<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">AJPS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>American Journal of Plant Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2158-2742</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ajps.2023.145040</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AJPS-125153</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Biomedical&amp;Life Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Yield of Roselle (&lt;i&gt;Hibiscus sabdariffa&lt;/i&gt; L.) as Influenced by Manure and Nitrogen Fertilizer Application
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Julius</surname><given-names>Yirzagla</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Peter</surname><given-names>Quandahor</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ophelia</surname><given-names>Asirifi Amoako</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Listowel</surname><given-names>Atiwin Akologo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>John</surname><given-names>Bokaligidi Lambon</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Abdul-Wahab</surname><given-names>M. Imoro</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Kwadwo</surname><given-names>Gyasi Santo</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff5"><sup>5</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Olivia</surname><given-names>Aguriboba Akanbelum</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff6"><sup>6</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Gbewaah College of Education, Pusiga-Bawku, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>CSIR-SARI, Nyankpala, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff6"><addr-line>St Vincent College of Education, Yendi, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff4"><addr-line>TC.K. Tedam University of Technology and Applied Sciences, Navrongo, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff5"><addr-line>University of Energy and Natural Resources, Sunyani, Ghana</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff3"><addr-line>CSIR-Head Office, Accra, Ghana</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>18</day><month>05</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>05</issue><fpage>599</fpage><lpage>612</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>1,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>23,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>26,</day>	<month>May</month>	<year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Field experiments were carried out on roselle (
  Hibiscus sabdariffa L) during the 2019 and 2020 cropping seasons at the CSIR-SARI Research Station at Manga in the Upper East Region of Ghana. The aim of the experiment was to study the response of roselle to cowdung, nitrogen fertilizer and their interaction on the growth and yield of roselle. 
  The treatments consisted of factorial combination of five rates of cowdung (0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 t/ha) and five levels of nitrogen (0, 20, 40, 60 and 80 kgN/ha) laid out in a randomized complete block design and replicated three times. Data were collected on days to 50% flowering, plant height, number of leaves per plant and dry calyx yield. The results indicated that differences in dry calyx yield due to the manure and nitrogen fertilizer effects were highly significant (P
   
  &lt;
   
  0.01). Application rate of 2.5 t/ha manure recorded the highest yield of 340 kg/ha and 308.1 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Increasing manure rate from 2.5 
  -
   3.5 t/ha did not result in significant increases in dry calyx yield. The four rates differed significantly from the control which had the least calyx yield of 190.3 kg/ha and 180 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Nitrogen rate of 60 kg/ha recorded the highest dry calyx yield of 510.5 kg/ha and 370.4 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively which were significantly different from calyx yields recorded by other treatments. The trend on partial budget analysis was consistent in both seasons with the highest yielding treatments (2.5 t/ha cowdung manure and 60 kg/ha) recording the highest net benefit while the control (0 kg/ha) ranked last. The application rate of 2.5 t/ha of cowdung and 60 kg/ha of Nitrogen is thus recommended for optimum roselle production and productivity
   in the study area.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Calyx Yield</kwd><kwd> “Sobolo”</kwd><kwd> Sepals</kwd><kwd> Cowdung</kwd><kwd> Nitrogen Fertilizer</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa var sabdariffa L.) is an important crop in tropical and sub-tropical regions. It is different from other species in view of its bushy branches, which are either reddish or greenish in colour, and its red or pale yellow inflated edible calyces. It is an erect and branched annual sub-shrub (0.5 - 3 m tall) with a strong tap-root system. The flowers are borne on very short peduncles in the axils of the upper leaves, the epicalyxes are made up of 10 linear fleshy bracteoles and the calyx is 8 lobed, becoming large and fleshy after flowering [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref1">1</xref>] . The plant, normally grown as annual plant, is 0.5 to 2 meters in height. It has a bushy shape with somewhat dense canopy of dark green leaves. The color of the calyx plays an important role in determining the quality of the crop. The crimson red color is the characteristic and most popular and desirable color of roselle, while other shades and colors exist, including the white or greenish white color [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref2">2</xref>] .</p><p>The crop is produced in traditional growing conditions by smallholder farmers, and has many industrial and domestic uses. Traditionally, the tender leaves and shoots are eaten as salads and used as pot-herb [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref3">3</xref>] . The calyx of the red type when partially boiled in hot water is strained and sweetened to taste and is taken as a soft drink commonly known as “Sobolo” in Ghana. Currently, it has good prospects for industrial purposes [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref4">4</xref>] . Roselle is grown extensively in the semi-arid savanna for local consumption and for export to the Middle East and Europe. The economical part of the plant is the fleshy calyx (sepals) surrounding the fruit (capsules). Fully developed fleshy calyx is peeled off from the fruit by hand and dried naturally under shade to give the dry calyx, which is the consumable product [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref5">5</xref>] . The red acid succulent calyx is boiled with sugar to produce sorrel drink and is also made into jellies, sauces, chutneys and preserves [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref1">1</xref>] . The seeds contain about 17% oil, which is similar in properties to cottonseed oil. The seeds are boiled, fermented and dried for use as condiment for local soup preparations (Yakuwa or Batso in Hausa) before the arrival of modern substitutes (e.g. maggi). The fruit contains approximately 84.5% water, 1.7% protein, 1.0% fats and oil, and 12% carbohydrate. Its calyx contains 4% citric acid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref6">6</xref>] . It is rich in Vitamin C, contains minerals such as flavonoids and has laxative properties.</p><p>Besides food, the traditional preparations from various parts of the plant such as flowers, leaves, calyx and corolla of the roselle are used as remedy for various illnesses. According to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref7">7</xref>] in India, Africa and Mexico, all the above parts of the plant are valued in native medicine. The health benefits of hibiscus tea include relief from high blood pressure and high cholesterol and inflammatory problems. It helps to cure liver disease and reduces the risk of cancer. Hibiscus tea has been known to prevent hypertension, lower blood pressure, reduce blood sugar levels. It keeps the liver healthy, helps with menstrual cramps, depression, aids digestion and helps with weight management.</p><p>In spite of its economic importance, not much research work has been conducted on it when viewed in relation to the amount of work undertaken on its closely related species, such as cotton [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref8">8</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref9">9</xref>] . Relatively little has been reported on the agronomy of roselle in the study area (Manga) in the Upper East Region of Ghana. There is currently little information on fertilizer recommendation in the study area for optimal production of the crop; soil nutrient management is based on traditional practices. It is discovered that excessive nitrogen application adversely affects crop yield; increase the cost of production and pollutes the environment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref10">10</xref>] . The use of lower dose of nitrogen could lead to significant yield reductions. Thus, the little information on recommended fertilizer application has the potential to hinder the productivity of the crop. With the calyx yield considered as important as the ribbon yield of roselle, there is a need to understand the appropriate application of farmyard manure and nitrogen fertilizer required for its optimum yield. The soils in the Upper East Region of Ghana (Semi-arid Tropics) are very low in organic matter and N, P and K content and these are very necessary for growth and yield of roselle. There is increasing evidence that the non-application of fertilizer is a yield limiting factor in roselle production. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref11">11</xref>] reported that the nutritional requirements of roselle are unknown. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref12">12</xref>] also reported that variety sabdariffa is adapted to a wide range of soil conditions and is often grown on relatively infertile soils, but that economic yields are obtained on soils which are well supplied with organic matter and essential nutrients. There is therefore, the need to determine appropriate levels of essential nutrients to be supplied through manuring for optimum production. This study was therefore undertaken in Manga Agricultural Research Station of Savannah Agricultural Research Institute of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR-SARI) the Upper East of Ghana to determine optimum rates of cowdung manure and N fertilizer for sustainable roselle production.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Materials and Methods</title><sec id="s2_1"><title>2.1. Description of Study Area</title><p>Field experiments on Roselle were carried out in 2019 and repeated during the 2020 cropping season at the Manga Station (11˚01N, 0˚16'W)) of CSIR-SARI, Bawku of the Upper East Region (UER) of Ghana. The region lies in the Sudan savanna agro-ecological zone, which forms the semi-arid part of Ghana. The area is part of what is sometimes referred to as the interior savanna and is characterized by level to gently undulating topography. Important crops cultivated here include millet, sorghum, maize, rice, sweet potato, groundnut, cowpea, soybean, cotton onion and tomato. The Region has alternating wet and dry seasons with the wet season occurring between May and October during which about 95% of rainfall occurs. Maximum rainfall occurs in August, and severe dry conditions exist between November and April each year. Annual rainfall ranges from 900 - 1100 mm. There is wide fluctuation in relative humidity with values as low as 30% in dry season and above 75% in the wet season.</p></sec><sec id="s2_2"><title>2.2. Land Preparation, Experimental Treatment and Design</title><p>During the major cropping seasons (in 2019 and 2020), the experimental area was ploughed, harrowed and ridged using bullock-drawn implements. Lining and pegging were done to establish the plots for the treatments. The ridges were separated by a distance of 1 m. The treatments consisted of factorial combination of five rates of cowdung manure (0, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 t/ha) and five levels of nitrogen (0, 20, 40, 60 and 80 kgN/ha) laid out in a randomized complete block design, replicated three times. Three seeds per hill were sown at an intra-row spacing of 50 cm inter-row spacing of 75 cm. The three seeds per hill were later thinned to one plant per stand at the first weeding two weeks after sowing. Forty-five (45) kg P<sub>2</sub>O<sub>5</sub>/ha as single super-phosphate was applied as basal dose at the time of plot layout. The manure was applied and worked into the plots one week before to allow further decomposition before planting. All the manure rates were applied during the field layout while the fertilizer-N rates were split in two equal doses. The first dose was applied after the first weeding two weeks after sowing (2 WAS), while the second dose was top-dressed at 6 WAS. Weeding was done manually at 2 and 6 WAS using hand hoe. The plot with zero level of both nitrogen and manure was used as a control treatment.</p></sec><sec id="s2_3"><title>2.3. Soil Sampling and Analysis</title><p>The soil characteristics were determined in order to know nutrients status of the experimental site before application of the fertilizers. Three composite soil samples were taken for determination of physical and chemical properties. At the beginning of the experiment (in 2019), 15 samples were randomly collected by using an auger and composited. Then, soil samples were also taken from each treatment at harvesting (in 2020). The samples were air dried, crushed with mortar and sieved to pass through 2 mm mesh. The characteristics analyzed for included; Soil pH, Organic matter, Total Nitrogen, Exchangeable Calcium, Magnesium, Potassium, Sodium and Effective Cation Exchange Capacity, and Bray NO.2 Extractable Phosphorus and Potassium. Soil pH was determined using a glass electrode (pH meter) in a soil ratio of 1:2.5 as reported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref13">13</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref14">14</xref>] . Soil organic matter was determined by the wet combustion method [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref15">15</xref>] . Percentage total nitrogen was determined by the micro Kjeldahl-technique [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref15">15</xref>] . The available phosphorus was extracted by the Bray method and determined colorimetrically [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref16">16</xref>] . Potassium was determined by flame emission photometry [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref13">13</xref>] . The exchangeable cations calcium, magnesium, potassium and sodium were determined as recommended by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref13">13</xref>] using EDTA Titration after extraction with 0.1 N Ammonium Acetate at pH 7. Effective Cation Exchange Capacity (ECEC) was calculated as the sum of the exchangeable bases and exchangeable acidity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref13">13</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s2_4"><title>2.4. Data Collection</title><p>Data were collected on days to 50% flowering, plant height, number of leaves per plant and calyx yield (which was air dried to constant weight). Data collected were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) with GENTSTAT programme, version 12.1 and significant differences among treatment means were evaluated using least significant difference (LSD).</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results and Discussion</title><p>Results of analysis of soil in the study site showed that the soil was sandy loam and low to very low available P and exchangeable cations (Ca, Mg) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). The pH was acidic for the soil at the experimental site (0 - 20 cm depth). Organic matter content was low while the total N level was high. Exchangeable Ca and K levels as well as available P and K values were also low at the site.</p><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Effect of Manure (M) and Nitrogen (N) Fertilizer Application on Growth and Development of Roselle</title><p>In both years, the effects of manure (M) and nitrogen (N) fertilizer application were highly significant (P &lt; 0.01) while M &#215; N interaction effects were not (P &gt; 0.05) significant for days to 50% flowering, plant height, number of leaves and dry calyx yield.</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Selected initial soil chemical properties of the study site in Manga in 2019 cropping season</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Parameter</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Measured Value</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Required value<sup>@</sup> (SRI 2007 guide)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >pH (H<sub>2</sub>O)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Acidic: 5.1 - 5.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Organic Matter (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;1.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >TN (g∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >High: &gt;0.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ex. Ca {Cmol (+)∙kg<sup>−1</sup>}</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.02</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;5.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ex. Mg {Cmol (+)∙kg<sup>−1</sup>}</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.32</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not available</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ex. K {Cmol (+)∙kg<sup>−1</sup>}</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.16</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;0.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ex Na {Cmol (+)∙kg<sup>−1</sup>}</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Not available</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CEC</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Av. P (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;10</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Av. K (mg∙kg<sup>−1</sup>)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Low: &lt;0.2</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Depth (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0-20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Texture</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Sandy loam</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p><sup>@</sup>SRI: Soil Research Institute of Ghana.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Phenological Parameters</title><p>Days to 50% flowering was significantly earlier (P &lt; 0.05) at 2.5 t/ha manure which was 59 days in 2019 and 60 days in 2020. Similarly, days to 50% flowering were significantly earlier (P &lt; 0.05) at 60 kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> kgN/ha which was 61 days in 2019 and 60 days in 2020. Days to 50% flowering were significantly (P &lt; 0.001) delayed in the control plots, 78 and 79 days in 2019 and 2020 respectively under manure application and 80 and 79 days in 2019 and 2020, respectively under N fertilizer application. In both seasons, flowering was significantly earlier in plants on treated plots than those on the non-treated plots (control). Flowering was significantly (P &lt; 0.05) earlier in plants that received 2.5 t/ha manure and 60 kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> kgN/ha than other treatments. Early flowering in manure treated plants might be due to optimum P amounts that enhanced early crop development, an observation that is consistent with report by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref17">17</xref>] that optimum P rates enhance early crop development. Early flowering in N treated plants is at variance with findings by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref18">18</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref19">19</xref>] who reported that application of inorganic fertilizer prolonged flowering and maturity of potato plants. In their view, the prolonged flowering could be associated with the supply of additional nutrients, that may promote the vegetative growth of the plants that in turn prolonged flowering and maturity of potato plants (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of manure, nitrogen and their interaction on the Days to 50% flowering in the 2019 and 2020 cropping seasons</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2019</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manure (M) (t/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DFF</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >DFF</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (N) (Kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >82<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Interaction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M &#215; N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>* = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1%, ns = Not significant. Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance using LSD.</p></sec><sec id="s3_3"><title>3.3. Plant Height</title><p>Manure and Nitrogen application significantly (P &lt; 0.05) affected plant height in both cropping seasons (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>). In 2019, plant height ranged from 95 cm (under 0 Nkg/ha) to 215 cm (under 80 Nkg/ha) whilst in 2020 it ranged from 97 cm (under 0 Nkg/ha) to 230 cm (under 60 Nkg/ha). Thus, the application effects showed that the plant height increased with increased application rates in both seasons. Increased application rates of Nitrogen from zero to the maximum increased plant height by 56% in (2019) and 58% (in 2020) over the control. The reason for this trend could be the availability of nutrients to the crop resulting in increased photosynthetic and metabolic activities. In addition, the trend could be due to stimulation of root growth and development resulting from adequate N supply as well as the uptake of other nutrients [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref20">20</xref>] . This could be due the function of N in promoting vegetative growth which appears to be more enhanced with the P fertilizer application, an observation which is consistent with reports by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref21">21</xref>] who reported that plant height increased with increasing fertilizer levels of nitrogen.</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of manure, nitrogen and their interaction on plant height of roselle in the 2019 and 2020 cropping seasons</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2019</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manure (M) (t/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plant height (cm)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Plant height (cm)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >123.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >126.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >126.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >169<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >124.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (N) (Kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >167<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >198<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230<sup>e</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >213<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Interaction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M &#215; N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>* = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1%, ns = Not significant. Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance using LSD.</p></sec><sec id="s3_4"><title>3.4. Number of Leaves per Plant</title><p>The results revealed significant (P &lt; 0.05) effects of manure and nitrogen applications on number of leaves in both seasons (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Increasing manure rate from 0 to 2.5 t/ha resulted in significant increase in number of leaves but further addition resulted in significant decrease in leaf number for the two cropping seasons. In 2019, number of leaves ranged from 90 (under 0 t/ha) to 160 (under 2.5 t/ha) whilst in 2020 it ranged from 99 (under 0 t/ha) to 162 cm (under 2.5/ha). Similarly, in 2019, number of leaves ranged from 95 (under 0 Nkg/ha) to 210 (under 60 Nkg/ha) whilst in 2020 it ranged from 97 (under 0 Nkg/ha) to 230 (under 60 Nkg/ha). Thus, the least number of leaves was recorded with the control treatments in both seasons. The positive effect of manure on the number of leaves per plant could be due to the contribution made by manure to fertility status of the soils as the soils were low in organic carbon content. Manure when decomposed increases both macro and micronutrients as well as enhances the physico-chemical properties of the soil. This could have led to high vegetative growth and hence higher number of leaves in comparison to the control. Data in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref> further showed that the number of leaves per plant had a positive response</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of manure, nitrogen and their interaction on the number of leaves per plant in the 2019 and 2020 cropping seasons</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2019</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manure (M) (t/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leaves /plant</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Leaves/plant</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >99<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >142<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >160<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >155<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >155<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >156<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >153<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (N) (Kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >162<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >188<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >167<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >198<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >210<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >230<sup>e</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >215<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >213<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Interaction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M &#215; N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>* = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1%, ns = Not significant. Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance using LSD.</p><p>to nitrogen application in both years. Plots that received 60 kgN/ha significantly out-yielded the rest in leave number except 80 kgN/ha. The inorganic and organic fertilizer significantly (p &lt; 0.05) increased leaf production in soil amended plots more than the control plot. This underscores the importance of nitrogen during the vegetative growth of crop plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref22">22</xref>] . The higher number of leaves in the soil-amended plots might be due to the available nutrients supplied by the organic and inorganic fertilizers which in turn might be due to higher nutrient composition and capacity to increase availability of native soil nutrient through higher biological activity [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref23">23</xref>] . Earlier flowering observed in plants that received 2.5 t/ha manure and 60 kg∙ha<sup>−1</sup> kgN/ha could be due to adequate supply of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. These nutrients play major role in cell division, elongation and metabolic processes that enhanced development of leaves. These nutrients have a role in vegetative growth and development in accelerating formation of more leaves. The fertilizers from organic sources improve the availability of plant nutrients by improving soil pH [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref26">26</xref>] . Studies have also shown that organic fertilizers influence plant growth and production through improving chemical, physical, and biological properties of soils [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref24">24</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref27">27</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref28">28</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s3_5"><title>3.5. Dry Calyx Yield</title><p>Dry calyx yield was significantly (P &lt; 0.05) affected by both manure and Nitrogen application rates in both cropping seasons (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Application rate of 2.5 t/ha manure recorded the highest yield of 340 kg/ha and 308.1 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively. The result showed that increasing cowdung manure rate from 2.5 - 7.5 t/ha did not result in significant increases in dry calyx yield, but the other rates differed significantly from the control which had the least dry calyx yield of 190.3 kg/ha and 180.1 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively. Nitrogen rate of 60 kg/ha recorded the highest calyx yield of 510.5 kg/ha and 370.4 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively which were significantly different from dry calyx yields recorded by other treatments. This implies that 2.5 t/ha seemed to be adequate for roselle production at Manga under the prevailing circumstances of the trial.</p><p>The Nitrogen effect showed that the control treatment had the lowest dry calyx yield (290.3 kgN/ha) and 180.0 kgN/ha in 2019 and 2020 respectively (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The highest yield was obtained when 60 kgN/ha was applied giving an average dry calyx yield of 510.5 and 370.4 kg/ha in 2019 and 2020, respectively. Further increase in the application rate to 80 kgN/ha did not lead to increase in yield. Thus, 60 kgN/ha appeared to produce the highest yield, suggesting it could be the optimum N application rate. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref22">22</xref>] also reported a positive response of dry calyx yield to nitrogen application. The increase in dry calyx yield of roselle as a result of nitrogen application may be attributed to an increase in photosynthetic area exhibited as a result of good vegetative growth. The positive response of dry calyx yield of roselle to manure conformed to the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref12">12</xref>] who reported that economic yield of roselle is only obtained on soils which are well supplied</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Effect of manure, nitrogen and their interaction on dry calyx yield in 2019 and 2020 cropping season</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2019</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >2020</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manure (M) (t/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calyx yield (kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Calyx yield (kg/ha)</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >190.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180.1<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >314.6<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >277.4<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >340.0<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >308.1<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >339.1<sup>d</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >310.4<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >242.4<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (N) (Kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >290.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >180.0<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >301.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >292.0<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >402.0<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >208.7<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >510.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >370.4<sup>d</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >513.2<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >280.1<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >CV (5%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Interaction</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >M &#215; N</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Ns</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>* = significant at 5%, ** = significant at 1%, ns = Not significant. Means in a column followed by the same letter(s) do not differ significantly at 5% level of significance using LSD.</p><p>with organic materials and essential nutrients. Similarly, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref6">6</xref>] reported that both okra and kenaf, produced best on manured soil rich in humus. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref29">29</xref>] obtained the highest dry calyx yield of red variant roselle with 60 kg N/ha at Bauchi, Nigeria. The positive response of dry calyx yield of roselle to nitrogen obtained is in conformity with the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref30">30</xref>] and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref31">31</xref>] who reported that nitrogen fertilizer increased calyx yield of roselle. Similarly, [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref32">32</xref>] reported increased calyx with nitrogen application.</p><p>The higher dry calyx yield in the soil-amended plots might be due to the available nutrients supplied by the organic and inorganic fertilizers. Control plots recorded delayed flowering, the least number of leaves, and calyx yield while those receiving organic and inorganic fertilizers flowered earlier, produced leaves and calyx yield which were significantly (P &lt; 0.05) higher than the control plots. The significant (P &lt; 0.05) increase in number of leaves reflects possible utilization of nutrients which affects the overall photosynthetic performance. Increased number of leaves leads to a greater dry matter accumulation of nutrients per unit of land area, because of better utilization of solar radiation. Also, greater number of leaves favours canopy spread, leading to greater photosynthetic activities and suppression of weeds and improvement of calyx yield. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref33">33</xref>] reported that, plants absorb sufficient light and increase their photosynthetic efficiency as a result of increased leaf area. This explains why plots that received organic and inorganic fertilizers had higher crop performance. Inorganic fertilizer alone or in combination with cowpdung out-yielded the control plots in dry calyx yield probably due to the contribution of plant nutrients by the cowdung or the N fertilizers. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref34">34</xref>] attests to this fact that a positive interaction exists between organic and inorganic inputs when applied simultaneously. Fertilizer inputs have added benefits in terms of improved crop yield, soil fertility status or both [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref35">35</xref>] . Dry calyx yield was significantly (P &lt; 0.05) higher in plants that received 2.5 t/ha manure and 60 kg/ha. This might be due to early flowering as well as optimum rates of nutrients that enhanced early crop development and yield. This observation is in line with report by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125153-ref17">17</xref>] that optimum plant nutrient rates enhance early crop development.</p></sec><sec id="s3_6"><title>3.6. Partial Budget Analysis</title><p>Partial budget analysis: The economic analysis of the treatments was carried out using benefit-cost ratio (BCR) method. This involved the determination of variable costs, gross returns and net benefits for all treatments. In both seasons, the net benefits (NBs) were generally higher in plots with plants that received cowdung manure or inorganic (Nitrogen) fertilizer application than the control plots (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). This could be a result of higher dry calyx yield of roselle in the treated plots. Thus, differences in NBs and BCRs among treatments were basically as a result of differences in dry calyx yield obtained from the different treatments. This is supported by the fact that, treated plots with the highest dry calyx yields consistently also accounted for the highest NBs and BCRs. Thus, the</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Net Benefit and Benefit Cost Ratio of various treatments during the 2019 and 2020 cropping season</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Treatment</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Net Benefit (NB) (GHC)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="2"  >Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Manure (M) (t/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2020</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2019</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2020</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.71</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.76</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >233.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >220.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.92</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >392.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >380.50</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.39</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.40</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >309.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >327.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.04</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.18</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >4.5</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >308.09</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >312.00</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.15</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.16</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Nitrogen (N) (Kg/ha)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >208.08</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >209.20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.90</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >20</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >202.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >208.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.98</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >40</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >107.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >178.70</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.90</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.27</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >60</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >279.10</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >219.29</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.91</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >80</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >257.30</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >200.88</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.19</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.29</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>trend is consistent, with the highest yielding treatment recording the highest NB and BCR. The trend on partial budget analysis was consistent in both seasons with the highest yielding treatments (2.5 t/ha cowdung manure and 60 Kg/ha) recording the highest net benefit while the control (0 kg/ha) ranked last. The application rate of 2.5 t/ha of cowdung and 60 kg/ha of Nitrogen is thus recommended for optimum roselle production and productivity.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Conclusion</title><p>There is positive effect of N fertilizer and cowdung manure application on the growth and yield of roselle which could be due to their contribution to fertility status of the soils. Application rate of 2.5 t/ha manure and Nitrogen rate of 60 kg/ha recorded the highest dry calyx yield in both cropping seasons. Roselle plants that received no N application (control) were significantly out-yielded by the other treatments, suggesting the need for N application in Roselle production and productivity. The trend on partial budget analysis was consistent in both seasons with the highest yielding treatments (2.5 t/ha cowdung manure and 60 Kg/ha) recording the highest net benefit while the control (0 kg/ha) ranked last. The application rate of 2.5 t/ha of cowdung and 60 kg/ha of Nitrogen is thus recommended for optimum roselle production and productivity.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Yirzagla, J., Quandahor, P., Amoako, O.A., Akologo, L.A., Lambon, J.B., Imoro, A.-W.M., Santo, K.G. and Akanbelum, O.A. (2023) Yield of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) as Influenced by Manure and Nitrogen Fertilizer Application. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 14, 599-612. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2023.145040</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.125153-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Gibbon, D. and Adam, P. (1985) Crops of Drier Regions of the Tropics. Longman Groups Limited, London, 61-62.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El Naim, A.M. and Ahmed, S.E. (2010) Effect of Weeding Frequencies on Growth and Yield of Two Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L) Varieties under Rain Fed. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 4, 4250-4255.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Duke, J.A. and Atchley, A.A. (1984) Proximate Analysis. In: Christie, B.R., Ed., The Handbook of Plant Science in Agriculture, CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, 145-149.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Alegbejo</surname><given-names> M.D. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2000</year>)<article-title>Processing, Utilization and Nutritional Values of Okra and Roselle</article-title><source> Noma Magazine</source><volume> 14</volume>,<fpage> 43</fpage>-<lpage>45</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El Naim, A.M., Ahmed, A.I., Ibrahim, K.A., Suliman, A.M. and Babikir, E.S.N. (2017) Effects of Nitrogen and Bio-Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa var sabdariffa L.). International Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 7, 145-150.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Purseglove, J.W. (1969) Tropical Crops Dicotyledons Vol. 1 and 2 Combined. Longman Group Limited, London, 370-372.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Babajide, J.M., et al. (2004) Quality and Sensory Evaluation of Processed Calyces of Six Varieties of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.). Nigerian Journal of Horticultural Science, 9, 110-115. https://doi.org/10.4314/njhs.v9i1.3388</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kumar, V., Idem, N.U.A. and Echekwu, C.A. (1986) Yield Components of Roselle Varieties in Northern Nigeria. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 51, 108-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128325.1985.11663472</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Dike, M.C. (1987) Insect Pests of Kenaf and Roselle in the Zaria Area of Northern Nigeria. The 17th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Society for Plant Protection, Nsukka, 15-19.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Honisch, M., Hellmeier, C. and Weiss, K. (2002) Response of Surface and Subsurface Water Quality to Land Use Changes. Geoderma, 105, 277-298.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7061(01)00108-2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Panchoo, L. and Rhoden, E.G. (1990) Effect of Transplant Timing and Terminal Bud Removal on Sorrel. Caribbean Food Crops Society Proceeding, 26, 245-254.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Tindall, H.D. (1983) Vegetables in the Tropics English Language Book Society. Macmillan Company, London, 32-41.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">IITA (1979) Selected Methods for Soil and Plant Analysis. Manual Series No. 1. IITA, Ibadan.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">McLean, E.O. (1982) Soil pH and Lime Requirement. In: Page, A.L., Miller, R.H. and Keaney, D.R., Eds., Methods of Soil Analysis (Number 9 Part 2), American Society of Agronomy, Salt Lake City, 199-224.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Walkley, A. and Black, A. (1934) An Examination of the Method for Determining Soil Organic Matter and Proposed Modification of the Chronic Acid Titration Method. Soil Science, 37, 29-38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bray, R.H. and Kurtz, L.T. (1945) Determination of Total Organic and Available Forms P in Soils. Soil Science, 59, 39-46.  
https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-194501000-00006</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ekel&amp;#246;f, J. (2007) Potato Yield and Tuber Set as Affected by Phosphorus Fertilization. Doctoral Dissertation, Saint Louis University, St. Louis.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alemayehu, M. and Jemberie, M. (2018) Optimum Rates of NPS Fertilizer Application for Economically Profitable Production of Potato Varieties at Koga Irrigation Scheme, Northwestern Ethiopia. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 4, Article ID: 1439663.  
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1439663</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Boru, M., Tsadik, W.K. and Tana, T. (2017) Effects of Application of Farmyard Manure and Inorganic Phosphorus on Tuberous Root Yield and Yield Related Traits of Sweet Potato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam] at Assosa, Western Ethiopia. Advances in Crop Science and Technology, 5, Article No. 302.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Brady, N.C. and Weil, R.R. (2002) The Nature and Properties of Soils. 13th Edition, Pearson Education Asia, Delhi, 960 p.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sharma, S.P., Sandhu, A.S., Bhutani, R.D. and Khurana, S.C. (2014) Effects of Planting Date and Fertilizer Dose on Plant Growth Attributes and Nutrient Uptake of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4, 196-202.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Okosun, L.A. (2000) Effect of Plant Density, Sowing Date and Fertilizer on the Growth and Yield of Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) in the Sudan Savanna. PhD Thesis, Usmanu Danfodiyo University, Sokoto, 186.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pengthamkeeratia, P., Motavallib, P.P. and Kremerc, R.J. (2011) Soil Microbial Activity and Functional Diversity Changed by Compaction, Poultry Litter and Cropping in a Claypan Soil. Applied Soil Ecology, 48, 71-80.  
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2011.01.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Girma, T., Beyene, S. and Biazin, B. (2017) Effect of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer Application on Soil Phosphorous Balance and Phosphorous Uptake and Use Efficiency of Potato in Arbegona District, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Fertilizers &amp; Pesticides, 8, Article ID: 1000185. https://doi.org/10.4172/2471-2728.1000185</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Islam, Md.M., Akhter, S., Majid, N.M., Ferdous, J. and Alma, M.S. (2013) Integrated Nutrient Management for Potato (Solanum tuberosum) in Grey Terrace Soil (Aric Albaquipt). Australian Journal of Crop Science, 7, 1235-1241.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Masrie, B., Dechassa, N., Tana, T., Alemayehu, Y. and Abebie, B. (2015) The Effects of Combined Application of Cattle Manure and NP Fertilizers on Yield and Nutrient Uptake of Potato in North Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Science and Sustainable Development, 3, 1-23.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Baia, Z., Casparia, T., Gonzaleza, M.R., Batjesa, N.H., M&amp;#228;derb, P., Bünemannb, E.K. and Tóthi, Z. (2018) Effects of Agricultural Management Practices on Soil Quality: A Review of Long-Term Experiments for Europe and China. Agriculture, Ecosystems &amp; Environment, 265, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.05.028</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Suh, C., Meka, S.S., Ngome, A.F., Neba, D.A., Kemngwa, I.T., Sonkouat, A.D. and Njualem, D. (2015) Effects of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. International Journal of Development Research, 5, 3584-3588.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Babatunde, F.E. (2001) Response of Red Varient Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) to Some Agronomic Practices. Ph.D. Thesis, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi, 116.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Selim, S.M.A., Rokba, A.M., Hassan, M.R. and Hussain, M.A. (1993) Effect of Sowing Dates, Nitrogenous and Potassium Fertilization on Roselle Plant. Egyptian Journal of Horticulture, 20, 87-96.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">El-Gamel, E.S.A., Mohamoud, M.M. and Oman, F.A. (1983) Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on the Growth and Yield of Hibiscus sabdariffa L. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 28, 839-850.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Mahran, G.H., El-Hossary, G.A. and El-Laban, H.M. (1978) The Effect of Nutrient Elements on the Growth and Yield of Hibiscus sabdariffa. Planta Medica, 33, 293-294.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Johnson, M.P. (2016) Photosynthesis. Essays in Biochemistry, 60, 255-273.  
https://doi.org/10.1042/EBC20160016</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Giller, E., Cadisch, G. and Mugwira, L.M. (1998) Potential Benefits from Interaction between Organic and Inorganic Nutrient Sources. In: Waddington, S.R., et al., Eds., Soil Fertility Research for Maize-Based Farming Systems in Malawi and Zimbabwe, CIMMYT, Harare, 155-158.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125153-ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation publication-type="book" xlink:type="simple">Palm, C.A., Myers, R.J.K. and Nandwa, S.M. (1997) Combined Use of Organic and Inorganic Nutrient Sources for Fertility Maintenance and Replenishment. In: Buresh, R.J., Sanchez, P.A. and Calhoun, F., Eds., Replenishing Soil Fertility in Africa, SSSA Special Republication 51, SSSA and ASA, Madison, 193-217.  
https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub51.c8</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>