIREMENTS Soybean has the ability to adapt to broad-spectrum environment, also thrives best in thoroughly drained loose loam or sandy soil that are fertile. An optimum pH range of about 5.5 to 7.0 is ideal due to nutrient availability within this range (Seiter et al., 2004). Soybean is a heavy feeder of nitrogen hence fix more than 70% of its required N nutrient by forming a symbiotic association with Bradyrhizobium Japonicum bacterium. Nitrogen nutrient is usually applied as a starter dose to give the plant a good start while infection by the bacteria for nodulation takes place. The starter dose is applied at very low levels. Phosphorus and Potassium fertilizer are the recommended fertilizer at a rate of 60 to 70 kg per hectare while about 300 kg per hectare of K2O is required. 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.6 NUTRIENT ELEMENT EFFECT ON SOYBEAN GROWTH In soybean production, any level of yield attainable on any farm is completely dependent on nutrient availability and water supply (Tamagno et al., 2016). High yields obtained in soybean is directly proportional to high level of nutrient in the soil and consequently high level of nutrient uptake in the plant (Tamagno et al., 2016). Soybean growth and yield is dependent on soil essential nutrients. While there is the need to supply other essential nutrients for soybean growth, the plant is able to fix its own nitrogen nutrient. Soybean requires nitrogen (N) for growth, seed formation and for its oil and protein content making the plant a heavy nitrogen feeder. This N is supplied through fixation and also from the soil, however the soil N is mostly lost through leaching and immobilization. Biochar is able to make immobilized N available and also prevent the leaching of the fixed N and hence increase the availability of N for growth in soybean. Phosphorus is also very essential in the growth of soybean and this is because phosphorus is needed in soybean to convert solar energy to chemical energy which is required in soybean for protein synthesis (Hellal et al., 2013). The third most important element required by plants for growth is Potassium. Soybean plant uses potassium for photosynthesis, transportation of sugars, water and nutrient movement. It also uses potassium in protein synthesis and the formation of starch. Research has proved that adequate K levels in plants improves resistance to diseases, water stress tolerance, tolerance to pest and aids the uptake of other nutrients. Soybean requires as much K as N. However P and K uptake is usually required in large amounts during early pod filling (Usherwood, 1998). 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Being the component of amino acids, Sulphur (S) is used in the building of protein in plants. Interestingly, plants require about equal amount of S as P for good growth. Just as N is mobile, S is also mobile in the soil and is easily lost through leaching. Since S is immobile in plants, S deficiency is first noticed in the younger tissues of any plant. S is added as primary nutrient in some fertilizer formulations. Calcium (Ca) is one of the constituent elements of the plant cell wall. It is useful in membrane stability. Deficiency in Ca is mostly seen at growing points of most plant and these points include the fruit, the shoot tips, the root tips as well as the stem of any plant. Magnesium (Mg) also forms a major part of chlorophyll molecule and is used for photosynthesis. It helps in energy metabolism in plants and protein formation. Magnesium deficiency is rarely seen but is common in soils with low cation exchange capacity (CEC) (Agbanu, 2017). Finally, plants require micronutrients in negligible quantities for growth. Micronutrients used by plants include Copper, for respiration, protein synthesis, seed formation and chlorophyll production. Zinc (Zn) is required for starch formation, root development, for growth hormones and enzyme systems. Manganese (Mn) is also required for chlorophyll formation, nitrate assimilation, enzyme system and metabolism (Agbanu, 2017). 2.7 ROOT SYSTEM AND NODULATION Rooting system development and nodulation of soybean are affected by soil texture, nutrient, moisture and temperature ( Torrion et al., 2012; Purcell and Ashlock, 2014 ). The root system has three different parts: taproot system, lateral roots and the tertiary root. Soil compaction and waterlogging conditions can restrict rooting and obstruct root hair formation required for infection by rhizobia bacteria. 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Soybean roots form nodules as a result of a symbiotic relationship with the specific rhizobia bacteria host strain known as Bradyrhizobium japonicum specifically when the soil is deficient in Nitrogen nutrient. Native rhizobia can be present in the soil or soybean seeds may be inoculated to present the bacteria in the soil. Fixing of atmospheric nitrogen by the soybean plant due to effective nodules on the root results in no or little nitrogen fertilizer application during production. The effectiveness of nodules are determined by cutting and examining for a Pink to bright red coloration which signifies that nitrogen is being fixed actively (Agbanu, 2017). A white coloration shows immaturity and no fixing of nitrogen but usually indicative of the roots colonization by rhizobia. The nodules are ineffective if they are black, brown, green or tan in color. 2.8 NODULATION AND NITROGEN FIXATION Nodulation requires inoculation of seed or soil prior to planting with the bacteria Rhizobium (Leonard, 2018). However, the field with the history of soybean production may have the bacteria Rhizobium present in the soil. Inoculation of seed or soil for the field already having soybean production history is suggested when new strains of bacteria are to be introduced (Kokobun, 1991). Soybean has the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere if properly nodulated, but nodulation can be hindered by the acidity of soils and extreme soil moisture. , Very dry soil can affect nodulation and reduce nitrogen fixation as the bacteria needs water to move in the soil (Leonard, 2018). Fields containing high level of residual soil nitrogen from the previous forage legume or manure application, coarse textured soil due to inadequate moisture levels to sustain bacteria, flooded and saturated soil conditions lasting seven days or more due to oxygen deprivation. Soil pH below 5.7 or above 7.3 and compacted soils due to oxygen availability (Staton, 2011). 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Inoculation nowadays is done by the use of inoculum, inoculum is materials used for inoculation and it can also be called inoculant. Inoculum should be refrigerated or stored in cool place before and after purchase for a short time. Inoculum is easily killed by direct sunlight therefor exposure of inoculated seed or soil to sunlight or excessive heat should be avoided (Giller and Wilson, 1991). Stored in the wrong conditions even for a short period of time can significantly reduce the likelihood of nodulation due to the sensitivity of the inoculum (Leonard, 2018). 2.9 Response of Soybean to Inoculation in the Field Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) is seen as a cheap way to get renewable nitrogen in agriculture as it uses photosynthetically produced energy and is environmentally cleaner (Albareda et al., 2009). Many research experiments have clearly justified the positive effect of inoculation in enhancing BNF (Kadiata et al., 2012; Solomon et al., 2012; Mohammadi et al., 2012) and true benefits of inoculation on legumes are made known to farmer and researchers since most commercial microbial and micronutrient products claim to increase BNF and consequently crop yield. Rhizobia inoculation significantly increased nodule dry weight of soybean reported by (Katulanda, 2011). This agrees with the findings of (Okogun et al., 2005; Chemining’wa et al., 2007) who reported no significant increase in nodulation following rhizobia inoculation. (Rechiatu et al., 2015) reported that inoculation resulted in over 50% increase in soybean yield. This was not far- fetched from (Nyaguthii, 2014) who reported that legume inoculation or co-application of rhizobia inoculants and phosphorus fertilizers only, without proper soil fertility diagnosis, must be revised to optimize the benefits expected from inoculation including biological nitrogen fixation. (Levitan et al., 2007) also reported rhizobium inoculation significantly increased grain yield at Yendi and 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh this yield was comparable to those obtained from the treatments with PK only or PK with Rhizobium inoculants in their experiment. 2.10 The Nodulation Process The soybean nodulation process as described by Beuerlein (2004) and Sadowsky (2005) is dependent on penetration of Bradyrhizobium japonicum bacteria. The bacteria may infect the plant through root hairs, wounds, lesions, or cavities surrounding adventitious roots. Germinating seeds release chemical signals called flavanoids that are received by the bacteria. The bacteria respond with a return signal known as a nod factor that allows the plant to prepare for infection by curling the root hair. The curling of the root hair essentially traps the bacteria on the root surface. The development of an infection thread allows for the bacteria to grow in number until reaching the center of the root. Meanwhile, the root cells divide ultimately forming a nodule, about 6 to 18 days after initial infection. The nodule is fundamental because it is where leghemoglobin is produced, which creates the environment essential for the enzyme nitrogenase to convert N2 to NH3. The bacteria receive energy to obtain N2 from sugar in the leaf that moves down to the roots. Nodulation first occurs on the crown roots and then the lateral roots (Beuerlein, 2004; Sadowsky, 2005). Nodules reach mature size at approximately four weeks after the beginning of nodule formation and will continue to fix N for two or three more weeks before they begin to senesce. Soybeans begin to fix N at the V2 growth stage (second trifoliate) and reach maximum fixation rates later at approximately the pod development stages, R5 and R6. Active nodules contain a red to pink color caused by leghemoglobin (Conley and Christmas, 2006). 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.11 BIOCHAR Biochar is a form of charcoal produced from plant biomass by heating in the absence of oxygen which halt total burning of the organic biomass which takes place in open fire (Sohi et al., 2009). Biochar is rich in a stable form of carbon which is not oxidized by soil microorganism. It is a charcoal like substance made from biomass and can be used for soil amendment. It has been credited with multiple benefits including the ability to improve soil fertility, protect water quality, and generate carbon neutral energy (Brick, 2010). Biochar is an organic material produced by heating in the absence of oxygen, of carbon based feedstock (biomass) and is best described as a soil conditioner. In spite of numerous materials suggested as biomass feedstock for biochar (including wood, crop residues and manures), the suitability of each feedstock for such an application is dependent on a number of chemical, physical, environmental, economic and logistical factors (Verheijen et al., 2010; Kloss et al., 2012). Feedstock used on a commercial scale or in research facilities include wood chip and wood pellets, tree bark, crop residues (which includes straw, nut shells, cocoa pods and rice hulls), organic waste including distillers grain, bagasse from the sugarcane industry and cow dung. The elemental ratio of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen are key feedstock parameters in commercial use and the quality of fuel products (Fried et al., 2005). 2.12 Biochar Feedstock The quality and quantity of the biochar produced is reliant on the feedstock composition and availability of the material (Laufer and Tomlinson, 2013). The physical and chemical composition of biochar is dependent on the type of biomass feedstock and the pyrolysis method adopted ( Laird et al., 2010, Laufer and Tomlinson, 2013; Biederman et al., 2013; Xie et al., 2015). Reports by 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh several authors indicate that biochar biomass feedstock are usually from plant residues like sawdust, wheat straw, wood pine, rice straw, rice husk, groundnut shell, corn cob and stalk, coconut fiber, animal residues like poultry litter and pig manure, forestry wood waste and sewage sludge. 2.13 STABILITY OF BIOCHAR IN THE SOIL Biochar has long been used to date and it has been quantifies as carbon 14 decay (Arnold and Libby, 1951). Biochar persists in the environment longer than any other form of organic carbon. Finely divided biochar has remained in soils in humid tropical climates, such as the Amazon, for thousands of years resisting the rapid rate of mineralization common to organic matter in these environments and producing a distinct black colour (Sombroek et al., 2003). In is in agreement with (Goldberg, 1985) who reported that soil organic matter would be dominated by Biochar accumulated over geological time scales. 2.14 EFFECT OF BIOCHAR ON PLANT GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY Several reviews have highlighted biochars’ ability to promote plant productivity and yield compared to the control (Jeffery et al., 2011). Glaser et al. (2001) reported that an increase in aboveground biomass with high potassium tissue concentration and belowground productivity of plants; Laird et al. (2010) reported Biochar treated plots showed rapid germination giving the plant enough duration for biomass accumulation and Lehmann et al. (2011) reported nodulation by rhizobia in legume plants increases. The increase seen in the belowground productivity has been attributed the porous nature of biochar which enhances water holding capacity and reduces soil compaction. These help in the development of a more fibrous root system for movement and 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh interception of soil nutrients and water. In their research, Biederman et al. (2013) reported that there was an increase observed in plant biomass when biochar was added. 2.15 AGRONOMIC BENEFITS OF BIOCHAR Biochar soil amendment improves crop productivity mainly by increasing nutrient use efficiency and water holding capacity. However, improvements to crop production are often recorded in highly degraded and nutrient-poor soils, while its application to fertile and healthy soils does not always increase crop yield. Since biochar is produced from a variety of feedstocks, certain contaminants can be present. Heavy metals in biochar may affect plant growth as well as rhizosphere microbial and faunal communities and functions (Hussain et al., 2017). When biochar is added to the soil it helps to improve plant growth and enhance crop yields increasing food production and sustainability in areas with depleted soil limited organic resources, insufficient water and access to fertilizers. Not all soils react the same to biochar and it frequently can take up to a year to compare results. The optimum application rate for biochar depends on the specific soils and crop management. Application of biochar to soil is proposed as novel approach to establishing a significant long term sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide in terrestrial ecosystems. Aside the constructive results within lessening discharges and enlarging sequestration of greenhouse gases, biochar production and application to the soil delivers instant gains by better soil fertility including crop production increased (Lehman et al., 2006). Biochar may be an immediate solution to reducing the global impact of farming by reducing the impact from all agricultural waste (Sisomphone et al., 2012). It has been shown that biochar has multiple uses. When added to soil it can significantly improve soil fertility and also act as a sink for carbon (Lehman, 2007). Carbon in this way is removed from the atmosphere in a process called sequestration (Zwietenoe, 2006; Davies, 2007). 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Biochar can act as a soil conditioner by ameliorating the physical and biological properties of soil such as water holding capacity and soil nutrient retention and also enhancing plant growth (Sohi et al., 2009; De Gryze, 2010). Biochar has the potential to: decrease aluminum toxicity, improve fertilizer use efficiency, improve soil conditions for earthworm populations, decrease soil tensile strength and increase soil pH (Amonette and Joseph, 2009, Chan and Xu, 2009, Spokas et al., 2009, Cunha et al., 2009; McLaughlin, 2010). The combined application of biochar and inorganic fertilizer has the potential to increase crop productivity, thus providing additional incomes and reducing the quality of inorganic fertilizer use and importation (De Gryze, 2010; Quayle, 2010). Biochar additions to hard setting soils in Australia for instance reduced tensile strength and further improved plant growth (Gaskin et al., 2007; Amonette and Joseph, 2009). Steiner et al. (2008), described the application rate of 5 tons of biochar per ha decreased fertilizer need by 7%. Crops are reported to grow about three times faster in soils conditioned with biochar than on un-amended soil (Sohi et al., 2009). Similar results have been demonstrated in places in West Africa such as Benin and Liberia and Savannah of South Africa (Cunha et al., 2009; Sohi et al., 2009). The pH increase in sandy and loamy soils upon addition of biochar has been reported to be larger than in clayey soils (De Gryze, 2010). In a study on effects of charcoal production on soils physical and hydrological properties in Ghana (Oguntunde et al., 2008) reported that the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soils under charcoal kilns increased significantly. When mixed with organic matter biochar can result in enhanced retention of soil water as a result of its pore structure which contributes to nutrient retention because of its ability to trap nutrient-rich water within the pores (Oguntunde et al., 2008, Major et al., 2009; De Gryze et al., 2010). Oguntunde et al. (2004) revealed a notable inflation in soil pH, electrical conductivity and exchangeable Na, P, K, Ca and Mg in the soil at a charcoal production site compared to adjacent soils under no charcoal production. 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.16 NITROGEN FERTILIZER AND BIOCHAR INTERACTION The technology used in increasing fertilizer efficiency is integrated crop management which includes the application of organic manure and other organic materials to soil (Fageria and Baligar, 2005). Under wet tropical condition, organic materials applied to the soil decompose very rapidly. Biochar is more resistant when applied to soil. When applied to soil it increases nitrogen utilization from the applied chemical fertilizer (Seiner et al., 2007; Widowati et al., 2011). This is as the result of the decrease of nitrogen lost due to the increase of soil cation exchange capacity with biochar application (Chan et al., 2008; Masulili et al., 2010) or because of the biochar ability to inhibit N- NO3 transformation from N-NH4 released by fertilizer (Widowati et al., 2011). 2.17 EFFECT OF BIOCHAR ON SOYBEAN GROWTH In recent times, biochar has been extensively researched into and positively recommended for crop production. Soybean is one of the crops on which biochar and its impact have been fairly determined. In research for instance, Wang et al. (2016) observed an improvement in soybean growth. He observed that biochar was able to improve the structure of soils and also improve upon the nitrogen absorption properties and water holding capacity of soils. He therefore concluded that biochar increased the growth of soybean giving them a more uniform growth during the reproductive phases on biochar fields compared to fields without biochar. Suppadit et al. (2012); Yooyen et al. (2015); Egamberdieva et al. (2016) an increase in nutrient uptake, growth, dry matter, nodulation and yield after biochar application has been reported. Positive effect of rice straw biochar on nodulation, growth, dry matter accumulation and yield of some soybean varieties and improved soil nutrient uptake of the plant (Agbanu, 2017). Darko (2013) reported positive effect of biochar seen in the grain yield of rice. 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.18 PELLETING OF LEGUME SEED A seed pellet is characterized by its ability to totally obscure the shape of the encased seed, because seeds are coated with materials that changes the shape and the size to become rounder and heavier (Copeland and McDonald, 2012). An amalgam of fillers such as limestone, vermiculite, clay, Calcium Carbonate and more including cementing additives such as gelatin, gum Arabic and more are used to form the pellet and other compound such as fungicides, inoculants and more may be added to enhance seed performance (Taylor and Harman 1990). Inoculants are used in pelleting Legume seeds and the process is called inoculation. Seeds treated with seed pellets increase yield, ameliorated standard and emergence, Treating seeds with adhesive mixed with active ingredient, has been reported to be effective (Moude and Snett, 1998). Seeds obtain early growth advantage with pelleting in other words, seed protection against stresses, invigoration of seed, synergetic effects of fungicides on seeds, nutrients and hormones for seeds and seed protection from diseases and pests. 2.19 CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH SEED PELLETING If pelleted materials are too dry and strong germination seeds may be affected because the radicle may not emerge through the pelleted material. The pelleting material must be suited with the seed to ensure the quality of seed is maintained and germination is not impeded. An instance can be where pelleting materials are wet during pelleting so that inadvertent seed hydration occurs that leads to increased respiration and possibly reduced seed quality (Copeland and McDonald, 2012). 2.20 CHALLENGES OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC NUTRIENT SOURCE APPLICATION Adoption of inorganic and organic fertilizer application technologies in Ghana has been slow due to certain constraints. Application of inorganic fertilizers are inadequate due to high costs, type 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh and quantity supplied, variations in the soils and a characteristic low nutrient conversion rate (Gruhn et al., 2000). The inefficient and improper use of inorganic fertilizers result in low nutrient use efficiency of most crops. This causes low yield and loses to farmers. This has deterred most farmers from adopting the use of inorganic fertilizers to improve yield. Total dependence on rainfall and only few irrigated farms characterize Ghana’ farming system. The low efficiencies of applied fertilizers have thus been attributed to the unreliable and poorly distributed rainfall pattern in Ghana mostly. Other issues identified with inorganic fertilizers include leaching from root zones, which reduces fertilizer utilization by crops. FAO (2005) identified that, for fertilizer use to increase, several farm lands will have to be under irrigation. Organic material as a source of soil nutrition in the tropics is also not dependable due to high decomposition rate of materials which is about 3-5 times greater than that of temperate conditions. Composting for example is very laborious and organic waste on small farms is limited. Also in cover cropping, grass and legume cover crops compete with food crops for land. Farmers find it difficult in allocating land to cover crops when they could have used it to grow cash crops. Soil conservation technologies have also been used such as agro-forestry systems which have been slow to adopt due to the fact that these are long term solutions but farmers would rather have short term results. The recent issues of global warming and climate change demand for a more conservative approach to improve soil productivity to increase yield of crops. Biochar provides a viable option for improving soil fertility and nutrient use efficiency of crops. The use of readily available plant biomass that are usually agricultural waste serve as feedstock that are pyrolysed into biochar. 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.21 APPROACHES TO IMPROVING MANAGEMENT OF SOIL FERTILITY The right nutrition at a time is a major crop yield maximization factor. Plant nutrition management is defined as the application of the accurate form, amount, and proportions of nutrient at the right growth stages of any crop to improve yield per area with the least possible nutrient loss. Nutrient recycling using organic materials is necessary to restore the productivity of any soil. Nonetheless, the use of organic fertilizer has being unable to increase the yield per unit area of any crop because the nutrient content is not balanced, whiles a bulk application also leads to nutrient loss. To manage this anomaly, integrated plant management (IPNM) has been introduced. IPNM is the combination of mineral and organic fertilizer for the maintenance of soil fertility for improvement in crop yield per area. The IPNM concept basically optimizes the exploration of the nutrients in organic fertilizers for good yield and synergistic nutrient use efficiency. In a study, Quansah (2010) characterized poultry manure and two other composted materials which were household waste and market waste plus faecal sludge mixes at a ratio of 3:1 to assess the effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers and their combined effect on maize growth and yield. The result indicated that poultry manure has the major N, P, and K at 2.06 %, 0.52 % and 0.73 % respectively, while the composted material had a moderate level of these nutrients. At the end of the experiment, they noticed a higher nutrient levels in the combination of both organic and inorganic nutrients than just sole organic or sole inorganic. When applied to the soils, the combined treatments had significantly higher nutrient uptake values than the sole organic and inorganic fertilizers alone. This result is a clear indication of the need to combine both organic and inorganic nutrients for full exploitation of the genetic potentials of the plant for better plant growth and increased yield. 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THREE 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 EXPERIMENTAL SITE DESCRIPTION Two experiments were conducted for this study. The first experiment was conducted in the Sinna Garden, Department of Crop Science, University of Ghana and the second at the University of Ghana farms, Legon, located in the coastal savannah zone of Ghana. The area had an annual rainfall of about 354.3 mm with a range of 171.6 mm to 223.8 mm. The rainfall in this region is highly erratic with two distinct rainy seasons. The major season which begins in March and ends in July and the minor season from September to November. The soil used belong to the Adenta series (USDA Classification). 3.2 PLANTING MATERIALS AND EXPERIMENTAL SETUP Two varieties of soybean, Jenguma and Quarshie were used in the experiments. Jenguma is the popular variety grown by farmers while Quarshie is another high yielding variety from SARI. Soybean seeds were obtained from Department of Crop Science, at University of Ghana, Legon. Biochar was obtained from Department of Soil Science at University of Ghana, Legon and Soil and Irrigation Research Center (SIREC), Kpong in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Two experiments were conducted, from October 2018 to March 2019. The experiment conducted, from October 2018 to March 2019 evaluated the effect of different seed pelleting materials and the different soil amendments on nodulation and growth of soybean. The impacts of the amendments on soil characteristic were also evaluated. 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3 PELLETING MATERIALS Pelleting materials used included Rock phosphate, Calcium Carbonate (Caco3) and biochar that includes Saw dust biochar, groundnut husk biochar, rice husk and rice straw biochar. 3.4 Pot Experiment In the pot experiment two soybeans varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie), and four (4) types of biochar (Rice Husk, Groundnut Husk, Saw Dust and Rice Straw) in addition to Rock Phosphate and Calcium Carbonate were used. The combination of the 2 factors giving 12 treatments were replicated 4 times in a Completely Randomized Design. The total number of experimental pots used in the experiment was 48 pots. The dimension of pots used in the experiment were 12 cm wide and 30 cm in height. The pots were perforated with three holes at the bottom to allow drainage of excess water. The base of the pot was lined with a filter paper to prevent loss of soil through the perforated holes. Soils of the Adenta series found in portions of University of Ghana farms near the botanical garden was collected and transported to the Sinna Garden for the pot experiment. The soil was air-dried and sieved using a 2 mm sieve. Each pot was filled with 8.0 kg of soil. 3.5 Inoculation 20g of sugar was dissolved in 80mls of water and seeds to be inoculated was put into the bowls. The Seeds were moistened with sugar solution and the Inoculant was added to seed and swirled around and seeds were air-dried for 30min. Prior to sowing the inoculated seeds of the two varieties were allowed to air dry for 30 min to allow the inoculant to adequately stick onto the surface of the seeds. The inoculated seeds were finally coated with the pelleting materials and mixed thoroughly by swirling continuously for 2 minutes then allowed to air dry before planting. The rate of the pelleting materials used was 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5g/100g of seeds. Five (5) seeds were sown per pot for each variety. The medium was watered and brought to field capacity with tap water. 3.6 Field Experiment The experimental design used was a factorial experiment conducted in split plot design with three (3) replications. Two varieties of soybean served as the main plot treatments and the sub plot treatments comprising three biochar treatments (rice husk, saw dust and rice straw biochar) and rock phosphate fertilizer (200 g/plot), inoculation alone and no inoculation were used. The land was ploughed and harrowed on the 15th of November, 2018. The field was levelled before lining and pegging to demarcate plots for treatment application. The soil amendments were placed directly into the soil when the drills were made before placement of the seeds. The drills were then covered after the seed placement and the entire field was watered. Soybean seeds were inoculated by the same inoculant used for the pot experiment. The main plots (varieties) had a dimension of 10m X 5.3m and the sub plot consisted of the treatments with a dimension of 3.0 m X 2.4 m. The inter-row spacing was 100 cm and intra row of 50 cm (1.0 m x 0.5 m). The total experimental site was 9.6m X 27.0 m. Weeding was done manually. Pests and diseases were controlled regularly using Mancozeb 80WP fungicide (Agrithane) and insecticide Emamectin Benzoate (Attack). One week after emergence, seedlings were sprayed with an Emamectin Benzoate insecticide at the rate of 250mls/15L was used to control caterpillars and cypermethrin 36 g at the rate of 35ml/15L was used to control grasshoppers, once a week spaying was done with (Attack and Cydim Super) when the plants were 6 weeks old. The field experiment was manually watered to maintain soil moisture. Watering was done with watering cans and this was done plot by plot until the entire field was covered. This was mostly done early in the morning or in the evening every day of the week. 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.7 Pod Harvesting Plants were harvested at physiological maturity when all the pods on the plants had turned brown. They were parked in sacks and sent to the laboratory. The pods were later removed for determination of yield and yield component. 3.8 Sampling of Soil Soil samples were taken from the experimental plot to a depth of 0-20 cm using an auger, for soil characterization. Before ploughing clod samples were collected with the core sampler for the determination of the bulk density. The soil samples were bulked and bulk composite samples were air dried and sieved with 2mm sieve to remove unwanted materials and for fine earth fraction. Soil samples were air dried and sieved for the physical and chemical properties like available N, P and K, Ph., Organic Carbon and bulk density. Analysis of soil was done in the Ecological Laboratory, Department of Earth Science. 3.9 Bulk density Samples for bulk density determination were obtained from the field by driving a known volume core sampler with both ends open into the soil to about 0-15cm deep. The core sampler together with the sampled soil were brought out and both open end closed immediately to avoid moisture loss. Samples were oven dried at a temperature of 70oC for 48 hours to a constant weight. With the known volume of the core sampler and soil, the dried soil was weighed and the bulk density determined. The formula used in the calculation of the bulk density was: 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑖 𝐿 Bulk density = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒𝑟 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.10 Soil pH The pH was determined by weighing 10g of the soil into a beaker and 20 ml of distilled water added in a 1:1 ratio. The solution was stirred for 30 minutes and the pH read using the pH meter (Oakton PH Meter PC 2700, which also measures millivolts, conductivity and temperature). 3.11 Analysis of pelleting material (Biochar) The rice husk, rice straw, groundnut husk and saw dust biochar used in the study as pelleting materials were air-dried, crushed and passed through a 2 mm sieve. Composite sample of the sieved biochar was taken for laboratory analysis of pH, total N, P and K. 3.12 Treatment combinations with soybean varieties Pelleting materials and soil amendments with the two soybean variety Jenguma and Quashie used for labeling in the study (Table 1). 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 1.Treatment code and description Treatments Code Treatment Description Con J Control Jenguma Con Q Control Quashie INS J Inoculated Jenguma INS Q Inoculated Quashie CACO J Calcium Carbonate Jenguma CACO Q Calcium Carbonate Quashie RPF J Rock phosphate Jenguma RPF Q Rock phosphate Quashie RHB J Rice Husk Biochar Jenguma RHB Q Rice Husk Biochar Quashie GHB J Ground nut Husk Biochar Jenguma GHB Q Ground nut Husk Biochar Quashie SDB J Saw Dust Biochar Jenguma SDB Q Saw Dust Biochar Quashie RSB J Rice Straw Biochar Jenguma RSB Q Rice Straw Biochar Quashie 3.13 Data Collection Data were collected on vegetative crop growth, yield and yield components. 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.14 Vegetative Parameters Vegetative parameters used were Days to emergence, plant height, stem girth, number of leave per plant, leaf area, shoot dry weight, Root dry weight, Total plant biomass production, Number of nodules, Nodule weight and Days to Flowering. i. Days to emergence: This was determined as the number of days from sowing to first appearance of the cotyledons above the soil surface. ii. Plant height (cm): This was determined by measuring ten soybean plants from the base or the stem to the top of the apical meristem. iii. Stem girth (cm): This was measured around the largest part of the plant using the automated Vernier callipers. iv. Number of leaves per plant: Total number of leaves per plant were counted for all record plants. v. Leaf area (cm): This was measured using a cork borer method. Leaves were detached and weighed to determine that total weight of the leaves on the plant. Ten leaves were sampled at random and arranged uniformly, the cork borer with a known diameter was then positioned at the centre of the leaves and pushed down till disks from the leaves were obtained. Using the area of a circle the area of the disk was obtained and the disks were weighed. By equating the leave area of the disk to the weight of the leaf disks and by proportion the leaf area of the whole leave was obtained. vi. Shoot dry weight (SDW) (g): The harvested plant shoots were oven dried at 70 ˚C to a constant weight before weighing. 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii. Root dry weight (RDW) (g): The roots were oven dried after washing to a constant weight at 70 ˚C and then weighed. viii. Total plant biomass production: This was computed using the sum total of the shoot and root dry weights ix. Number of nodules: Nodules were counted after detaching them from the roots. x. Nodule weight (g): The nodules were oven dried at a temperature of 70 oC and then weighed using a weighing scale. xi. Days to Flowering: The number of days to flowering was recorded as days from emergence to flower appearance. 3.15 Yield and Yield Components Yield and yield component used were as follow: Number of pods per plant, Number of seeds per pod, Pod weight per plant, 100 seed weight, seed weight per plant, Harvest index and Grain Yield Determination. i. Number of pods per plant: The pods on ten randomly selected plants were counted. The average number of pods per plant was determined by dividing the total number of pods counted by ten. ii. Number of seeds per pod: the number of seeds per pods were determined by counting the number of seeds from ten pods selected at random. The total number of seeds was divided by ten to get the average number of seeds per pod. iii. Pod weight per plant (g): Ten soybean plants were selected and all the pods were detached from the main stem of each plant and weighed. iv. 100 seed weight (g): 100 uniform seeds were randomly selected and weighed using the weighing scale. 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v. Seed weight per plant: Seeds removed from pods of each plant were weighed using the weighing scale. vi. Grain Yield Determination: At physiological maturity, an area of 1.8 m2 of bordered row plants were harvested. Soybean pods per plot were air-dried. The grains were weighed and used in estimating the grain yield. 3.16 Growth Analysis Growth analysis parameters were carried out using plant biomass and leaf area. They were: Crop Growth Rate (CGR) g (Crop) m-2d-1 = 𝐼𝑛𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡/𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎/𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (Watson, 1956). Leaf Area Index (LAI) m2 (leaf) m-2 =𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎/𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎. (Williams, 1946) Relative Growth Rate (RGR) g (crop) g-1(crop) d-1 = 𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡/𝑑𝑟𝑦 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡/𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 (Williams, 1946) 3.17 Total Nitrogen Determination Macro-Kjeldhal method was used in the Total nitrogen determination. The air-dried soil was sieved through a 2mm diameter mesh and 2g of the soil weighed into a 50 ml Kjeldhal flask. The weighed soil was moistened with distilled water and 5 ml of concentrated sulphuric acid was added. The solution was digested and cooled. The cooled digested solution was transferred into a 50ml volumetric flask using distilled water. 5 mL of the digested solution and sodium hydroxide solution was distilled into 2% boric acid in a conical flask. The distillate was titrated against a 0.0012M HCl solution which turned from green to a reddish end point. 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.18 Determination of Total Phosphorus (P) Total P was determined by first weighing 2 g of sieved soil. 25 mL concentrated perchloric acid mixed with nitric acid in a ratio of 2:3 was used to digest 2 g of the soil sample. After digestion, the cooled sample was diluted using distilled water and filtered with the Whatman filter paper No. 42 into a 100 mL volumetric flask and topped up to the 100 mL mark with the distilled water. Phosphorus in the filtrate was measured by colour development and read on the spectrophotometer. Percent phosphorus was calculated using the equation: spectrophotometer reading (𝑚𝑔𝐿−1)× total volume of extract P (%) = × 100 volume of aliquot × weight of soil sample × 106 3.19 Exchangeable Bases Ten gram soil was weighed into an extraction bottle and 100 mL of 1N ammonium acetate solution of pH 7.0 was added. The mixture was shaken for one hour after which the content was filtered with Whatman No 42 filter paper. Aliquot of the extract were used for the determination of Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ and Na+. Exchangeable Na and K were determined using the Atomic Absorption Spectrometer by calibrating the photometer with standard 10 ppm of Na and K solutions and reading the Na and K concentrations of the extracts. 𝐺 × 𝑣𝑜𝑙 𝑜𝑓 𝑒𝑥𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡 × 103 × 102 × 𝐻 K (Cmol/Kg soil) = 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑜𝑖𝑙 × 106 × I I = Atomic mass of I G = AAS Reading (µg/L) H = Charge 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Pot experiment Table 2. Characterization of soil, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar, Groundnut husk biochar and Saw dust biochar. Rice Husk Rice Straw Groundnut Saw Dust Properties Soil Biochar Biochar Husk Biochar Biochar Bulk Density 1.1 0.20 0.23 0.24 0.25 pH 4.9 10.60 8.00 8.54 9.54 Total N 0.6 1.20 1.04 0.87 0.90 Total P 5.1 0.45 0.46 0.46 0.42 Total K 2.1 0.19 0.81 0.83 0.24 4.1.1 Effect of Pelleting Material on Days to emergence Days to emergence are shown in Fig.4.1. Seeds started emerging from day 4 and continued to day 7. The main effect of varieties were significant on days to emergence, Quarshie on the average emerged earlier than Jenguma, The analysis of variance showed no significant differences in the effect of the different pelleting materials on the days to emergence. The interaction was also not significant. 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4.1. Days to emergence in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar 4.1.2 Effect of Pelleting Material on Days to flowering Number of days to flowering was between 39 and 47 from sowing, the treatments and the interaction between the varieties and treatments was not significant but the two varieties were significantly different in the number of days to flowering (Fig. 4.2). However Jenguma were late to flower generally. 32 Days to emergence University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 48 46 44 42 40 38 36 34 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4.2. Days to flowering in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.3 Effect of Pelleting Material on Plant height Plant heights measured at weekly interval after 4 weeks of sowing are presented in figure 4.3. The interaction between varieties and treatments were not significant on plant height in all the weeks the record was taken. Differences between the varieties was significant at the 4th and 8th week after sowing but not at weeks 5, 6 and 7. Treatments affected plant height only at the 8th week. At weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7 plant height was not affected by treatments. Quarshie sown with rice husk biochar had a higher plant height of 48.4 at the 7th week after sowing. Jenguma recorded the highest plant height of 45.2 at the 7th week as well but from rice straw biochar. The lowest plant height recorded was at the 4th week after sowing in plant grown from seeds pelleted with calcium carbonate 16.3 in Quarshie and Jenguma (15.3) grown with groundnut husk biochar. 33 Days to flowering University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Treatments Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control B Quarshie 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Treatments Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Figure 4.3. Plant height of soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and Saw Dust biochar. 34 Plant height (cm) Plant height (cm) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.4 Effect of Pelleting Material on Number of branches at flowering The number of branches at flowering is shown in Figure 4.4., the effect of varieties were significant on number of branches at flowering. The analysis of variance showed no significant differences in the effect of the different pelleting materials on the number of branches at flowering. The interaction was also not significant. The highest branch number 7 (Quarshie) was recorded on groundnut husk biochar and the least 5 (Quarshie) on inoculated seed and control whiles least for Jenguma was on groundnut husk and rice husk biochar, inoculated seeds, rock phosphate and the control. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4.4. Number of Branches at flowering in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.5 Effect of Pelleting Material on Plant stem girth There was no significant interaction between variety and seeds pelleting treatments on stem girth from sowing to maturity. Treatment effect were also was not statistically significant in all the weeks after sowing. However, varietal effect on plant stem girth revealed significant differences 35 Number of branches University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh at week 5 after emergence though at week 4, 6, 7 and 8 there was no significant difference. Even though the effect on pelleting materials were not significant, groundnut husk biochar and calcium carbonate gave larger plant stem girth (6.65 mm and 6.62 mm) for Jenguma and Quarshie respectively than all the other pelleting materials at the 8 week after sowing. Plants with groundnut husk biochar as pelleting material had significantly bigger plant stem girth than pelleting with calcium carbonate. The minimum plant stem girth of 2.99 mm (calcium carbonate) was observed in Jenguma. Quarshie recorded a minimum of 3.01 mm (rice husk biochar) in the 4th week after sowing and emergence (Fig. 4.5). 36 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Treatments Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Quarshie 7 6 5 4 3 2 0 4 5 6 7 8 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Treatments Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 5. Plant girth in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 37 Plant girth (mm) Plant girth (mm) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.6 Effect of Pelleting Material on Number of leaves The number of leave produced per plant by the different pelleting treatments at 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th week after sowing were not significantly different. However significant differences were observed at 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th week after sowing between the varieties. The highest number of leaves 85.0 (Quarshie) and 73.0 (Jenguma) were produced by soybean plants grown with groundnut husk biochar and rice straw biochar respectively. It was observed that plants produced from pelleted seeds produced green leaves throughout the experiment. Quarshie produced higher number of leaves than the Jenguma throughout the experiment (Fig. 4.6). Interaction between variety and treatment (all the pelleted seeds) was not significant at all the weeks from weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7 after sowing. The number of leaves produced per plant ranged from18.0 to 85.0 for both varieties. The smallest leaf number 17.0 (Quarshie) and 14.0 (Jenguma) were produced by soybean plants grown with calcium carbonate and rock phosphate pelleting indicating that pelleting with biochar resulted in the plant producing higher number of leaves. 38 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Treatments Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Quarshie 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Calcium carbonate Groundnut husk biochar Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Treatments Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4.6. Number of leaves in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 39 Number of leaves Number of leaves University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.7 Effect of Pelleting Material on Leaf area (cm2) Leaf area of the different treatments on the two varieties (Fig. 4.7). Leaf area was not significantly affected by varieties of the soybeans and the treatments did not significantly affect the leaf area of the soybean. The interaction between the treatments and varieties was also not significant for leaf area. The leaf area ranged from 1026.6 to 2258.0 for Quarshie with control and rice husk biochar respectively. However for Jenguma it ranged from 1231 for control to 1909.0 for groundnut husk biochar. 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 7. Leaf area for two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.8 Effect of Pelleting Material on Number of nodules For nodule numbers there was no significant difference between the varieties and the interaction between the varieties and treatments was also not significant, however with the treatments there significant differences with groundnut husk biochar, producing the highest nodule number 40 Leaf area (cm2) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh followed by rice husk biochar. The inoculated seed performed better than saw dust biochar which also performed better than rice straw biochar, calcium carbonate, rock phosphate and control in that order (Fig. 4.8). 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 8. Nodule numbers in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.9 Effect of Pelleting Material on Nodule fresh weight (g) For nodule fresh weight was not significantly different between the varieties and the interaction between the varieties and treatments was not significant, however with the treatments there were significant differences with groundnut husk biochar producing the highest nodule fresh weight followed by the other treatments. Rock phosphate yielded higher nodule weight then the calcium carbonate and control (Fig. 4.9). 41 Nodule number University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 9. Nodule numbers in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.10 Effect of Pelleting Material on Nodule dry weight (g) Nodule dry weight was not significantly between the two varieties but treatments was significant. The interaction between the varieties and treatments was not significant. Rice husk biochar produced the highest nodule dry weight of 1.05 g per plant on Jenguma. Rice straw biochar produced nodule dry weight of 0.94 g on Jenguma and 0.91 g inoculation alone on the same variety and 0.91 g Groundnut husk biochar on Quashie. Saw dust biochar on Jenguma gave nodule dry weight of 0.9 g. Rock phosphate on Quashie gave a nodule weight of 0.84 g, Calcium Carbonate on Quashie produced 0.83 g of nodule dry weight but both Rock phosphate and Calcium Carbonate on Jenguma produced 0.64 g which was the least among the treatments. Control gave 0.14 g nodule dry weight with Quashie and 0.02 g with Jenguma (Fig. 4.10). 42 Nodule fresh weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 10. Nodule dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.11 Effect of Pelleting Material on Leaf dry weight Leaf dry weight showed no significant differences for either the variety or the treatments. The interaction between variety and treatments was also not significant. The maximum leaf dry weight of 6.8 (Quarshie) was produced by plants pelleted with rice husk biochar and 5.9 (Jenguma) for those pelleted with rice straw biochar were observed. The minimum of 3.5 (Jenguma) and 3.2 (Quarshie) were observed in the control (fig. 4.11). 43 Nodule dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 11. Leaf dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.12 Effect of Pelleting Material on Shoot dry weight There were no significant differences observed between the varieties and interaction between variety and treatments on shoot dry weight of the plants was not significant. The treatments were also not significantly different. The maximum of 6.1 (Quarshie and Jenguma) was obtained from plants pelleted with rice husk biochar and saw dust biochar respectively and the minimum of 3.4 (Quarshie and Jenguma) was obtained in the control plants (Fig. 4.12). 44 Leaf dry weight University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 12. Shoot dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.13 Effect of Pelleting Material on Root dry weight There were no significant differences observed between the two varieties and the interaction between variety and treatments on root dry weight of the plants was not significant. The treatments were also not significantly different. The maximum root dry weight of 11.9 (Quarshie) and11.1 (Jenguma) were from plants pelleted with calcium carbonate and rice straw biochar respectively, and the minimum of 6.1 (Quarshie) and 8.8 (Jenguma) from the control plants in (Fig. 4.13). 45 shoot dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control carbonate husk biochar seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 13. Root dry weight in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.14 Effect of Pelleting Material on Number of pods per plant Figure 8 shows the results from number of pods per plant. Treatments and interaction between treatment and variety were not significantly different however the difference between the two varieties was statistically significant (P < 0.05). The maximum pod number of 27.0 (Quarshie) and 15.0 (Jenguma) were produced by plants from seeds pelleted with groundnut husk biochar and rice straw biochar respectively while the minimum pod number of 2.0 (Quarshie and Jenguma) was produced by the controls (no pelleting) in (Fig. 4.14). 46 Root dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Calcium Groundnut Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control -5 carbonate husk seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 14. Number of pod per plant in two soybean cultivars (Jenguma and Quarshie) pelleted with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.1.15 Effect of Pelleting Material on Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium content of Plant Nitrogen (N) concentration ranged from 1.28% to 2.38% in the aboveground dry matter and these were not significantly different among treatments. The highest accumulated nitrogen content of 3.06% was observed in soybean plants with rice straw biochar as the pelleting material and the lowest content of 1.28% was observed in plants in the control (no pelleting). The aboveground dry matter of Jenguma showed an increase in accumulated N content irrespective of biochar amendments than in Quarshie. An increase in N% content observed in Quarshie variety was 2.10% when pelleted with Rock Phosphate Fertilizer and decreased to 2.00% when pelleted with Groundnut husk biochar. The lowest N% content observed in Quarshie was 1.39% which was higher than the lowest N% content observed in Jenguma of 1.28%. 47 Number of pods per plant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The amount of phosphorus accumulated in the aboveground dry matter of soybean plants were not significantly different among the different pelleting Materials. A high P of 0.59 was observed in the Jenguma when seeds were pelleted with rice straw biochar. The least P of 0.50 was observed in the control of Quarshie. Control plants of Quarshie accumulated higher P than plant from rice straw biochar and carbonate pelleting. Differences observed in % K accumulation in the two soybean varieties were not significantly different. Seed pelleted with Rice Straw Biochar produced soybean plants that accumulated more K in their aboveground dry matter on Quarshie (2.63) than Jenguma (2.01). The no pelleting (control) produced more K compared to the other treatments in expectation of rice straw biochar on Quarshie (Table 3). Table 3: Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium concentration in the two soybean varieties above ground dry matter with Calcium Carbonate, Rock Phosphate, Ground nut husk biochar, Rice husk biochar, Rice Straw biochar and Saw Dust biochar. Total N Total P Total K Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Calcium Carbonate 1.55 1.54 0.53 0.47 1.25 1.27 Groundnut husk 1.09 2.00 0.43 0.51 1.53 1.02 biochar Inoculated seed 1.51 1.87 0.51 0.53 1.16 1.72 Rice husk biochar 1.59 1.40 0.43 0.51 4.20 0.83 Rock phosphate 1.67 2.10 0.49 0.50 1.29 1.36 Rice straw biochar 2.38 1.44 0.59 0.49 2.01 2.63 Saw dust biochar 1.48 1.79 0.46 0.58 1.91 1.20 Control 1.28 1.39 0.51 0.50 1.25 1.42 Lsd (P>0.05) 0.58 0.58 NS NS NS NS 48 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2. Field experiment 4.2.1: Effect of Soil Amendments on Days to Emergence In the field experiment, there was no significant difference among the various treatments as well as the two cultivars of soybean. The days to emergence varied among soybean cultivars and the treatments as well. Days to emergence ranged from 4 to 5. Treatments such as inoculated alone, rice husk biochar and rock phosphate recorded 5 days to emergence in Quarshie. Both Jenguma and Quarshie grown in soils treated with rice straw biochar recorded 4 days to emergence. Quarshie in soil amended with saw dust biochar and the control recorded 4 days to emergence. It was observed that Jenguma treated with rock phosphate, rice straw biochar, rice husk biochar and inoculation alone recorded 4 days to emergence whereas saw dust biochar and the control recorded 5 days to emergence in Jenguma (Fig. 4.15). 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 15. Days to emergence in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 49 Days to emergence University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.2. Effect of Soil Amendments on Number of leaves The number of leaves under different soil amendments application were not significantly different. Interaction between variety and treatments was not significant and the two varieties were also not significantly different from each other. Jenguma with different soil amendments at week four, produced the number of leaves per plant of 44.0 which increased through the weeks to week 7 which recorded 132.0 For Quarshie, the number of leaves per plant produced was 64 on the fourth weeks with increasing numbers throughout the weeks and produced the highest leaf number at the 7th week after planting which was 190.0. Inoculation alone recorded the highest from week 4 to week 7 after planting. Soil amended with rock phosphate recorded the minimum leaf number for Quarshie and the control recorded the minimum for Jenguma (fig. 4.16). A Jenguma 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control B 50 Number of leaves per plant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Quarshie 200 150 100 50 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 16 . Number of leaves per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.2.3. Effect of Soil Amendments on Plant Height Soybean plant heights at 4, 5, 6 and 7 weeks recorded no significant (p>0.05) difference among the different soil amendments and the interaction between soil amendment and variety was also not significant. Plant height continued to increase for rice husk biochar, rock phosphate, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar at weeks 4, 5, 6 and 7 after planting in figure 4.17. The maximum plant height observed in the 7th week was for saw dust biochar on Jenguma and rice straw biochar on Quarshie was 71.1 cm. followed by rice husk biochar and rice straw biochar with 70.1 cm for Jenguma, for Quarshie saw dust biochar recorded 68.9 and 64.1 by rice husk biochar. The control recorded 67.2 cm in Jenguma which was the least plant height and inoculation alone recorded the least plant height of 55.1 cm for Quarshie in the 7th week after planting (Fig. 4.17). There was no significant difference (p>0.05) among the two soybean varieties. 51 Number of leaves per plant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 80 70 60 50 40 30 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Quarshie 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 17. Plant height in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 52 Plant height (cm) Plant height (cm) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.4. Effect of Soil Amendments on Days to Flowering Days to flowering among treatments and the cultivars recorded no significant differences. However, it was observed that for plants of Quarshie, addition of saw dust biochar, rice straw biochar, inoculation alone and the control took 39 days to flower whereas the same variety treated with Rock phosphate took 40 days to flower in table 4.3. The least number of days to flowering was recorded in Quarshie in soil amended with Rice husk biochar. On the other hand, Jenguma planted in soil amended with rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar recoded 39 days to flowering. This was followed by Jenguma planted in soil amended with rice husk biochar, rock phosphate and inoculation alone which all recorded 40 days to flowering. Control plants recorded 41 days to flowering (Table 4). Table 4: Days to flowering in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. Treatment Days to flowering Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated seed 40.0 39.0 Rice husk biochar 40.0 38.0 Rock phosphate 40.0 40.0 Rice straw biochar 39.0 39.0 Saw dust biochar 39.0 39.0 Control 41.0 39.0 LSD (P ≤ 0.05); Variety = 1.04 NS Treatment = 1.35 NS Treatment*Variety = 1.81 NS 53 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.5. Effect of Soil Amendments on Stem Girth Soil amendments on stem girth was not significant and interactions between the treatments and variety was also not significant. For Jenguma rock phosphate recorded the highest stem girth of 5.61 at the 4th week followed by inoculation alone (5.12) then rice straw biochar that recorded 5.10. The least recorded stem girth at the 4th week was the control which was 3.97. At the 5th week the stem girth increased through to the 7th week where rice straw biochar recorded the highest of 7.48, followed by inoculation alone was 7.07 and the least stem girth was recorded by the control was 6.16 (Fig. 4.18). The two varieties were not significantly (p>0.05) different from each other. For Quarshie inoculation alone recorded 6.07 as the highest stem girth at week 4 and saw dust biochar recorded the least of 4.91. this increased throughout the weeks to the 7th week where the control recorded the highest of 7.81, followed by 7.73 by inoculation alone, then rice husk biochar recorded 7.58, rice straw biochar recorded 7.22, rock phosphate recorded 7.21 and the least stem girth was 6.33 by saw dust biochar. 54 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh A Jenguma 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control B Quarshie 8 7.5 7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 18. Plant or stem girth in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 55 Stem girth (cm) Stem girth (cm) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.6. Effect of Soil Amendments on Number of Branches Results from the different soil amendment and the two cultivars showed no significant differences at p<0.05. However Jenguma in soil amended with saw dust biochar, rice straw biochar, inoculation alone, rice husk biochar, and control recorded the lowest (5) number of branches at flowering whereas Jenguma in soil amended with rock phosphate recorded 6 branches at flowering (Table 5). Quarshie in soil amended with rice husk biochar had the highest number of braches (7) at flowering. Treatments such as inoculation alone, addition of rock phosphate and rice straw biochar recorded the second highest (6) number of branches at flowering whereas the control and saw dust biochar addition recorded the lowest (5) number of branches at flowering. Table 5: Number of branches in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. Treatment Number of branches at flowering Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated seed 5.0 6.0 Rice husk biochar 5.0 7.0 Rock phosphate 6.0 6.0 Rice straw biochar 5.0 6.0 Saw dust biochar 5.0 5.0 Control 5.0 5.0 LSD (P ≤ 0.05); Variety = 0.42 Treatment = 1.06 NS Treatment*Variety = 1.38 NS 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.7. Effect of Soil Amendments on Leaf Area Results obtained from leaf area measurements indicated no significant differences (p<0.05) among treatments. However, inoculation alone on Jenguma recorded the highest leaf area of 1151 cm2 followed by rice husk biochar (986.0), saw dust biochar (915.0), rock phosphate (842.0) and rice straw biochar (780.0) Control recorded 952.0 which was higher than saw dust biochar, rock phosphate and rice straw treatments . On the other hand, Quarshie in soil amended with rice husk biochar recorded the highest leaf area of 1267.0, saw dust biochar recorded the second highest mean leaf area of 1119.0, rice straw biochar recorded 1087.0, inoculation alone recorded 877.0, rock phosphate recorded 873.0 and control recorded the least leaf area of 747.0 (Table: 6). Table 6: Leaf area in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. Treatment Leaf area Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated seed 1151.0 877.0 Rice husk biochar 989.0 1267.0 Rock phosphate 842.0 873.0 Rice straw biochar 780.0 1087.0 Saw dust biochar 915.0 1119.0 Control 952.0 747.0 LSD (P ≤ 0.05); Variety = 814.4 NS Treatment = 403.3 NS Treatment*Variety = 685.6 NS 57 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.8. Effect of Soil Amendments on Leaf Area Index There was no significant difference in the LAI for the two varieties. Jenguma had higher leaf area index which ranges from 2.60-3.84 and for Quarshie it ranged from 2.49 - 3.76. The LAI of inoculated soybean plants were significantly higher (P <0.05) than those grown with rice straw biochar and rock phosphate (Table 7). The interaction between varieties and treatments was not significant for leaf area index. Table 7: Leaf area index in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. Treatments Leaf area index Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated seed 3.84 3.38 Rice husk biochar 3.29 3.76 Rock phosphate 2.81 2.86 Rice straw biochar 2.60 3.11 Saw dust biochar 3.05 3.39 Control 3.17 2.49 LSD (P ≤ 0.05); Variety = 814.4 NS Treatment = 403.3 NS Treatment*Variety = 685.6 NS 4.2.9. Effect of Soil Amendments on Number of Nodules The interaction between variety and amendments was not significant. However, the difference among the treatments were highly significant in all the weeks. Jenguma treated with saw dust biochar produced 14 nodules at four week after planting, this increased to 63 in the 6th week and 58 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh decreased to 35 in the 7th week. Rice straw biochar recorded the highest nodule number of 17 at the 4th week after planting and this increased to 59 in 6th week of planting but decreased in the 7th week to 21. Control recorded the minimum nodule number of nodules from 4th week after planting to the 7th week after planting. On Quarshie plots treated rock phosphate fertilizer and rice husk biochar recorded the highest number of nodules of 18 at the 4th week after planting. At week 5 inoculation alone recorded the highest nodule number of 51 followed by saw dust biochar with nodule number of 49. At the 6th week saw dust biochar recorded the highest (98) number of nodules but this decreased in the 7th week to 44. Control recorded the minimum nodule number right from 4th week after planting to the 7th week after planting. There was no significant difference between the varieties (Fig. 4.19). 4.2.10. Effect of Soil Amendments on Nodule dry weight Nodule dry weight of the two soybean varieties under the different treatments were significantly different at 4, 5 6 and 7 weeks after planting, in figure 4.20. The different treatments were significant at 4th and 5th weeks. However, at 6 and 7th week after planting nodule dry weight of soybean plants under different treatments were significantly different from each other. The controls for the two varieties recorded the minimum nodule dry weight, Jenguma recorded minimum of 0.09 g and Quarshie recorded the minimum of 0.08. The nodule dry weight produced by soybean plants in soil amended with rock phosphate fertilizer recorded the maximum for the two cultivars of soybeans followed by saw dust biochar for Quarshie and inoculation alone for Jenguma. 59 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Quarshie 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 19. Nodule number on Jenguma and Quarshie variety in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 60 Nodule number Nodule number University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Jenguma 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control B Quarshie 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 20. Nodule dry weight (A&B) in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 61 Nodule dry weight (g) Nodule dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.11. Effect of Soil Amendments on Root Dry Weight No significant difference was observed at 4, 5, 6 and 7 WAP between varieties under the different treatments (Fig. 4.21). At 4, 5, 6 and 7 WAP soybean plants under the different treatments recorded no significant differences in root dry weight. Root dry weight ranged from 0.45 (Quarshie) with inoculation alone at 4WAP to 1.87 (Quarshie) with inoculation alone at 7WAP, Interaction between variety and treatments was not statistically significant. Jenguma 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control 62 Root dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh B Quarshie 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 21. Root dry weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.2.12. Effect of Soil Amendments on Shoot Dry Weight There was no significant difference observed in the shoot dry weight of soybean plants under the different soil amendments at 4th, 6th and 7th week after planting but at 5th week after planting, the different soil amendments had a significant effect on shoot dry weight (Fig. 4.22). The interaction was not significant. On average Quarshie produced higher shoot dry weight than Jenguma, but the maximum shoot dry weight recorded was 8.09 (Jenguma) with rock phosphate fertilizer at 4th week to 17.19 at 7th week after planting, and 5.28 for Quarshie at 4th week to 22.17 at 7th week after planting on inoculation alone. Rice straw biochar recorded the minimum shoot dry weight with Quarshie and the control recorded the minimum for Jenguma. 63 Root dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh A. Jenguma 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control B. Quarshie 24 20 16 12 8 4 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 22. Shoot dry weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 64 Shoot dry weight (g) Shoot dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.13. Effect of Soil Amendments on Total Dry Matter There was no significant difference between the two varieties for total dry weight. The interaction between variety and soil amendments was also not significant. Jenguma in soil amended with rock phosphate fertilizer recorded the highest total dry weight of 9.16 g at week 4 which increased to 18.86 g at 7th week after planting, followed by saw dust biochar which produced 4.93 g at week 4 and 14.06 at the 7th week after planting. Rice straw biochar produced the second highest dry weight of 16.99 g at 7th week after planting. For Quarshie inoculation alone recorded the highest total dry weight of 6.33 g at 4th week after planting which increased to 23.55 g at week 7. This was followed by rice husk biochar at 6.24, at the 4th week after planting to 21.14 at the 7th week. The minimum total dry weight recorded for Quarshie was 3.96 in soil amended with rice straw biochar at week 4 which increased to 18. 89 at week 7. Result in total dry mater weight indicated no significant difference between the treatments (Fig. 4.23). A Jenguma 20 15 10 5 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control 65 Total dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh B Quarshie 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 4 5 6 7 Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 23. Total dry matter in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.2.14. Effect of Soil Amendments on Pod number and pod weight per plant The results revealed that number of pods per plant for the two soybean varieties and the different treatments showed no significant difference (Fig. 4.24). The interaction between variety and soil amendments was also not significant. Mean values indicated that Quarshie produced the maximum number of pods per plant (108) in soil amended with rock phosphate fertilizer and the minimum was 60 produced by the control, with Jenguma. The soil amended with rock phosphate produced a maximum pod number of 71 while a minimum number of pods of 41 was produced under rice husk biochar. 66 Total dry weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Statistical analysis of weight per pod produced by soybean plants indicated that treatments were not significantly different from each other and the control. Quarshie produced a maximum pod weight of 32.5 g under rock phosphate fertilizer and a low pod weight of 22.7 g in the control. Jenguma produced the highest pod weight of 22.2 g under Rice straw Biochar and the lowest was 16.7 in the control. It was observed that the number of pods per plant did not correlate to the weight of the pods per plants (Fig. 4.25). 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 24. Number of Pods per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 67 Number of pods per plant University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 25. Pod weight per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.2.15. Effect of Soil Amendments on Number of seeds per pod and 100 seed weight per plant There were no significant differences observed in 100 seed weight produced by soybean plants under the different treatments (Fig. 4.26). The 100 seed weight per plant ranged from 11.2 to 13.3 g. for both varieties of soybean. 100 seed weight in Quarshie (12.1- 13.3) was higher than 100 seed weight for Jenguma (11.2 -13.2) 68 Pod weight per plant (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 26. 100 Seed weight in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 4.2.16. Effect of Soil Amendments on Seed weight per plant and Seed weight per plot Seed weight per plant was not significantly different among the different treatments. The maximum seed weight per plant (19.9 g) was recorded by soybean plants in soil amended with rock phosphate for Quarshie and 13. 7 g in soil amended with saw dust biochar for Jenguma. Whiles the minimum seed weight per plant of 12.5 g in Quarshie and 11.3 g in Jenguma were observed in the control. Interactions among varieties and treatments was not statistically significant (Fig. 4.27). There was no significant difference observed among the different treatments and between the varieties. The highest seed weight per plot of 887.0 g was recorded by soybean plant grown in soil amended with rock phosphate for Quarshie and 668.0 with inoculation only for Jenguma variety. The lowest seed weight per plot was 598.0 g in Quarshie and 512.0 g in Jenguma control and rice 69 100 seed weight (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh husk biochar, respectively. The interaction among variety and treatment was not significant, (Fig. 4.28) 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Jenguma Quarshie Treatments Figure 4. 27. Seed weight per plant in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Trratments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 28. Seed weight per plot in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 70 Seed weight per plant (g) Seed weight per plot (g) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.17. Effect of Soil Amendments on Seed yield (ton/ha) and Harvest index Seed yield of soybean varieties, estimated in ton per hectare, was not affected significantly by the different treatments. Plants with grown with rock phosphate addition had higher yield of 3.53 ton/ha in Quarshie. For Jenguma, the highest yield of 2.78 ton/ha was produced by inoculation alone. A minimum yield of 2.49 and 2.13 ton/ha was observed in the control and rice husk biochar treatment respectively. Interactions between varieties and the different biochar amendments was not significant. There were no significant differences observed in yield among the two varieties (Fig. 4.29). For harvest index no significant difference was observed between the two varieties and among all the treatments. Interaction between variety and treatments was also not significant. The highest harvest index recorded 0.439 on Jenguma and 0.421 on Quarshie were obtained from soils amended with saw dust biochar and rice husk biochar respectively, in figure 4.27 b. The minimum of 0.318 on Jenguma and 0.331 on Quarshie were both recorded under rice straw biochar, (Fig. 4.30) 71 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 29. Yield (tons / ha) of two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Inoculated Rice husk Rock Rice straw Saw dust Control seed biochar phosphate biochar biochar Treatments Jenguma Quarshie Figure 4. 30. Harvest index in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 72 Harvest index Yield (tons / ha) T r University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.18. Effect of Soil Amendments on Crop Growth Rate Crop growth rates at 7th week after planting were significantly different (P < 0.05) among the different treatments (Fig. 4.31). Weight of plants per unit area increased in inoculated seeds for the two varieties over the control of both varieties. For rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar rock phosphate and saw dust biochar the increase was observed at 5th week and started decreasing from the 6th to 7th week. The crop growth rate between the two varieties was not significant and the interactions between the treatments and variety was not significant for week 5, 6 and 7 after planting. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 5 6 7 5 6 7 Jenguma Quarshie Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 31. Crop Growth Rate in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 73 Crop growth rate University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.19. Effect of Soil Amendments on Relative Growth Rate Relative growth rate was not significantly different among the treatments in 5th, 6th and 7th weeks after planting, however there was a significant difference between the varieties at the 6th week. Interaction between treatments and variety were also not significant. Relative Growth ranged from 0.010 to 0.154 for the two varieties of soybean. Jenguma recorded a maximum of 0.112 on rice straw biochar which was followed by rice husk biochar with 0.104 all at the 5th week after planting. Relative Growth Rate decreased for all the treatments from week 6 to 7. The lowest relative growth rate occurred in the controls of the two varieties (Fig. 4.32). 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 5 6 7 5 6 7 Jenguma Quarshie Weeks after sowing Inoculated seed Rice husk biochar Rock phosphate Rice straw biochar Saw dust biochar Control Figure 4. 32. Relative Growth Rate in two soybean varieties (Jenguma and Quarshie) in soil amended with rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar and saw dust biochar. 74 Relative growth rate University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.20. Effect of Soil Amendments on Soil Nutrient content Soils were analyzed to evaluate the residual effects of the soil amendments on the physical and chemical properties of soils sampled from a depth of 0–15 cm. Generally, there were no statistically significant (p>0.05) effects of amendment materials on the average soil chemical and physical properties despite a slight shift towards soil acidity. For organic carbon the treatments were significantly different. Inoculated seed on Quarshie gave the highest value of 2.44 and the lowest was 0.64 with rice straw biochar. For Jenguma, inoculation only had 1.74 which was the highest but the lowest was the control which recorded 0.60, (Table 8). 4.2.21. Effect of Soil Amendments on Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium content in soybean plant Results from the analysis of nutrient uptake of soybean varieties under different biochar amendments (Table 9). The Nitrogen content of the soybean varieties under different biochar treatments were not significantly different. Nitrogen content was higher in the rice straw biochar treatment and lower in saw dust biochar treatment for Jenguma. On Quarshie rock phosphate recorded the highest nitrogen content and the minimum was the control. Phosphorus content in the soybean plants was significantly different among the treatments but was not significantly different between the varieties and the interactions between the treatments and the variety were also not significant. Phosphorus content in the different soil amendments was higher in rock phosphate addition and low in rice husk biochar on Jenguma. Saw dust biochar recorded the maximum Phosphorus content in Quarshie and rock phosphate was the minimum. 75 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 8. Residual Effect of soil amendment on Total N, Nitrogen %, Phosphorus %, Potassium %, Organic Carbon and pH Soil. Total Nitrogen Phosphorus (%) Potassium (%) Organic carbon pH (%) (%) Treatment Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated seed 0.103 0.099 25.3 23.1 0.020 0.019 1.74 2.44 5.50 5.40 Rice husk biochar 0.091 0.133 20.9 19.0 0.023 0.026 1.22 1.07 5.16 5.20 Rock phosphate 0.089 0.131 25.8 20.5 0.023 0.021 0.77 0.92 5.40 5.06 Rice straw biochar 0.089 0.107 27.8 24.1 0.024 0.022 1.03 0.64 5.16 5.36 Saw dust biochar 0.086 0.092 23.8 20.1 0.022 0.022 1.13 1.37 5.30 5.13 Control 0.093 0.120 23.6 21.3 0.023 0.020 0.60 1.31 5.20 5.03 Lsd(P>0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 78 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Potassium content in the soybean varieties under the different soil amendments did not indicate significant differences among the treatments, the interactions was also not significant and the differences between varieties was not significant. However the potassium content of the soybean in the different soil amendments was higher under rock phosphate for the two varieties. Inoculation alone recorded the minimum potassium content for Jenguma and rice husk biochar recorded on Quarshie also recorded the lowest. Table 9: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium content of soybean grown with soil amendments of rice husk biochar, rice straw biochar, saw dust biochar, rock phosphate and inoculation. Treatment Nitrogen Potassium Phosphorous Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Jenguma Quarshie Inoculated 0.269 0.288 0.610 0.519 0.247 0.377 seed Rice husk 0.330 0.383 0.526 0.538 0.331 0.220 biochar Rock 0.383 0.397 0.589 0.513 0.451 0.425 phosphate Rice straw 1.257 0.371 0.550 0.566 0.440 0.332 biochar Saw dust 0.260 0.371 0.554 0.584 0.299 0.440 biochar Control 0.317 0.281 0.635 0.622 0.453 0.214 Lsd(P>0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.22. Correlation coefficient r among variables The correlation coefficient (r) among variables are shown in Table 10 Root Dry Weight and Number of Pods per plant were positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.481, P < 0.001). 100 Seed Weight and Number of Pods per plant were positively correlated and highly significant (r = 0.471, P < 0.001), A significant association was found between Seed weight per Plant (Seed wtplt) and Crop Growth Rate (r = 0.52, P < 0.001), a moderately correlated association was found between Seed Weight per Plant and Nodule dry weight (r = 0.53, P < 0.001), Seed weight per Plant and Number of Pods per plant were moderate and positively correlated (r = 0.54, P < 0.001), Shoot Dry Weight (Shoot Dwt) moderately correlated with Crop Growth Rate (r = 0.53, P < 0.001), a moderate correlation was found between Shoot dry weight and Nodule dry weight (r = 0.57, P < 0.001), a positive and significant correlation was found between Shoot dry weight and Number of Pods per plant were (r = 0.61, P < 0.001), a strong positive and significant correlation between Shoot dry weight and Root Dry Weight (r = 0.72, P < 0.001), a high correlation was found between Shoot dry weight and Seed weight per plant (r = 0.67, P < 0.001) and this was significant. Total Dry Weight (Total Dwt) correlated positively and significantly with Crop Growth Rate (r = 0.60, P < 0.001), moderate and positive significant correlation was found between Total dry weight and Nodule dry weight (r = 0.57, P < 0.001), a high positive and significant correlation was found between Total dry weight and Number of Pods per plant (r = 0.73, P < 0.001), Total dry weight correlated with Root Dry Weight positively and significantly (r = 0.70, P < 0.001), Total dry weight and Seed weight per plant were positively and significantly correlated (r = 0.71, P < 0.001), Total dry weight strongly correlated with shoot dry weight and was significant (r = 0.88, P < 0.001). 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 10. Correlation coefficient r among variables LAI 0.038 ns Larea 0.038 ns 1** Noddwt 0.164 ns 0.337 * 0.337 * Npodplt 0.245 ns -0.088 ns -0.088 ns 0.385 * RGR 0.409 * 0.075 ns 0.075 ns 0.021 ns -0.234 ns RootDwt 0.351 * -0.176 ns -0.176 ns 0.211 ns 0.481 ** 0.078 ns Seedsperpod 0.182 ns 0.175 ns 0.175 ns 0.325 ns -0.242 ns 0.085 ns -0.195 ns Seedwt100 0.038 ns -0.138 ns -0.138 ns 0.222 ns 0.471 ** -0.034 ns 0.217 ns -0.298 ns Seedwtplt 0.522 ** 0.169 ns 0.169 ns 0.528 ** 0.538 ** -0.142 ns 0.399 * 0.172 ns 0.239 ns ShootDwt 0.525 ** -0.023 ns -0.023 ns 0.572 ** 0.614 ** 0.100 ns 0.718 ** 0.073 ns 0.239 ns 0.670 ** TotalDwt 0.598 ** 0.060 ns 0.060 ns 0.571 ** 0.728 ** 0.048 ns 0.703 ** 0.079 ns 0.247 ns 0.709 ** 0.880 ** Seedsper 100 Seedwt Shoot CGR LAI Larea Noddwt Npodplt RGR RootDwt pod Seedwt plt Dwt * - Significant at 5% ** - significant at 1% ns - not significant 82 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Effect of biochar on soil characteristics Good soil conditions is an essential requirement for the growth and development of plants. Physicochemical properties of the soil such as minerals, water, soil organic matter, and air enhance good stands of the plants and promote nutrient assimilation of the root hairs of the plants (Chen, 2006). The determination of nutrient composition of pelleting materials, soil amendments and the soil informs the amount of nutrients limiting therein. Knowledge of the composition of biochar is key in nutrient efficient management because over application of biochar as pelleting materials or soil amendments may be detrimental to plant health hence it will result in low yields. Soil bulk density shows the status of soil compatibility and health (Azooz and Arshad, 1996; USDA-NRCS, 2014). Soil bulk density influences rooting depth or restrictions, infiltration, soil porosity, plant nutrient availability, soil microorganism activity and available of water capacity of the soil productivity and processes (USDA-NRCS, 2014). Soil pH plays an important role in plant growth and development because it indicates availability of nutrient in the soil. Soil pH is an important indication of N nutrient in leguminous plants because it influences the survivability of rhizobia which fix N nutrient (McKenzie, 2003). The initial soil pH in the study area was 4.9. Research was conducted in Ghana to determine the response of three soybean varieties to soil amendment using biochar reported that the pH in the soil was 4.9 (Agbanu, 2017). Research also showed that the pH of soil types like Acrisol (Toje series) were found to be 4.9 (Lawson and Nartey, 2012; Mutala, 2012). It has been proven that soil pH influences number of chemical properties in the soil hence to achieve optimum yield of soybean, there is the need to maintain the soil pH (Purcell et al., 2014). It was observed in this 83 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh study that there was an increment in pH from different soil amendments. This could have contributed to increase in yield. Soybean cultivated under pH between 6.0 to 6.8 was observed to record the best yield (Mallarino et al., 2011). Inoculation alone on Jenguma recorded the highest pH of 5.50 which was consistent with the findings of Zolue (2013). Application of rice straw biochar was observed to increase soil pH which positively increased the yield of Quarshie variety. Sika (2012) and Uddin and Phuong (2013) stated that RSB and RHB could be used as liming agent to improve soil acidic conditions due to its alkalinity which but this was not the case in this present study. The amendment effect of soil pH by rice straw biochar compared to rice husk biochar is presumed to better produce immobilized phosphorus and other exchangeable soil nutrients obtainable to the crop (Agbanu, 2017). Low yield of the control could be attributed to the fact that low soil pH inhibited the growth and multiplication of rhizobium strain which helps in nodulation. Research has also indicated that most soil microbes thrive well at a soil of pH 5.5 (Zenni, 2017). These soil microbes enhance soil aeration which returns improved soil profile and soil structure hence increase in yield of soybean. Organic carbon is an essential chemical properties of soil as it is one of the vital barometers of the health of the soil (Lefèvre, 2017). Organic carbon enhances the stability of soil retention, structure and contributing to the availability of plant nutrients and conservation of water-holding capacity. It plays a key role in environmental resilience and agricultural productivity. The breaking down of organic carbon make mineral nutrients available which improve plant growth and development (Van der Wal and de Boer, 2017). In this current study, organic carbon ranged from 0.4-2.44% which is in the range of those reported by Griffin (2018). Inoculation alone on Quarshie variety recorded the highest (2.44) organic carbon which was likely to increase the yield of this cultivar because soil microbes were probably in abundance which make nutrient available for uptake by 84 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh plant roots. Higher soil microbial population implies that soil conditions were in perfect state hence the higher fertility. Continual improvement of soil organic carbon may result in stable soil structure by breaking down complex soil compositions into smaller units for plant use (Lefèvre, 2017). Mukherjee et al. (2014) reported 7% increment of soil organic carbon by applying biochar. After characterizing different biochar types, Glaser et al. (2002); Luo et al. (2011) and Uddin and Puong (2013) observed an improvement in carbon content of soils amended with biochar and charcoal. The potassium present in the amended soil ranged from 0.019-0026% for both soybean varieties and recorded no significant difference among the different biochar materials. This observation could be due to the fact that potassium is not dependent on the different soil amendments or pelleting materials. In this study, it was observed that initial determination of the amount of potassium in biochar was higher in the different biochars as compared to the final treatment. This could be attributed to heavily weathered soil due to soil erosion at the study area. The percentage increase in potassium was due to the fact that all the biochar used have some amount of K present in them. Research conducted in the same type of soil on compost and nitrogen fertilizer on growth and yield and residual effects on cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) in a rotation indicated that the soil had 0.28 K (Djawu, 2018). An increase in the leaching of K in biochar observed in topsoil (Major et al., 2012; Lehmann et al., 2003). Sandy soil was found to have higher concentration rate of K and Na leaching in biochar (Novak et al., 2009). Study (Hamed et al., 2017) reported the P of biochar was 23.0 % and were highly significant in terms of the yield of soybean. In this current study, Jenguma treated with rice straw biochar recorded the highest P value as was observed by Hamed et al. (2017) however there was no significant differences among the soil amendments or pelleting materials as well as the soybean varieties. The larger amount of the P in rice straw biochar 85 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh gave an indication that rice straw has potential properties to support plant growth and development. It has been reported that P plays a major role in plant development through rapid division of cells (Tajer, 2016). Nitrogen rate of 8%observed during the initial stage of biochar was higher compared to after treatments were applied. There were relatively lower N in the biochar after treatments which was also reported after treatment with rice husk and rice straw biochar reported by (Agbanu, 2017) which may be attributed to volatilization during the charring process. 5.2 Effect of pelleting materials on vegetative and yield parameters of soybean in pot experiment From the pot experiment it was observed that all the treatments with pelleting materials reduced the number of days to emergence for the two varieties of soybean. There was a significant difference between the two varieties in number of days to emergence. Quarshie treated with pelleting materials such as groundnut husk biochar, inoculation alone and the control took four days to emergence whiles Jenguma treated with rock phosphate took 6 days to emergence. The leaser number of days to emergence observed in Quarshie seed could due to the fact that, biochar created optimum soil conditions for the development of root growth prior to seedling emergence. Biochar has greater amount of phosphorus which could have induced early rooting that promoted seedling emergence of the cultivars in soils treated with 2% rice straw biochar (Agusalim Masulili 2010 cited in Bhattarai et al., 2015). Quarshie cultivar was reported to record higher germination percentage as compared to Jenguma (Awuni et al., 2014) and this agrees with the results of this study. Topsoil bulk density, soil water content and ammonium nitrogen are known to influence soybean growth (Wang et al., 2016). Ammonium nitrogen could be held on to soil colloids in the 86 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh soil which are available for exchange and dissolves faster in soil solution. This is directly absorbed by plant which increases the growth parameters of the plant (Jin X et al., 2007). Number of days to flowering was between 39 and 47 from sowing. Quarshie treated with calcium carbonate flowered earlier than Jenguma cultivar which could be attributed to the fact that Quarshie germinated earlier than Jenguma cultivar and no significant difference was recorded in the pot experiment. There were significant differences among the various treatments for number of days to flowering. The number of branches at flowering was observed to be higher in Quarshie treated with groundnut husk biochar. This may due to groundnut husk biochar been able to provide sufficient nutrients available for node development which aided in branch formation. Quarshie treated with rice husk biochar recorded the greatest leaf area which translated into higher yield. Higher leaf area could have positive influences on yield due to higher surface areas for absorption of sunlight (photosynthesis) hence higher yield. Plant height is a significant morphological parameter that shows straight association with grain yield (Rathod and Jadhao, 2006). Plant height observed at different growth stages was influenced by seed pelleting materials and soil amendments used in this study. Different treatments were able to increase plant height from the fourth week to the eight week after sowing. Higher lateral root formation in biochar treatments could be because of development of early primary rooting in biochar amended soil. This is due to the fact that biochar has high amount of P nutrient which could have permitted greater nutrient uptake leading to faster growth. This tendency was also observed in the leaf number produced by the plants. Higher number of leaves could be as result of increased in photosynthesis with higher biomass production by plants arising from seeds treated with pelleting materials as compared to un-inoculated and inoculated seeds without pelleting. 87 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Quarshie treated with groundnut husk biochar recorded the highest nodule number because groundnut husk biochar promoted the growth of bacterial inoculant which resulted in higher nodule number. These bacteria also increased the rate of atmospheric nitrogen conversion into nitrate which is required by plant growth and development. The maximum root dry weight (11.9 g) was observed in Quarshie treated with calcium carbonate. This was as the outcome of the fact that calcium carbonate enhances root formation. These roots helps in absorption of nutrients and water from larger surface area during adverse soil conditions. The high carbon to nitrogen ratio of the rice husk biochar may have contributed to nutrient immobilization (Sika, 2012). Calcium carbonate plays a pivotal in supply of organic matter which aid in weathering of minerals and rocks (Hansell et al., 2014). 5.3 Effect of nutrient uptake on vegetative and crop growth in field experiment There were no significant difference in number of days to seedling emergence though it was expected that the reduction in bulk density of the soil by the addition of rice husk biochar should have increased emergence rate as observed by (Chauhan, 2013; Agbanu, 2017). Emergence of soybeans was initiated after seeds had imbibed water up to 50% of the weight of the seed (McWilliams et al., 2009). Hence soil type and soil water content positively affect the rate of emergence of any seed (Chauhan et al., 2013). Water content of the soil influences emergence of seedlings more than soil bulk density (Nivedita, 1992). In this current study, the differences in the number of days to emergence could be attributed to different levels of viability among the varieties as well as the pelleting materials and soil amendments. Other researchers also reported that soybean seeds of Quarshie, Jenguma and Afayak have inherent differences in number of days to emergence (Awuni et al., 2014). 88 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Leaf number has direct relationship on the leaf area as well as photosynthesis which influences the yield of soybean. Leaf number increases the rate of photosynthesis in the plant hence the higher, the leaf area the higher the amount of photosynthates produced by the plants. Leaf number and area also affect the yield potential of soybean plant. There was no significant differences among the treatment in the number of leaves per plant in the two soybean cultivars. It was observed that inoculation alone on Qurashie variety recorded the highest number of leaf per plant (190) and rock phosphate treated with Jenguma also obtained the highest number of leaves per plant. However, different results were reported by (Agbanu, 2017) where it was reported that rice husk biochar recorded the highest number of leaves. Increase in the number of leaves could lead to a reduction in the leaf area of the individual leaf but positively increase leaf area. In all the biochar treatments there was an increase in the number of leaf area per plant probably due to higher nitrogen present in the biochar materials. Among the necessary elements of photosynthesis, chlorophyll is the only plant dependent component that is affected by the number of leaves and leaf area of the crop (Bonan, 2015). The greater the chlorophyll the greater the photosynthetic rate and therefore the greater plant growth and yield. Findings by Adejumo et al. (2016) reported an increase in chlorophyll content in plants cultivated on biochar as compared to the control or unamended treatment. There were significant differences in stem girth between the two cultivars of soybeans but no significant differences were observed among the different treatments with soil amendments. Previous study stated that there were significant differences in the stem girth of soybean varieties cultivated in soil treated with rice straw biochar than in soil treated with rice husk biochar (Agbanu, 2017). It was also observed in this present study that rice straw biochar recorded the largest stem girth (7.22) in Quarshie cultivar at eight weeks after planting. This differences could be attributed 89 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh to the release of higher amount of nutrients from rice straw biochar and therefore a higher uptake and accumulation of N, P, K, and S by plants raised on rice straw biochar amended soils. The availability of nitrogen and uptake by soybean plants cultivated on biochar amended soils stimulated plant growth thereby enhancing stem growth. This was also observed in similar work by other researchers (Agboola and Moses, 2015; Yooyen et al., 2015). Plant height is very important in interception of light for photosynthesis for the growth and development plants. Application of biochar increased plant height tremendously but there were no significant differences among the treatments. Jenguma treated with Saw dust biochar recorded the highest plant height at 7th week after planting and but a higher plant height was obtained in the rice straw biochar treated Quarshie from the 4th week through to the 7th week. Similar results have been reported by other researchers where there was increase in plant height of rice and maize plant due to amendments using rice straw biochar (Uzoma et al., 2011); Mutezo, 2013) and Kamara et al., 2015). The growth in early developmental stages was observed to be slow due to the growth habit of the plant (Malek et al., 2012) and biochar does not have immediate effect on the soil after its application because it requires time for decomposition and mineralization. Biochar has the ability to attract and hold soil nutrients on its surface hence making immobilized soil nutrients available and improving soil nutrition for plants (Yarrow, 2014). The faster root growth of soybean on soil treated with biochar could be due to high phosphorus translated into higher nutrient uptake by the plant that may have resulted into the rapid growth and development in this present study. The differences obtained in plant height may be because of varietal differences (Awuni et al., 2014). Good pelleting materials and soil amendments enhances desirable plant population with good stand establishment (Miller and Scoot, 1967). 90 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh There were no differences between the two varieties and among the different soil amendments used in the number of pods per plant and pod weight per plant. However, Quarshie treated rock phosphate obtained the greatest number of pods per plant (108) whereas the control or unamended recorded the lowest number of pods (60) per plant. Jenguma treated with saw dust biochar on the other hand recorded the highest number of pods per plant. Newly approaches consisting of postharvest techniques and recent seed production tools that focuses on producing higher seed yield and quality (Devi, 2013). The various post-harvest methods includes seed priming, seed halogenations, seed treatment, seed hardening and seed cleaning. Seed pelleting method has been used in many horticultural crops and agricultural, to efficiently obtain higher seed yield and quality (Devi, 2013). The higher number of pods per plant and pod weight per plant could be attributed to the fact the rock phosphate provide suitable soil conditions for optimum yield of soybean. Seed weight is very important in the marketability of seed producers because seeds are marketed based on the weight and viability. Seed weight per plant was found to be significantly different among the soil amendments and the soybean cultivars. Quarshie treated with rock phosphate recorded the highest seed weight (887 g) per plot whiles the control obtained the lowest. Similar observation was made in the number of pods per plant. This result is consistent with previous findings by (Agbanu, 2017). Capton which is the active ingredient in Bonide and Imidacloprid which can be found in products like Admire, Condifor, Gaucho, Premier, Premise, Provado, and Marathon used as biochar agent could have offered some level of protection against soil borne pathogens, seed and insects resulting in the rapid growth of plant, which leads to early reproduction phase (Manjunath et al., 2009). Seeds per pod ranged between 2 to 3 with no significant differences among the treatments. Hundred (100) seed weight was greater in rock phosphate treated plant but with no significant differences among the treatments and the two cultivars of soybeans. Rock 91 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh phosphate fertilizers have a greater calcium content between 24-33 %. This makes rock phosphate essential in increasing soil pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) resulting in yield increases of oil palm (Zin et al., 2005). Harvest index is used for quantification of the yield of crop species and the total weight of biomass produced (Meena et al., 2016). There were no significant differences among different treatments and between the soybean cultivars for harvest index although Quarshie treated with rice husk biochar recorded the highest harvest index. The yield is the most essential determinant factor of biochar materials because the core aim is to improve on potential yield. In this study, there were no significant differences among treatments as well as soybean varieties. However Quarshie treated with rock phosphate obtained the greatest yield (3.69 ton/ha) whiles control treatment was observed to record the least yield. It was reported that rock phosphate produced the highest yield per plant than the control in acid soil (Iswaran et al., 1970). Coated seeds using aldicarb and activated with Rhizobium inoculation was reported to increase yield to 840 kg per ha as compared to the control treatment of 450 kg (Iswaran, 1975). Cotton seeds treated with butyric acid enhanced growth and increased germination (Umarov et al., 1981). In the present work, it could be concluded that initial capital food reserves always showed higher and rapid germination in seed. This has also been reported by Balaji, (1990); Supreethaangadi, (2004) in soybean and Masuthi (2005) in cowpea. Nodulation in leguminous crop is very important in production especially soybean. Nitrogen fixing bacteria play core roles in fixation of atmospheric nitrogen by converting it into readily available form for plant usage. It has been reported that leguminous plants fixes approximately 50% of their own nitrogenous nutrient (Ruiz Diaz et al., 2009). It was observed in this study that, all pelleting 92 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh materials and soil amendments offered some level of increase in the amount of nodule dry weight as well as nodule number, four weeks after planting. There were no significant differences in both nodule dry weight and nodule number four weeks after treatment application for the different treatments and the soybean cultivars. It was also observed that rock phosphate applied to Quarshie recorded the highest number of nodule and nodule dry weight. With the result obtained, it could be said that rock phosphate created good soil conditions for microbes such as bacteria for the fixation of nitrogen which is required by the plant for food formation. The application of nitrogen fertilizer and compost influenced root dry weight and shoot dry weight with strong interaction effect on the shoot dry weight (Djawu, 2018). The increment in root dry weight and shoot dry weight could be attributed to the fact that fertility of soil improved and nutrients were available for cowpea roots to absorb leading to growth and seed production (Djawu, 2018). Impregnated soybean seeds with Bradyrhizobia bacteria enhance the nodulation of three soybean varieties (Agbanu, 2017). The increase in nodule number in this study could be explained due to positive effect of biochar on nodulation in soybean as a result of phosphorus availability. In another study it was observed that there was a greater increase in nodulation in clover and common beans in soil amended with biochar (Rondon et al., 2007; Lehmamn et al., 2011 and Biederman and Harpole, 2013). Findings by Kumaga and Ofori (2004) and Devi et al. (2012) suggested that nodule number increased as a result of availability of phosphorus from applied fertilizer. There was greater nodulation in cowpea when phosphorus fertilizer was applied and it improved efficiency of rhizobium -legume symbiosis (Agboola and Obigbesan, 1977; Mokwunye and Bationo, 2002). 93 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Root dry weight (g) and shoot dry weight were not significantly different among treatments and different varieties of soybean. There was increment in Jenguma treated with rock phosphate from the 4th week throughout the 7th week of application of treatment. In both cultivar and treatments Quarshie treated with inoculant recoded the highest root dry weight. The highest root dry weight observed in inoculated Quarshie seed could have enabled the plants, it was able to exploit large soil surface to mobilize more nutrients. Large root system is able to maintain water holding capacity and water uptake of plants in adverse drought conditions. Root density may be used as criteria for selection for improvement of drought tolerance in peanut (Songsri et al., 2008). Increase in root dry weight could also be attributed to the fact that biochar materials provide the needed soil conditions which resulted in higher yield returns. Total dry weight recorded no significant between the two varieties and among the different pelleting materials used as biochar. In Jenguma, rock phosphate fertilizer resulted in increase in dry weight from fourth to seventh week, whiles control was the least amongst all the treatment. Conversely, inoculated Quarshie plant recorded the highest total dry weight. Leaf area and leaf area index were not significant by different among the treatment as well between Jenguma and Quarshie. However, Jenguma treated with rice husk biochar was observed to produce the greatest leaf area and same for leaf area index. Quarshie treated with rice husk biochar also obtained the highest total dry weight of the plant and the control recorded the lowest leaf area index. The distribution and progressive integration of all plant processes affects the total dry matter production of a crop (Board and Kahlon, 2011). The most influencing factors of growth parameters of total dry weight accumulation comprises of Crop Growth Rate (CGR), Leaf Area Index (LAI), and Net Assimilation Rates (NAR) (Asner et al., 2003; Malek et al., 2012). In this current study 94 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh it was observed that rice husk biochar increased leaf area and leaf area index but was not significant. 5.4 Correlation among growth and yield variables Crop growth rate was found to be moderately positively correlated and significantly with Seed weight per plant, shoot dry weight and Total dry weight, Crop growth rate was also found to be positively correlated and significantly with Relative Growth Rate and Root dry weight. Crop growth rate was also found to be positively correlated with Leaf area index and Leaf area but this was not significant, but on the contrary Malek et al. (2012) reported that LA, and LAI had a strong relationship with the growth rate of soybean which affect total dry matter (TDM) eventually. Nodule dry weight was highly correlated positively and significantly with Total dry weight and Shoot dry weight, it was found to be moderately correlated positively and significantly with seed dry weight per plant and to the Root dry weight and 100 seed weight where the correlation was positive and significant. Marschner et al. (1995) found a close relationship between nodule number (NN) and nodule dry weight (NDW) which is manifested in the amount of nitrogen fixed. The amount of Nitrogen fixed due to increased number of nodules was likely used by the plant for increased vegetative growth resulting in increased LA and LAI. 95 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER SIX 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Conclusions It is concluded from the study that seed pelleting and addition of soil amendments using biochar, calcium carbonate and rock phosphate improved the growth nodulation and yield of the two soybean cultivars. For the pot experiments seed emergence of both varieties of soybean were significantly enhanced by inoculation and pelleting compared to the uninoculated. Groundnut husk significantly increase number of nodules and nodule fresh weight. However, rice husk biochar recorded the highest nodule dry weight followed rice straw biochar, saw dust biochar, inoculation alone, groundnut husk biochar, calcium carbonate and rock phosphate in that order. Both varieties of soybean responded more favorably to groundnut husk biochar as reflected in CGR, LAI, RGR, total dry matter accumulation and yield despite not been significantly different from the other treatments. For the field experiment the highest nodule number was recorded under saw dust biochar amendments followed by rock phosphate, rice husk biochar, inoculation alone and rice straw biochar in that order. Here nodule dry weight was highest under saw dust biochar and rock phosphate compare to the other soil amendments for both varieties of soybean. 96 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6.2. Recommendations There is a need to repeat the experiment at other locations and also use different rates of the pelleting materials and soil amendments to ascertain the appropriate rate worthy for production of soybean. Further studies should include investigation on the response of the two soybean varieties to groundnut husk biochar, saw dust biochar and rice husk biochar as soil amendments. Wider promotion of the use of soybean cultivar Quarshie to farmers will enhance soybean productivity in Ghana as it was observed to have out-performed Jenguma in this study. 97 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7.0 REFERENCES Acquaah, G. (2007). Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding: Second Edition. Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding: Second Edition. http://doi.org/10.1002/9781118313718 Adejumo, S. A., Owolabi, M. O., and Odesola, I. F. (2016). Agro-physiologic effects of compost and biochar produced at different temperatures on growth, photosynthetic pigment and micronutrients uptake of maize crop. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 11(8), 661- 673. Agbanu, A. S. (2017). Response of Three Soybean [Glycline max (L.) Merrill] Varieties to Soil Amendment Using Biochar, MPhil Thesis, Department of Crop Science, University of Ghana Legon, pp Agboola, A. A., and Obigbesan, G. H. (1977). Effect of different sources of levels of P on the performance of P uptake of Ife-Brown variety of cowpea. Ghana journal of agricultural science. Agboola, K., and Moses, S. A. (2015). Effect of biochar and cowdung on nodulation, growth and yield of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences, 4(4), 154-160. Agwe, J., Morris, M., and Fernabdes, E. (2007). Africa’s Growing Soil Fertility Crisis: What Role for Fertilizer? 1 - 3. Albareda, M., Rodríguez-Navarro, D. N., and Temprano, F. J. (2009). Soybean inoculation: Dose, N fertilizer supplementation and rhizobia persistence in soil. Field crops research, 113(3), 352-356. Amonette, J. E. and Joseph, S. (2009). Characteristics of Biochar for Environmental Management Science and Technology. Earthscan, London. Corn Silage Nutrient concerntration and uptake. Journal of Environmental Quality. 98 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appiah-Kubi, D. (2012). Diversity studies in soybean (Glycine max (L.) merrill) and validation of shattering resistant markers for marker assisted selection (Doctoral thesis). 5 - 6. Arnold, J. R. and Libby W. F. 1951. Radiocarbon dates. Science 113:111-20 Asafo-Adjei, B., and Singh, B. B. (2005). Registration of' Bengpla' cowpea. Crop science, 45(6), 2649-2651. Asamoah A. G., (2009) Evaluation of Soybean Genotypes for Nodulation. Legon- Accra, Ghana. Asner, G. P., Scurlock, J. M., and A. Hicke, J. (2003). Global synthesis of leaf area index observations: implications for ecological and remote sensing studies. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 12(3), 191-205. Awuni, A. G., and Reynolds, B. D. (2014). S.M.A.R.T Farm OVERVIEW, (November). Azooz, R. H., and Arshad, M. A. (1996). Soil infiltration and hydraulic conductivity under long- term no-tillage and conventional tillage systems. Canadian journal of soil science, 76(2), 143-152. Balaji, D. S. (1990). Studies on the seed soil relationship in certain paddy, greengram, soyabean, red gram, sunflower, groundnut and cotton. M.Sc., (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore. Beurerlein J. (2004). Ohio soybean inoculation study. http//www.agcrops.osu.edu/research Bhattarai, B., Neupane, J., and Dhakal, S. P. (2015). Effect of biochar from different origin on physio-chemical properties of soil and yield of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) at Paklihawa, Rupandehi, Nepal. World Journal of Agricultural Research, 3, 129-138. Biederma, L. A, and Harpole, W. S. (2013). Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: a meta‐analysis. GCB Bioenergy; 5(2): 202-14. doi:10.1111/gcbb.12037. Board, J. E., and Kahlon, C. S. (2011). Soybean yield formation: what controls it and how it can 99 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh be improved. Soybean physiology and biochemistry, 1-36. Bonan, G. (2015). Leaves and Plants. Ecological climatology: concepts and applications. Cambridge University Press.293 -311. Brick, S., and Lyutse, S. (2010). Biochar: Assessing the promise and risks to guide US policy. Natural Resources Defense Council: NRDC Issue Paper. Chan, K. Y. and Xu, Z. (2009). Biochar: Nutrient Properties and Their Enhancement. In: Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology (Eds. Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S), Earthscan. Chauhan, B. S., and Abugho, S. B. (2013). Effects of water regime, nitrogen fertilization, and rice plant density on growth and reproduction of lowland weed Echinochloa crus-galli. Crop Protection, 54, 142-147. Chemining'wa, G. N., Muthomi, J. W., and Nderitu, J. H. (2009). Effect of rhizobia inoculation, farm yard manure and nitrogen fertilizer on nodulation and yield of food grain legumes. Journal of biological Sciences, 9(4), 326-332. Chen, J. H. (2006). The combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers and/or biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. In International workshop on sustained management of the soil-rhizosphere system for efficient crop production and fertilizer use (Vol. 16, p. 20). Land Development Department Bangkok Thailand. Chunha, T. J. F., Madari, B. E., Canellas, L. P., Ribeiro, L., de Melo, B. V., de Arauja, S. G. (2009). Soil organic matter fertility of the anthropogenic dark earth (Terra Preta de Indo) in Brazilian Amazon basin. Revistas Brasileira de Ciencia desolo 2009; 33:85-93pp. Conley, S. and Christmas E. (2006) Utilizing inoculants in a corn–soybean rotation. Purdue Extension Publications Bulletin. SPS100-W. Purdue University., West Lafayette, IN 100 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Copeland, L. O., and McDonald, M. F. (2012). Principles of seed science and technology. Springer Science and Business Media. Crawford, G. W., and Lee, G. A. (2003). Agricultural origins in the Korean Peninsula. Antiquity, 77(295), 87-95. CSIR-SARI. (2017). CSIR crop varieties released and registered in Ghana, (Cmv), 12–15. Darko, E. (2013). Agronomic Evaluation of Paddy rice Under Biochar Amended Calciustert in the Coastal Savannah Zone of Ghana. MPhil Thesis, Department of Soil Science, University of Ghana Legon. Davis, R. (2007).Biochar/Agri-char /Terra Preta: Its Potential use for carbon sequestration, improve soil fertility and sustainable (carbon-negative) energy production and poverty reduction. De Gryze, S., Cullen, M., Durschinger, L., Lehmann, J., Bluhm, D. and Six, J. (2010). Evaluati0on of opportunities for generating carbon offsets from soil sequestration of biochar. In: An issues paper commissioned by Climate Action Reserve, final version, April; http://www.terraglobalcapital.com/ press/Soil Sequestration Biochar Issue Paper1. pdf Devi, K. N., Singh, L. N. K., Devi, T. S., Devi, H. N., Singh, T. B., Singh, K. K., and Singh, W. M. (2012). Response of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] to sources and levels of phosphorus. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(6), 44. Devi, C. K., (2013). Studies on the Influence of Seed Pelleting on Crop Performance, Seed Yield And Quality in French bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). Department Of Seed Science and Technology University of Agricultural Sciences Bangalore. Cv. Arka Anoop‟ Pal 0251 Djawu, B. P. (2017). Compost and Nitrogen Fertilizer on Maize (Zea Mays L) Growth and Yield and Residual Effects on Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp) In a Rotation (Doctoral 101 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh thesis, University of Ghana). Dogra, A. K., Jagmeet, K., Gill, B. S., and Jasdeep, K. (2014). Comparative performance of different maturity groups of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) genotypes under Punjab conditions. Horticultural of Floral Research Spectrum, 3(1), 56-60. Egamberdiyeva, D., Wirth, S., Behrendt, U., Abd Allah, E. F. and Berg, G. (2016). Biochar treatment resulted in a combined effect on soybean growth promotion and a shift in plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Frontiers in microbiology, 7, 209. Fageria, N. K. and Baligar, V. C. 2005. Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy, 88, 97-185. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), (2005).Fertilizer use by crop in Ghana. http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/a0013e/a00e00.htm (retrieved June, 2019). FAO. (2005). Fertilizer use by crop in Ghana. Tropical Agriculture, 47. FAOSTAT (2019).www.fAO.org/FAOSTAT/english/#data/refrence Ferguson, B., Lin, M. H., and Gresshoff, P. M. (2013). Regulation of Legume nodulation by acidic growth conditions. Plant signaling and behavior, 8(3), e 23426.1-3. Friedl, A., Padouvas, E., Rotter, h., Varmuza, K. 2005. Prediction of heating values of biomass fuel from elemental composition. Analytica Chimica Acta 544, 191-198. Gaskin, J. W., Speir, A., Morris, L. M., Ogden, L., Harris, K. and Lee, D. (2007). Potential for pyrolysis char to affect soil moisture and nutrient status of loamy sand soil. In: Proceedings of the Georgia water resources conference. Athens, GA: University of Georgia; 2007, www.terraglobalcapital.com././soil Sequestration Biochar Issue Papper1. Ghartey, E. O., Dowuona, G. N., Nartey, E. K., Adjadeh T. A., and Lawson, I. Y. (2012). Assessment of variability in the quality of an acrisol under different land use systems in Ghana. Open Journal of Soil Science, 2(1), 33. 102 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Griffin, R. C., and Bromley, D. W. (2018). Agricultural Runoff as a Nonpoint Externality; A Theoretical Development. In The Theory and Practice of Command and Control in Environmental Policy (pp. 43-48). Routledge. Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G., and Zech, W. (2001). The ‘Terra Preta’ phenomenon: a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften, 88(1), 37- 41. Glaser, B., Lehmann, J., and Zech, W. (2002). Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal–a review. Biology and fertility of soils, 35(4), 219-230. Goldberg, E. D. (1985). Black carbon in the environment: properties and distribution. New York: J. Wiley. Gruhn, P., Goletti, F., and Yudelman, M. (2000). Integrated nutrient management, soil fertility, and sustainable agriculture: current issues and future challenges. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. (32) 9, 12, 20. Hamed F. D., Seyed A. M. N., Dordipour E., De Jong L. W and Hezarjaribi E. (2017). Effects of sewage sludge and its biochar on soybean yield in fine-textured loess soil. Environmental Health Engineering and Management Journal 2017, 4(2), 81–91 Hansell, D. A., and Carlson, C. A. (Eds.). (2014). Biogeochemistry of marine dissolved organic matter. Academic Press. Hellal, F. A., and Abdelhamid, M. T. (2013). Nutrient management practices for enhancing soybean (Glycine max L.) production. Acta Biológica Colombiana, 18(2), 239-250. Herridge, D. F., Peoples, M. B., and Boddey, R. M. (2008). Global inputs of biological nitrogen fixation in agricultural systems. Plant and soil, 311(1-2), 1-18. 103 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Hussain, M., Farooq, M., Nawaz, A., Al-Sadi, A. M., Solaiman, Z. M., Alghamdi, S. S., and Siddique, K. H. (2017). Biochar for crop production: potential benefits and risks. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 17(3), 685-716. Hymowitz, T. and Newell, C.A. (1981) Taxonomy of the genus Glycine, domestication and uses of soybeans. Economic Botany 35, 272-288 Hymowitz, T. (2008). The history of the soybean. In Soybeans (pp. 1-31). AOCS Press. IITA, (2007) Soybean overview.Summary.5pp. IITA Abadan Issaka, R. N., Buri, M. M., Tobita, S., Nakamura, S., and Owusu-Adjei, E. (2011). Indigenous Fertilizing Materials to Enhance Soil Productivity in Ghana. Soil Fertility Improvement And Integrated Nutrient Management–A Global Perspective, 119. Iswaran, V., 1975, Seed pelleting with systemic insecticide (Aldicarb) for the control of pests of mungo (Phaseolus aureus L.). Journal of Agronomy. Crop Science.130: 365-366. Iswaran, V., Sundara Rao, W. H. B and Jauhari, K. S., 1970, Nodulation under unfavourable soil conditions. Current Science, 39: 93- 94. James, C. (2011). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops, 2011 (Vol. 44). Ithaca, NY: ISAAA. Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F. G., van der Velde, M., and Bastos, A. C. (2011). A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta- analysis. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 144(1), 175-187. Jin, X., C. Ma, S. Dong, et al. 2007. Change of content of NH +4 -N and NO – 3 N in the soil and correlative analysis during the growing season of soybean. Journal of Northeast Agricultural University 38 (3):289–93. 104 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Kadiata, B. D., Schubert, S., and Yan, F. (2012). Assessment of different inoculants of Bradyrhizobium japonicum on nodulation, potential N2 fixation and yield performance of soybean (Glycine max L.). Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 13, 1704-1713. Kamara, A., Kamara, H. S., and Kamara, M. S. (2015). Effect of rice straw biochar on soil quality and the early growth and biomass yield of two rice varieties. Agricultural Sciences, 6(08), 798. Katulanda, P. (2011). Symbiotic nitrogen fixation and seed development of genetically modified soybean in relation to bradyrhizobium inoculation and nitrogen use under acidic and saline dykeland soil conditions. Khojely, D. M., Ibrahim, S. E., Sapey, E., & Han, T. (2018). History, current status, and prospects of soybean production and research in sub-Saharan Africa. The Crop Journal, 6(3), 226- 235. Kim, H. S., M. H. Koh, S. D. Kim, and E. H. Hong. 1995. Growth, Yield, and Quality of Vegetable soybean and Their Responses to Different Planting Dates. Korean Journal Crop Science, Vol. 40, pp. 228-235. Kloss, S., Zehetner, F., Dellantonio, A., Hamid, R., Ottner, F., Liedtke, V., Schwanninger, M., Gerzabek, M. H. and Soja, G. 2012. Characterization of slow pyrolysis biochars: Effect of Feedstocks and pyrolysis temperature on biochar properties. Journal of Environmental. Kokobun, M.1991. Cultural Practices and Cropping System for vegetable soybean in Japan. In: Vegetable Soybean. AVRDC. Pp. 53-60. Kolapo, A. (2011). Soybean: Africa's Potential Cinderella Food Crop. In Soybean-Biochemistry, chemistry and physiology. InTech.137, 139 - 142. Kopan, N., and Tamimi, A. (2006). The Effect of Nitrogen Fertilizer on the General Growth Habit 105 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh in Tomato Plants (Lycopersicon lycopersicum). Saddleback Journal of Biology. Kumaga, F. K., and Ofori, K. (2004). Response of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) to Bradyrhizobia inoculation and phosphorus application. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology (Pakistan).324 - 327. Kumaga, F. K. (2020). How to use small amount of biochar to reduce labour cost and usage of small amount of fertilizer to enhance the growth of soybeans. Senior Lecturer, University of Ghana. Laird, D., Fleming, P., Wang, B., Horton, R. and Karlen, D. (2010) Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a midwestern agricultural soil. Geoderma, 158, 436- 442. Laird, D. A., Rogovska, N. P., Garcia-Perez, M., Collins, H. P., Streubel, J. D., and Smith, M. (2011). Pyrolysis and biochar–opportunities for distributed production and soil quality enhancement. In Sustainable Alternative Fuel Feedstock Opportunities, Challenges and Roadmaps for Six US Regions, in Proceedings of the Sustainable Feedstocks for Advanced Biofuels Workshop (pp. 257-281). Atlanta, GA: SWCS publisher. Laufer, J., and Tomlinson, T. (2013). Biochar field studies: an IBI research summary. 1 - 10. Lawson, I. Y. D. Mensah E. A. and E. N. Yeboah E. N. (2008). Improving the Establishment and Yield of Soybean through Planting Depth and Land Preparation Methods in Northern Ghana. Department Soil Science, University of Ghana. Lefèvre, C., Rekik, F., Alcantara, V., and Wiese, L. (2017). Soil organic carbon: the hidden potential. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). VI, 3 -4. Lehmann, J., Pereira da Silva, J., Steiner, C., Nehls, T., Zech, W., & Glaser, B. (2003). Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological anthrosol and a ferralsol of the central amazon basin: Fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant and Soil, 249(2), 343- 106 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 357. Lehmann, J. and Rondon, M. (2006). Biochar Soil management on highly weathered soils in the humind tropics. In: Uphoff N, editor. Biological approaches to sustainable soil systems. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2006. Pp 517-30. Lehmann. J. Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M., (200). Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems A review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 11(2): 403-427 Lehmann, J. (2007). Bio-energy in the black. Forntiers in Ecology and the Environment 5:381- 387pp. Lehmann, J., Rillig, M. C., Thies, J., Masiello, C. A., Hockaday, W. C., & Crowley, D. (2011). Biochar effects on soil biota–a review. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(9), 1812-1836. Leonard, K. M. (2018). Input Management for Improving Double-Crop Soybean Management in Oklahoma (Doctoral dissertation). Levitan, O., Rosenberg, G., Setlik, I., Setlikova, E., Grigel, J., Klepetar, J. and Berman‐Frank, I. (2007). Elevated CO2 enhances nitrogen fixation and growth in the marine cyanobacterium Trichodesmium. Global Change Biology, 13(2), 531-538. Luo, Y., Durenkamp, M., De Nobili, M., Lin, Q., and Brookes, P. C. (2011). Short term soil priming effects and the mineralisation of biochar following its incorporation to soils of different pH. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 43(11), 2304-2314. Mahamood, J. (2008). Comparative performance studies on existing and newly developed soybean (glycine max L. merrill) genotypes with and without phosphorus application. (Doctoral thesis, University of Ilorin). Major, J., Steiner, C., Downie, A. and Lehmann, J. (2009). Biochar effect on nutrient Leaching, In: Lehmann J, Joseph S, editors. Biochar for environmental management: Science and 107 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Technology; 2009. Pp 271-87 Major, J. (2010). Guidelines on practical aspects of biochar application to field soil in various soil management systems. International Biochar Initiative, 8. Major, J. (2011). Biochar for soil quality improvement, climate change mitigation and more. línea http://biochar-atlantic. org/assets/pdf/BiocharSoilFertility. pdf. Consulta, 3. Malek, M. A., Mondal, M. M. A., Ismail, M. R., Rafii, M. Y., and Berahim, Z. (2012). Physiology of seed yield in soybean: Growth and dry matter production. African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(30), 7643-7649. Mallarino, A. P., Oltmans, R. R., Prater, J. R., and Villavicencio, C. X. (2011). Nutrient uptake by corn and soybean, removal, and recycling with crop residue.103 - 113. Manjunath, S. N., Deshpande, V. K., Sridevi, O, Uppar, D, S., Babalad. H. B. And Rao. M. S. L., 2009, Influence of seed pelleting on crop growth, seed yield and quality of paprika chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22 (4): 762-764. Marschner, H. (1995). Mineral nutrition oh higher plants.2nd Edition. Harcourt Brace and Company. New York. 889pp. Masuthi, D. A., (2005), Effect of phosphorous, zinc and boron on fruit set, seed yield and quality of vegetable cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.). M.Sc. (Agric) Thesis, University of Agriculture Science. Dharwad, Karnataka (India). McKenzie, R. H. (2003). Soil pH and plant nutrients. Alberta Agriculture. 1-2. McWilliams, D. A., Berglund, D. R., and Endres, G. J. (2009). Soybean growth and management quick guide. 3. Meena, M., Sagarka, B. K., Das, T., and Poonia, T. C. (2016). Effect of drip irrigation and nitrogen levels on growth parameters and yield of drilled rabi fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill) in 108 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Saurashtra region of Gujarat. Merrill, E. D. (1917). Contributions to our knowledge of the Flora of Borneo. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, (76), 75-117. Miller, W. F. and Scoot, C., (1967), Improving emergence of pelleted seeds. Trans. M. Soc. Agric. Egg., 16 (5): 540-549. Ministry of Food and Agriculture-Ghana. (2013). Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and figures 2012. Voenno-Meditsinskii Zhurnal, (5), 18. http://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519410.008 MoFA and CSIR, (2005) Soybean Production Guide. Food crops development project. Ghana’s Ministry of Food and Agriculture. 38pp. Mohammadi, K., and Sohrabi, Y. (2012). Bacterial biofertilizers for sustainable crop production: a review. Journal Agricultural Biological Science, 7, 307-316. Mokwunye, U., and Bationoz, A. (2002). Meeting the Phosphorus 1 6 Needs of the Soils and Crops of West Africa: The Role of indigenous Phosphate Rocks. Integrated plant nutrient management in Sub-Saharan Africa: from concept to practice, 209. Moude, R. B. and Sentt D. L. (1998): Application of fungicide to brassica seed using film coating technique. Proceeding of British Crop protection conference, 1:237-242. Mukherjee, A., Lal, R., and Zimmerman, A. R. (2014). Effects of biochar and other amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil. Science of the Total Environment, 487, 26-36. Mutala, E. B. (2012). Efficacy of Organic N-Fertilizer on Maize Growth in a Vertisol and an Acrisol in the Accra Plains. Master of Philosophy in Soil Science Thesis, University Of Ghana, Legon. 2, 25, 35 - 37. Mutezo, W.T. (2013). Early crop growth and yield responses of maize (Zea mays) to biochar 109 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh applied on soil. International Working Paper Series No. 13/03, Natural Resources, Agricultural Development and Food Security, International Research Network. Nivedita, M. (1992). Effect of moisture status and bulk density on germination and emergence of pearl millet, sorghum and groundnut on an Alfisol (Doctoral thesis. Andhra Pradesh Ag. Novak, J. M., Busscher, W. J., Laird, D. L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D. W., and Niandou, M. A. (2009). Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Science, 174(2), 105-112. Nyaguthii. M. C. (2017). Soybean (glycine max) response to rhizobia inoculation as influenced by soil nitrogen levels (Doctoral thesis, Kenyatta University). Okogun, J. A., Sanginga, N., Abaidoo, R., Dashiell, K. E., and Diels, J. (2005). On-farm evaluation of biological nitrogen fixation potential and grain yield of Lablab and two soybean varieties in the northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 73(2-3), 267-275. Owusu-Bennoah, E., Ampofo, J. G., and Acquaye, D. K. (1995). Phosphorus status of some semi- arid agricultural soils of northern Ghana. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science, 28(1), 29- 36. Purcell, L. C., Salmeron, M., and Ashlock, L. (2014). Soybean growth and development, 2–3. Quayle, W. C. (2010). Biochar potential for soil improvement and soil fertility. In: IREC Farmer Newsletter, Large Area No. 182: Autumn; 2010. Rathod, T. H. and Jadhao, S. D. (2006). Effect of seed pelleting on growth, yield and morphological parameters in soybean (Glycine max L.) Asian Journal of Biological Science (2006) Vol. 1 No. 2: 60-63 110 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Rechiatu. A., Ewusi-Mensah, N., and Abaidoo R., C. (2015). Response of Soybean (Glycine max L.) to Rhizobia Inoculation and Molybdenum Application in the Northern Savannah Zones of Ghana. Rondon, M. A., Lehmann, J., Ramírez, J., and Hurtado, M. (2007). Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and fertility of soils, 43(6), 699-708. Ruiz Diaz, D. A., Pedersen, P., and Sawyer, J. E. (2009). Soybean response to inoculation and nitrogen application following long-term grass pasture. Crop science, 49(3), 1058-1062. Sadowsky, M. J. (2005). Soil stress factors influencing symbiotic nitrogen fixation. In Nitrogen fixation in agriculture, forestry, ecology, and the environment (pp. 89-112). Springer, Dordrecht. Seiter, S., Altemose, C. E., and Davis, M. H. (2004). Forage soybean yield and quality responses to plant density and row distance. Agronomy journal, 96(4), 966-970. Sika, M. P. (2012). Effect of biochar on chemistry, nutrient uptake and fertilizer mobility in sandy soil (Doctoral thesis, Stellenbosch: Stellenbosch University). 1, 11, 30, 83, 112. Singh, R. J., and Hymowitz, T. (1985). The genomic relationships among six wild perennial species of the genus Glycine subgenus Glycine Willd. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 71(2), 221-230. Sisomphone, S., Ngo, V. M. and Preston T. R. 2012. Effect of soil amender (biochar or charcoal) and bio -digester effluent on growth of water spinach. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol. 24. Sohi, S., Loez-Capel, E., Krull, E. and Bol, R. (2009). Biochar’s roles in soil and climate change: A review of research needs. CSIRO Land and Water Science Report 05/09, series ISSN: 111 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1834-6618. Pp64 Solomon T, Pant LM, and Angaw T (2012). Effects of Inoculation by Bradyrhizobium japonicum Strains on Nodulation, Nitrogen Fixation and Yield of Soybean (Glycine max L. Merill) Varieties on Nitisols of Bako, Western Ethiopia. International Scholarly Research Network ISRN Agronomy Volume 012, Article ID 261475, 8 pages doi:10.5402/2012/261475. Sombroek, W., Ruivo, M. L. and Fearnside, P. M. (2003). Amazonian Dark Earths as carbon stores and sinks. In: Lehmann J, Kern D C, Glasser B, and woods W I (Eds). Amazonain Dark Earths: Origin, properties, management. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Songsri, P., Jogloy, S., Vorasoot, N., Akkasaeng, C., Patanothai, A., and Holbrook, C. C. (2008). Root distribution of drought‐resistant peanut genotypes in response to drought. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 194(2), 92-103. Spokas, K. and Reicosky D. 2009. Impacts of sixteen different biochar on soil greenhouse gas production. Annals of Environmental Science 3, 179-193 Spokas, K. A. Koskinen, W. C., Baker, J.M. and Reicosky, D. C. 2009. Impacts of woodchip biochar addition on greenhouse gas production and sorption/ degradation of two herbicides in a Minnesota Soil. Chemosphere pp 77:574-581. Statistics, Research and Information Directorate, SRID of Ministry of Food and Agriculture. (2012). Production Estimates. Accra, Ghana. Suppadit, T., Phumkokrak, N., and Poungsuk, P. (2012). The effect of using quail litter biochar on soybean (Glycine max [L.] Merr.) production. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 72(2), 244. Supreethaangadi, (2004), Effect of seed pelleting on field performance and storability in soybean 112 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (Glycine max (L.) Merrill). M.Sc. (Agricultural) Thesis, University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad, Karnataka, India. Tamagno, S., Balboa, G. R., Assefa, Y., Kovács, P., Casteel, S. N., Salvagiotti, F., and Ciampitti, I. A. (2017). Nutrient partitioning and stoichiometry in soybean: A synthesis-analysis. Field Crops Research, 200, 18-27. Taylor, A. G., and Harman, G. E. (1990). Concepts and technologies of selected seed treatments. Annual review of phytopathology, 28(1), 321-339. Tetteh F. M., Quansah G. W., Frempong S. O., Nurudeen A. R., Atakora W. K., Opoku G (2002). Optimizing Fertilizer Use within the Context of Integrated Soil Fertility Management in Ghana. CSIR-Soil Research Institute, Academy, IITA/Africa RISING, Tamale, Ghana. Savanna Agricultural Research Institute. Torrion, J. A., Setiyono, T. D., Cassman, K. G., Ferguson, R. B., Irmak, S., and Specht, J. E. (2012). Soybean root development relative to vegetative and reproductive phenology. Journal of Agronomy, 104(6), 1702-1709. Townley-Smith, L., Slinkard, A. E., Bailey, L. D., Biederbeck, V. O., and Rice, W. A. (1993). Productivity, water use and nitrogen fixation of annual-legume green-manure crops in the Dark Brown soil zone of Saskatchewan. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 73(1), 139- 148. Tweneboah, C. K. (2000). Modern Agriculture in the Tropics. Co-Wood publishers. pp. 405 Wang, Y., Wei, Y., and Sun, J. (2016). Biochar Application Promotes Growth Parameters of Soybean and Reduces the Growth Difference. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 47(12), 1493-1502. 113 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Quansah, G. W. (2010). Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers and Their Combinations on the Growth and Yield of Maize in the Semi-Deciduous Forest Zone of Ghana (Doctoral dissertation). pp. 4-9, 20-24. Uddin, M. A., and Phuong, H. T. (2013). Development of Technologies for the Utilization of and Forestry Wastes : Preparation of Biochar from Rice Residues. 1-2. Umarov, S. V., Budhokov, U. A., Ostrobro, B.G., Kulighev, A. K. and Akamedov, V. A., 1981, Pelleting of cotton seeds with urea and formaldehyde compounds. Abst., 4 (7) : 2192. USDA NRCS. (2014). Soil Health- Guides for Educators Soil Bulk Density, Moisture, Aeration. pp. 1 - 9. USDA, (2011) U.S. soybean inspection, Available from http://www.usda.gov/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf. Retrieved: 24/06/2019. Usherwood, N. (1998). Nutrient Management for Top-Profit Soybeans. Potash & Phosphate Institute (PII), 404, 1-2. Uzoma, K.C., Inoue, M., Andry, H., Fujimaki, H., Zahoor, A. and Ni shihara, E. (2011) Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil Use and Management, 27, 205–212. Van der Wal, A., and De Boer, W. (2017). Dinner in the dark: illuminating drivers of soil organic matter decomposition. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 105, 45-48. Verheijen, F., Jeffery, S., Bastos, A C., van der Velde, M, and Diafas, I. 2010. Biochar Application to soils. A Critical Scientific Review of Effect on Soil Properties, Processes and Functions. Joint research centre of Scientific and Technology Report. Wang, Y., Wei, Y., and Sun, J. (2016). Biochar Application Promotes Growth Parameters of Soybean and Reduces the Growth Difference. Communications in Soil Science and Plant 114 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Analysis, 47(12), 1493-1502. Wilson, K. J., Giller, K. E., and Jefferson, R. A. (1991). β-glucuronidase (GUS) operon fusions as a tool for studying plant-microbe interactions. In Advances in Molecular Genetics of Plant- Microbe Interactions Vol. 1 (pp. 226-229). Springer, Dordrecht. Xiang, D. B., Yong, T. W., Yang, W. Y., Gong, W. Z., Cui, L., and Lei, T. (2012). Effect of phosphorus and potassium nutrition on growth and yield of soybean in relay strip intercropping system. Scientific Research and Essays, 7(3), 342-351. Xie, T., Reddy, K. R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., and Spokas, K. (2015). Characteristics and applications of biochar for environmental remediation: a review. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45(9), 939-969. Yagoub, S. O., Salam, A. S. K. A., Hassan, M. M., and Hassan, M. A. (2015). Effects of organic and mineral fertilizers on growth and yield of soybean ( Glycine max L . Merril ). International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 7(1), 45–52. Yarrow, D. (2014). Geology into Biology: Carbon, Minerals, and Microbes—Tools to Remineralize Soil, Sequester Carbon, and Restore the Earth. Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase, 195. Yooyen, J., Wijitkosum, S., and Sriburi, T. (2015). Increasing yield of soybean by adding biochar. Journal of Environmental Research and Development, 9(4), 1066. Zenni, R. D., Dickie, I. A., Wingfield, M. J., Hirsch, H., Crous, C. J., Meyerson, L. A., and Erfmeier, A. (2017). Evolutionary dynamics of tree invasions: complementing the unified framework for biological invasions. AoB Plants, 9(1). Zin, Z. Z., Zulkifli, H. Tarmizi, A.M., Hamadan, A.B., Khalid, H. and Raja, Z. R. O. (2005). Rock phosphate fertilizers recommended for young oil palm planted on inland soils. MPOB 115 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh information series. ISSN 1511-7871. Zolue, G. M. (2013). Characterization of biochar prepared from three different feed stocks (Doctoral thesis, University of Ghana). pp. 32. Zwietenoe, L. V. (2006). Magic biochar Recycles, fertilizes and sequesters. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/archive/agriculture-today-stories/september-2006/magic- biochar. 116 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8.0 APPENDICES ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) TABLES (POT EXPERIMENT) Appendix 1: ANOVA Table for Days to emergence Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 15.7552 15.7552 21.76 <.001 Treatment 7 4.1615 0.5945 0.82 0.577 Variety.Treatment 7 5.6198 0.8028 1.11 0.381 Residual 32 23.1667 0.7240 Total 47 48.7031 Appendix 2: ANOVA Table for Days to flowering Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 71.297 71.297 20.10 <.001 Treatment 7 40.245 5.749 1.62 0.165 Variety.Treatment 7 27.328 3.904 1.10 0.386 Residual 32 113.500 3.547 Total 47 252.370 Appendix 3: ANOVA Table for Plant height 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 26.107 26.107 7.41 0.010 Treatment 7 27.193 3.885 1.10 0.385 Variety.Treatment 7 20.607 2.944 0.84 0.566 Residual 32 112.733 3.523 Total 47 186.642 Appendix 4: ANOVA Table for Plant height 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 22.825 22.825 2.96 0.095 Treatment 7 90.152 12.879 1.67 0.151 Variety.Treatment 7 59.436 8.491 1.10 0.385 Residual 32 246.422 7.701 Total 47 418.835 Appendix 5: ANOVA Table for Plant height 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.24 0.24 0.02 0.887 Treatment 7 123.24 17.61 1.50 0.201 Variety.Treatment 7 27.07 3.87 0.33 0.934 Residual 32 374.60 11.71 Total 47 525.16 117 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 6: ANOVA Table for Plant height 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 59.74 59.74 2.59 0.117 Treatment 7 140.97 20.14 0.87 0.538 Variety.Treatment 7 358.54 51.22 2.22 0.059 Residual 32 737.73 23.05 Total 47 1296.99 Appendix 7: ANOVA Table for Plant height 8 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 481.967 481.967 65.26 <.001 Treatment 7 129.161 18.452 2.50 0.036 Variety.Treatment 7 49.416 7.059 0.96 0.479 Residual 32 236.315 7.385 Total 47 896.860 Appendix 8: ANOVA Table for Number of branches Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 5.0052 5.0052 6.36 0.017 Treatment 7 3.1615 0.4516 0.57 0.771 Variety.Treatment 7 5.7865 0.8266 1.05 0.417 Residual 32 25.1667 0.7865 Total 47 39.1198 Appendix 9: ANOVA for Stem girth 4 weeks after sowing (WAS) Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.0078 0.0078 0.08 0.783 Treatment 7 0.6849 0.0978 0.98 0.464 Variety.Treatment 7 0.6788 0.0970 0.97 0.470 Residual 32 3.2038 0.1001 Total 47 4.5752 Appendix 10: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.9876 0.9876 6.15 0.019 Treatment 7 0.5467 0.0781 0.49 0.838 Variety.Treatment 7 0.8976 0.1282 0.80 0.595 Residual 32 5.1420 0.1607 Total 47 7.5739 118 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 11: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.0585 0.0585 0.38 0.541 Treatment 7 0.4951 0.0707 0.46 0.854 Variety.Treatment 7 0.9902 0.1415 0.92 0.501 Residual 32 4.8948 0.1530 Total 47 6.4385 Appendix 12: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.1881 0.1881 0.84 0.367 Treatment 7 0.7382 0.1055 0.47 0.849 Variety.Treatment 7 1.2976 0.1854 0.83 0.574 Residual 32 7.1881 0.2246 Total 47 9.4120 Appendix 13: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 8 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.3870 0.3870 1.15 0.291 Treatment 7 3.6578 0.5225 1.56 0.185 Variety.Treatment 7 0.7679 0.1097 0.33 0.936 Residual 32 10.7530 0.3360 Total 47 15.5657 Appendix 14: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 295.021 295.021 39.12 <.001 Treatment 7 90.750 12.964 1.72 0.140 Variety.Treatment 7 64.313 9.188 1.22 0.322 Residual 32 241.333 7.542 Total 47 691.417 Appendix 15: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 1621.69 1621.69 40.67 <.001 Treatment 7 248.92 35.56 0.89 0.524 Variety.Treatment 7 134.06 19.15 0.48 0.842 Residual 32 1275.83 39.87 Total 47 3280.50 119 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 16: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 1457.5 1457.5 12.68 0.001 Treatment 7 710.0 101.4 0.88 0.531 Variety.Treatment 7 881.4 125.9 1.10 0.389 Residual 32 3677.7 114.9 Total 47 6726.6 Appendix 17: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 2073.76 2073.76 25.79 <.001 Treatment 7 732.54 104.65 1.30 0.281 Variety.Treatment 7 122.04 17.43 0.22 0.979 Residual 32 2573.17 80.41 Total 47 5501.49 Appendix 18: ANOVA Table for Leaf area Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 348394. 348394. 1.56 0.221 Treatment 7 3167275. 452468. 2.03 0.082 Variety.Treatment 7 1325833. 189405. 0.85 0.557 Residual 32 7149077. 223409. Total 47 11990579. Appendix 19: ANOVA Table for Nodule number Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 20. 20. 0.01 0.905 Treatment 7 30022. 4289. 3.07 0.014 Variety.Treatment 7 11776. 1682. 1.21 0.328 Residual 32 44640. 1395. Total 47 86458. Appendix 20: ANOVA Table for Nodule fresh weight Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.3008 0.3008 0.31 0.584 Treatment 7 75.4136 10.7734 10.94 <.001 Variety.Treatment 7 6.4106 0.9158 0.93 0.497 Residual 32 31.5181 0.9849 Total 47 113.6431 120 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 21: ANOVA Table for Nodule dry weight Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.00044 0.00044 0.01 0.925 Treatment 7 3.18063 0.45438 9.44 <.001 Variety.Treatment 7 0.29303 0.04186 0.87 0.541 Residual 32 1.54048 0.04814 Total 47 5.01459 Appendix 22: ANOVA Table for Leaf dry weight Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.037 0.037 0.02 0.893 Treatment 7 25.991 3.713 1.85 0.112 Variety.Treatment 7 13.858 1.980 0.99 0.458 Residual 31 (1) 62.096 2.003 Total 46 (1) 100.679 Appendix 23: ANOVA Table for Stem dry weight Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 2.208 2.208 1.59 0.217 Treatment 7 20.926 2.989 2.15 0.068 Variety.Treatment 7 11.403 1.629 1.17 0.348 Residual 31 (1) 43.190 1.393 Total 46 (1) 75.993 Appendix 24: ANOVA Table for Root dry weight Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 0.791 0.791 0.08 0.773 Treatment 7 54.204 7.743 0.83 0.572 Variety.Treatment 7 25.638 3.663 0.39 0.900 Residual 31 (1) 289.660 9.344 Total 46 (1) 369.542 Appendix 25: ANOVA Table for Total dry weight Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 6.59 6.59 0.44 0.513 Treatment 7 185.33 26.48 1.76 0.132 Variety.Treatment 7 43.30 6.19 0.41 0.888 Residual 31 (1) 466.84 15.06 Total 46 (1) 691.01 121 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 26: ANOVA Table for Number of pods per plant Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Variety 1 584.51 584.51 8.09 0.008 Treatment 7 874.70 124.96 1.73 0.137 Variety.Treatment 7 1126.79 160.97 2.23 0.058 Residual 32 2311.33 72.23 Total 47 4897.33 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE (ANOVA) TABLES (FIELD EXPERIMENT) Appendix 27: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Table for Days to emergence Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 3.7222 1.8611 2.68 Variety 1 1.7778 1.7778 2.56 0.251 Residual 2 1.3889 0.6944 1.45 Treatment 5 1.2222 0.2444 0.51 0.764 variety.Treatment 5 4.8889 0.9778 2.05 0.115 Residual 20 9.5556 0.4778 Total 35 22.5556 Appendix 28: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 141.8 70.9 0.08 Variety 1 920.1 920.1 1.01 0.421 Residual 2 1824.5 912.3 3.45 Treatment 5 703.9 140.8 0.53 0.750 variety.Treatment 5 1134.3 226.9 0.86 0.527 Residual 20 5295.6 264.8 Total 35 10020.3 Appendix 29: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 323.7 161.9 0.08 Variety 1 2030.0 2030.0 1.01 0.421 Residual 2 4015.4 2007.7 3.42 Treatment 5 1571.2 314.2 0.53 0.748 variety.Treatment 5 2476.5 495.3 0.84 0.535 Residual 20 11754.6 587.7 Total 35 22171.5 122 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 30: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 591. 296. 0.08 Variety 1 3439. 3439. 0.93 0.436 Residual 2 7360. 3680. 3.54 Treatment 5 2752. 550. 0.53 0.751 variety.Treatment 5 4393. 879. 0.85 0.534 Residual 20 20790. 1040. Total 35 39324. Appendix 31: ANOVA Table for Leaf number 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 1269. 634. 0.08 Variety 1 8010. 8010. 1.05 0.413 Residual 2 15244. 7622. 3.27 Treatment 5 6485. 1297. 0.56 0.731 variety.Treatment 5 9467. 1893. 0.81 0.554 Residual 20 46563. 2328. Total 35 87038. Appendix 32: ANOVA Table for Plant height 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 114.4 57.2 0.29 Variety 1 117.8 117.8 0.61 0.517 Residual 2 388.1 194.1 1.81 Treatment 5 77.3 15.5 0.14 0.980 variety.Treatment 5 143.9 28.8 0.27 0.925 Residual 20 2147.3 107.4 Total 35 2988.8 Appendix 33: ANOVA Table for Plant height 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 733.99 366.99 9.10 Variety 1 15.51 15.51 0.38 0.598 Residual 2 80.67 40.34 0.72 Treatment 5 199.77 39.95 0.71 0.623 variety.Treatment 5 481.64 96.33 1.71 0.178 Residual 20 1125.41 56.27 Total 35 2637.00 123 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 34: ANOVA Table for Plant height 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 969.24 484.62 8.44 Variety 1 102.01 102.01 1.78 0.314 Residual 2 114.87 57.43 1.47 Treatment 5 247.10 49.42 1.26 0.319 variety.Treatment 5 252.83 50.57 1.29 0.307 Residual 20 783.92 39.20 Total 35 2469.97 Appendix 35: ANOVA Table for Plant height 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 824.94 412.47 10.43 Variety 1 472.34 472.34 11.94 0.074 Residual 2 79.09 39.54 0.64 Treatment 5 402.97 80.59 1.31 0.298 variety.Treatment 5 319.29 63.86 1.04 0.421 Residual 20 1226.82 61.34 Total 35 3325.44 Appendix 36: ANOVA Table for Days to flowering Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 15.500 7.750 14.68 Variety 1 2.778 2.778 5.26 0.149 Residual 2 1.056 0.528 0.41 Treatment 5 4.667 0.933 0.73 0.607 variety.Treatment 5 10.556 2.111 1.66 0.190 Residual 20 25.444 1.272 Total 35 60.000 Appendix 37: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 4 weeks after sowing (WAS) Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 6.557 3.278 0.51 Variety 1 4.874 4.874 0.77 0.474 Residual 2 12.732 6.366 5.12 Treatment 5 4.733 0.947 0.76 0.588 variety.Treatment 5 3.824 0.765 0.62 0.690 Residual 20 24.860 1.243 Total 35 57.580 124 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 38: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 7.1783 3.5891 0.78 Variety 1 2.5858 2.5858 0.56 0.532 Residual 2 9.2084 4.6042 5.22 Treatment 5 4.1694 0.8339 0.95 0.474 variety.Treatment 5 1.4786 0.2957 0.34 0.886 Residual 20 17.6404 0.8820 Total 35 42.2609 Appendix 39: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 8.3724 4.1862 1.03 Variety 1 1.8323 1.8323 0.45 0.571 Residual 2 8.1206 4.0603 4.67 Treatment 5 5.2620 1.0524 1.21 0.340 variety.Treatment 5 1.2514 0.2503 0.29 0.914 Residual 20 17.3843 0.8692 Total 35 42.2229 Appendix 40: ANOVA Table for Stem girth 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 14.278 7.139 2.79 Variety 1 3.292 3.292 1.28 0.375 Residual 2 5.127 2.563 2.12 Treatment 5 4.160 0.832 0.69 0.637 variety.Treatment 5 4.100 0.820 0.68 0.644 Residual 20 24.139 1.207 Total 35 55.095 Appendix 41: ANOVA Table for Number of branches at flowering Source of variation d.f. (m.v.) s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 2.0801 1.0400 11.81 Variety 1 5.8887 5.8887 66.88 0.015 Residual 2 0.1761 0.0880 0.11 Treatment 5 4.2782 0.8556 1.11 0.387 variety.Treatment 5 2.7449 0.5490 0.71 0.621 Residual 19 (1) 14.6302 0.7700 Total 34 (1) 29.7829 125 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 42: ANOVA Table for Leaf area Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 217865. 108932. 0.34 Variety 1 30059. 30059. 0.09 0.789 Residual 2 644817. 322408. 2.88 Treatment 5 342835. 68567. 0.61 0.692 variety.Treatment 5 469922. 93984. 0.84 0.538 Residual 20 2242470. 112123. Total 35 3947968. Appendix 43: ANOVA Table for Leaf area Index Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 2.421 1.210 0.34 Variety 1 0.334 0.334 0.09 0.789 Residual 2 7.165 3.582 2.88 Treatment 5 3.809 0.762 0.61 0.692 variety.Treatment 5 5.221 1.044 0.84 0.538 Residual 20 24.916 1.246 Total 35 43.866 Appendix 44: ANOVA Table for Nodule number 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 40.12 20.06 0.20 Variety 1 312.11 312.11 3.09 0.221 Residual 2 202.24 101.12 1.95 Treatment 5 965.36 193.07 3.72 0.015 variety.Treatment 5 182.95 36.59 0.71 0.626 Residual 20 1036.86 51.84 Total 35 2739.65 Appendix 45: ANOVA Table for Nodule number 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 51.3 25.6 0.08 Variety 1 518.8 518.8 1.59 0.335 Residual 2 654.5 327.3 1.05 Treatment 5 6443.2 1288.6 4.14 0.010 variety.Treatment 5 129.1 25.8 0.08 0.994 Residual 20 6231.1 311.6 Total 35 14028.0 126 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 46: ANOVA Table for Nodule number 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 2532.2 1266.1 0.41 Variety 1 5148.1 5148.1 1.68 0.325 Residual 2 6140.2 3070.1 6.05 Treatment 5 9646.7 1929.3 3.80 0.014 variety.Treatment 5 791.2 158.2 0.31 0.900 Residual 20 10145.9 507.3 Total 35 34404.3 Appendix 47: ANOVA Table for Nodule number 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 330.1 165.1 0.43 Variety 1 1787.4 1787.4 4.67 0.163 Residual 2 766.3 383.1 3.22 Treatment 5 3369.7 673.9 5.66 0.002 variety.Treatment 5 207.7 41.5 0.35 0.877 Residual 20 2383.1 119.2 Total 35 8844.2 Appendix 48: ANOVA Table for Nodule dry weight 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.000642 0.000321 0.22 Variety 1 0.005059 0.005059 3.54 0.201 Residual 2 0.002859 0.001429 0.69 Treatment 5 0.022430 0.004486 2.16 0.099 variety.Treatment 5 0.006510 0.001302 0.63 0.681 Residual 20 0.041481 0.002074 Total 35 0.078982 Appendix 49: ANOVA Table for Nodule dry weight 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.00677 0.00339 0.31 Variety 1 0.00370 0.00370 0.34 0.620 Residual 2 0.02195 0.01097 0.87 Treatment 5 0.11570 0.02314 1.84 0.152 variety.Treatment 5 0.00667 0.00133 0.11 0.990 Residual 20 0.25216 0.01261 Total 35 0.40696 127 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 50: ANOVA Table for Nodule dry weight 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.079188 0.039594 0.65 Variety 1 0.054574 0.054574 0.90 0.443 Residual 2 0.121286 0.060643 7.15 Treatment 5 0.202149 0.040430 4.76 0.005 variety.Treatment 5 0.037816 0.007563 0.89 0.505 Residual 20 0.169702 0.008485 Total 35 0.664716 Appendix 51: ANOVA Table for Nodule dry weight 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.003632 0.001816 0.17 Variety 1 0.030141 0.030141 2.88 0.232 Residual 2 0.020901 0.010450 1.77 Treatment 5 0.095265 0.019053 3.22 0.027 variety.Treatment 5 0.004721 0.000944 0.16 0.974 Residual 20 0.118399 0.005920 Total 35 0.273058 Appendix 52: ANOVA Table for Root dry weight 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.16621 0.08310 22.22 Variety 1 0.00863 0.00863 2.31 0.268 Residual 2 0.00748 0.00374 0.11 Treatment 5 0.22162 0.04432 1.29 0.307 variety.Treatment 5 0.09354 0.01871 0.54 0.740 Residual 20 0.68701 0.03435 Total 35 1.18449 Appendix 53: ANOVA Table for Root dry weight 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.19882 0.09941 1.18 Variety 1 0.09483 0.09483 1.13 0.400 Residual 2 0.16850 0.08425 1.18 Treatment 5 0.50260 0.10052 1.41 0.264 variety.Treatment 5 0.13943 0.02789 0.39 0.849 Residual 20 1.42700 0.07135 Total 35 2.53119 128 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 54: ANOVA Table for Root dry weight 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.37505 0.18752 0.83 Variety 1 0.09100 0.09100 0.40 0.590 Residual 2 0.45012 0.22506 2.57 Treatment 5 0.42413 0.08483 0.97 0.460 variety.Treatment 5 0.12711 0.02542 0.29 0.913 Residual 20 1.75157 0.08758 Total 35 3.21898 Appendix 55 Table: ANOVA for Root dry weight 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.67150 0.33575 1.68 Variety 1 1.36890 1.36890 6.85 0.120 Residual 2 0.39997 0.19998 4.37 Treatment 5 0.55359 0.11072 2.42 0.072 variety.Treatment 5 0.32642 0.06528 1.43 0.258 Residual 20 0.91566 0.04578 Total 35 4.23604 Appendix 56: ANOVA Table for Shoot dry weight 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 15.640 7.820 6.65 Variety 1 0.750 0.750 0.64 0.508 Residual 2 2.350 1.175 0.24 Treatment 5 33.355 6.671 1.35 0.283 variety.Treatment 5 19.280 3.856 0.78 0.574 Residual 20 98.614 4.931 Total 35 169.990 Appendix 57: ANOVA Table for Shoot dry weight 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 80.020 40.010 1.61 Variety 1 27.080 27.080 1.09 0.406 Residual 2 49.627 24.813 4.55 Treatment 5 94.069 18.814 3.45 0.021 variety.Treatment 5 33.533 6.707 1.23 0.332 Residual 20 109.104 5.455 Total 35 393.432 129 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 58: ANOVA Table for Shoot dry weight 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 195.026 97.513 2.25 Variety 1 32.215 32.215 0.74 0.479 Residual 2 86.570 43.285 4.70 Treatment 5 72.525 14.505 1.58 0.212 variety.Treatment 5 18.242 3.648 0.40 0.845 Residual 20 184.011 9.201 Total 35 588.589 Appendix 59: ANOVA Table for Shoot dry weight 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 226.40 113.20 4.46 Variety 1 204.39 204.39 8.06 0.105 Residual 2 50.74 25.37 1.44 Treatment 5 41.13 8.23 0.47 0.797 variety.Treatment 5 62.75 12.55 0.71 0.622 Residual 20 353.03 17.65 Total 35 938.45 Appendix 60: ANOVA Table for Total dry weight 4 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 17.943 8.971 8.27 Variety 1 0.234 0.234 0.22 0.688 Residual 2 2.170 1.085 0.18 Treatment 5 32.044 6.409 1.09 0.396 variety.Treatment 5 30.826 6.165 1.05 0.417 Residual 20 117.489 5.874 Total 35 200.705 Appendix 61: ANOVA Table for Total dry weight 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 101.439 50.719 1.45 Variety 1 88.334 88.334 2.53 0.253 Residual 2 69.916 34.958 4.17 Treatment 5 72.123 14.425 1.72 0.175 variety.Treatment 5 28.510 5.702 0.68 0.643 Residual 20 167.491 8.375 Total 35 527.813 130 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 62: ANOVA Table for Total dry weight 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 254.55 127.27 2.06 Variety 1 134.84 134.84 2.18 0.277 Residual 2 123.44 61.72 5.45 Treatment 5 47.28 9.46 0.84 0.540 variety.Treatment 5 31.99 6.40 0.57 0.726 Residual 20 226.45 11.32 Total 35 818.54 Appendix 63: ANOVA Table for Total dry weight 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 261.02 130.51 3.93 Variety 1 231.34 231.34 6.97 0.118 Residual 2 66.36 33.18 1.72 Treatment 5 47.15 9.43 0.49 0.780 variety.Treatment 5 59.07 11.81 0.61 0.691 Residual 20 385.23 19.26 Total 35 1050.17 Appendix 64: ANOVA Table for Number of pods per plant Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 14649.4 7324.7 6.38 Variety 1 5124.2 5124.2 4.47 0.169 Residual 2 2294.6 1147.3 2.59 Treatment 5 4539.6 907.9 2.05 0.115 variety.Treatment 5 1753.2 350.6 0.79 0.568 Residual 20 8849.3 442.5 Total 35 37210.3 Appendix 65: ANOVA Table for Pods weight per plant Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 642.13 321.06 9.05 Variety 1 395.68 395.68 11.15 0.079 Residual 2 70.98 35.49 1.29 Treatment 5 162.86 32.57 1.18 0.353 variety.Treatment 5 151.93 30.39 1.10 0.390 Residual 20 550.87 27.54 Total 35 1974.44 131 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 66: ANOVA Table for number of seeds per pod Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 2.3889 1.1944 2.26 Variety 1 0.0278 0.0278 0.05 0.840 Residual 2 1.0556 0.5278 2.71 Treatment 5 1.1389 0.2278 1.17 0.358 variety.Treatment 5 0.4722 0.0944 0.49 0.783 Residual 20 3.8889 0.1944 Total 35 8.9722 Appendix 67: ANOVA Table for hundred (100) Seed weight Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 2.911 1.455 0.23 Variety 1 0.751 0.751 0.12 0.763 Residual 2 12.651 6.325 3.51 Treatment 5 8.236 1.647 0.91 0.491 variety.Treatment 5 3.172 0.634 0.35 0.875 Residual 20 36.012 1.801 Total 35 63.732 Appendix 68: ANOVA Table for Seed weight per plant Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 78.17 39.09 2.18 Variety 1 132.83 132.83 7.41 0.113 Residual 2 35.85 17.92 1.63 Treatment 5 54.97 10.99 1.00 0.444 variety.Treatment 5 59.97 11.99 1.09 0.397 Residual 20 220.24 11.01 Total 35 582.03 Appendix 69: ANOVA Table for Seed weight per plot Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 369285. 184643. 2.23 Variety 1 261360. 261360. 3.16 0.217 Residual 2 165230. 82615. 3.97 Treatment 5 111134. 22227. 1.07 0.408 variety.Treatment 5 107179. 21436. 1.03 0.427 Residual 20 416555. 20828. Total 35 1430742. 132 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 70: ANOVA Table for Yield in tons per hectare Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 6.4112 3.2056 2.23 Variety 1 4.5375 4.5375 3.16 0.217 Residual 2 2.8686 1.4343 3.97 Treatment 5 1.9294 0.3859 1.07 0.408 variety.Treatment 5 1.8607 0.3721 1.03 0.427 Residual 20 7.2319 0.3616 Total 35 24.8393 Appendix 71: ANOVA Table for Harvest index Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.049516 0.024758 0.63 Variety 1 0.000410 0.000410 0.01 0.928 Residual 2 0.079046 0.039523 4.61 Treatment 5 0.044577 0.008915 1.04 0.422 variety.Treatment 5 0.008037 0.001607 0.19 0.964 Residual 20 0.171492 0.008575 Total 35 0.353077 Appendix 72: ANOVA Table for Crop growth rate 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.21000 0.10500 1.89 Variety 1 0.18023 0.18023 3.24 0.213 Residual 2 0.11111 0.05555 4.61 Treatment 5 0.05815 0.01163 0.97 0.462 variety.Treatment 5 0.05727 0.01145 0.95 0.470 Residual 20 0.24084 0.01204 Total 35 0.85760 Appendix 73: ANOVA Table for Crop growth rate 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.09570 0.04785 4.13 Variety 1 0.01111 0.01111 0.96 0.431 Residual 2 0.02315 0.01158 0.43 Treatment 5 0.07897 0.01579 0.59 0.711 variety.Treatment 5 0.03848 0.00770 0.29 0.916 Residual 20 0.53967 0.02698 Total 35 0.78708 133 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appendix 74: ANOVA Table for Crop growth rate 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.000711 0.000355 0.10 Variety 1 0.019041 0.019041 5.63 0.141 Residual 2 0.006769 0.003384 0.54 Treatment 5 0.184319 0.036864 5.90 0.002 variety.Treatment 5 0.073962 0.014792 2.37 0.077 Residual 20 0.125009 0.006250 Total 35 0.409811 Appendix 75: ANOVA Table for Relative growth rate 5 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.024320 0.012160 5.80 Variety 1 0.007144 0.007144 3.41 0.206 Residual 2 0.004193 0.002097 1.44 Treatment 5 0.009822 0.001964 1.35 0.284 variety.Treatment 5 0.009670 0.001934 1.33 0.291 Residual 20 0.029050 0.001453 Total 35 0.084200 Appendix 76: ANOVA Table for Relative growth rate 6 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.0035785 0.0017893 2.43 Variety 1 0.0137475 0.0137475 18.65 0.050 Residual 2 0.0014743 0.0007371 0.75 Treatment 5 0.0038553 0.0007711 0.78 0.575 variety.Treatment 5 0.0073606 0.0014721 1.49 0.237 Residual 20 0.0197316 0.0009866 Total 35 0.0497478 Appendix 77: ANOVA Table for Relative growth rate 7 WAS Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. Reps stratum 2 0.0010590 0.0005295 0.35 Variety 1 0.0004764 0.0004764 0.31 0.633 Residual 2 0.0030659 0.0015330 3.58 Treatment 5 0.0040531 0.0008106 1.89 0.141 variety.Treatment 5 0.0035422 0.0007084 1.65 0.192 Residual 20 0.0085696 0.0004285 Total 35 0.0207662 134