<?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">AS</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Agricultural Sciences</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2156-8553</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/as.2023.146050</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">AS-125548</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><subject> Earth&amp;Environmental Sciences</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Evaluating Two Varieties of Sweet Pepper Using Different Nutrient Sources to Increase Productivity
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Rameshwar</surname><given-names>Raghunauth</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>Raghunath</surname><given-names>Chandranauth</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>Zareefa</surname><given-names>Bacchus</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>Simon</surname><given-names>Chibi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Jagnarine</surname><given-names>Singh</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Agriculture Management Department, Zimbabwe Open University (ZOU), Gweru, Zimbabwe</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>National Agriculture and Research Institute (NAREI), Georgetown, Guyana</addr-line></aff><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>09</day><month>06</month><year>2023</year></pub-date><volume>14</volume><issue>06</issue><fpage>751</fpage><lpage>766</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>18,</day>	<month>April</month>	<year>2023</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9,</day>	<month>June</month>	<year>2023</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>12,</day>	<month>June</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>
 
 
  This experiment aims to increase sweet pepper production sustainably by using manures and a combination of manure and fertilizer. Manures are well known to improve soil health and maintain crop production for a relatively long period. This study was conducted under a tunnel house at the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute at Mon Repos East Coast Demerara, Guyana. Plots were arranged according to strip plot design with two treatments (Aristotle and Sunsation), four rates (R1: 0 g/plant), (R2: 350 kg NPK/ha + 10 t vermicompost/ha), (R3: 10 t poultry manure/ha + 10 t vermicompost/ha and (R4: 350 kg NPK/ha + 10 t poultry manure/ha) and replicated thrice. These nutrients were applied in a split application at four weeks before planting, and four, eight, and twelve-week intervals after planting. The varieties did not differ from one another for the vegetative parameters tested. Plants treated with Rate 2 achieved significantly better growth parameters such as plant height, plant spread, and number of branches than the other rates. Sunsation obtained a significantly higher yield of 21.4 t/ha at the 5% level as compared to Aristotle (19.9 t/ha). The various rates recorded significant differences in yield. Rate 2 obtained a significantly higher yield of 32.8 t/ha followed by Rate 4 with 24.9 t/ha, then Rate 3 (17.0 t/ha). The lowest yield of 7.8 t/ha was attained by Rate 1. The interaction of varieties and rates showed statistically significant differences in yield. The interaction of Sunsation and Aristotle with Rate 2 achieved a superior yield of 34.8 t/ha and 30.7 t/ha respectively than other rates. Rate 4 also obtained significant interaction with Sunsation and Aristotle to achieve a yield of 25.7 t/ha and 24.1 t/ha respectively than Rate 3. Rate 3 interacted significantly with Sunsation and Aristotle and obtained a yield of 16.5 t/ha and 17.5 t/ha compared to Rate 1. Rate 1 achieved the least interaction for both varieties tested. Rates differed significantly for fruit shelf-life at room temperature. Fruits obtained from Rate 3 recorded a significantly longer fruit shelf-life of 14.7 days for 50% decay when stored at room temperature (30.3
  &amp;#730;C) than other rates. The lowest fruit shelf-life of 7.7 days was obtained from Rate 1. This study indicated that the Sunsation variety is better to cultivate because of superior improvement in growth and yield attributes. The application of Rate 2 can considerably increase yield and when combined with Sunsation variety superior yield and yield attributes can be obtained.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Variety</kwd><kwd> Manure</kwd><kwd> Fertilizer</kwd><kwd> Yield</kwd><kwd> and Interaction</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Sweet pepper (Capsicum annum L.) is cultivated predominantly throughout the coastal regions. It is grown primarily for the local market and to a lesser extent the regional markets. Sweet peppers production in Guyana has increased considerably from 1493 metric tonnes in 2008 to 37,886 metric tonnes in 2018 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref1">1</xref>] . This drastic increase in production is due primarily to substantial demand by fast-food chains, hotels, restaurants, supermarkets, and consumers. It is also a rich source of vitamins and minerals [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref1">1</xref>] , which helps protect the human body from oxidative damage that may lead to heart disease, cancer, and ageing. This crop is gaining importance as a high-value crop recently and occupies a strong place among vegetables in Guyana. It can also add delicacy and pleasant flavour coupled with rich colours (green, red, yellow, purple, orange, etc.) to different cuisines.</p><p>The yield and quality of sweet pepper produced by growers are fairly low when compared to other countries. There is a need to introduce new varieties of sweet pepper to increase yield, quality, and production to meet the growing demand. As such Aristotle and Sunsation varieties were evaluated because of their high-yielding nature of approximately 20,000 kg/ha. They fetch a premium market price for their large bell-shaped fruits ranging from 12 - 13 cm. These varieties are also resistant to bacterial leaf spots (Race 1, 2, and 3), potato viruses, and Tobacco Mosaic Virus 31.</p><p>The current production system is heavily dependent on chemical fertilizers to increase crop yields. However, throughout it has led to environmental deterioration, loss of soil fertility, less agricultural productivity, and soil degradation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref2">2</xref>] . [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref3">3</xref>] reported that the large-scale usage of chemical fertilizers with one or two nutrient elements had increased deficiencies of several secondary (S and Ca) and micronutrients (Zn, Mn, Fe, B, and Cu), which are causing serious concern for the sustainable production system. The price for this commodity is constantly increasing and may not be affordable especially for small-scale farmers to ensure that adequate nutrient is available for crop growth and yield. Compared to inorganic fertilizer organic manure is readily available to farmers at a cheaper price. Besides, it also restores soil organic matter in the form of humus, increasing microbial population thereby improving soil health, and also adds macro and micronutrients to the soil [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref4">4</xref>] . These manures can also improve soil properties such as better moisture retention, aeration, and nutrient conservation.</p><p>Vermicompost and poultry manure are two nutrient sources that are known to increase crop growth and yield. Vermicompost is worm excreta which is a rich source of macro (NPK) and micronutrients (Ca, Mg, Zn, and Mn) [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref5">5</xref>] . It can provide nutrients slowly and steadily which enables plants to absorb these nutrients over time and also improve root formation, elongation of the stem, and production of biomass for vegetable and ornamental plants [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref6">6</xref>] . Vermicompost also contains enzymes such as amylase, lipase, cellulase, and chitinase which can decompose organic matter in the soil (to release the nutrients in the available form to plant roots) even after being excreted. It also has many plant growth promoters, enzymes rich in plant nutrients, beneficial bacteria, and mycorrhizae [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref5">5</xref>] . Poultry manure can also improve soil physical and chemical properties thereby increasing crop growth and yield. It also contains higher levels of NPK compared to other types of manures. This manure can enhance microbial activity in soil, anion and cation exchange capacity, organic matter, and carbon content of the soil. It is also a source of all necessary macro and micronutrients in their available forms for plant growth and reproduction during mineralization. These nutrient sources may not be able to provide sufficient nutrients to encourage crop growth and yield for long periods. Thus, it is important to combine manures/compost with inorganic fertilizers to provide adequate nutrients for plant growth and yield in a sustainable manner. Consequently, a study was conducted to determine the best combination of manures and inorganic fertilizer for sweet pepper growth and yield.</p><sec id="s1_1"><title>1.1. Research questions</title><p>1) Which variety will flower the earliest or latest?</p><p>2) What are the differences in growth characteristics between the two varieties?</p><p>3) What is the yield among the different varieties using the different fertilizers?</p><p>4) What is the cost of production for sweet pepper using different fertilizers?</p><p>5) Is there significant differences among the varieties?</p></sec><sec id="s1_2"><title>1.2. Literature Review</title><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref7">7</xref>] The application of 3 tons/ha gives the highest yield of (265 fruits), followed by 2.5 ton/ha application rate (250.33 fruits).</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref8">8</xref>] Found that the combination of poultry manure and fertilizer (15 t/ha + 45 kg/ha 15:15:15) gave the highest yield of 14,200 Kg/ha.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref9">9</xref>] They found that poultry manure at a rate of 8 tons/ha give the highest for 2012 and 2014 of 22,071 Kg/ha and 20,090 Kg/ha respectively.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref6">6</xref>] The application of 3 t ha of poultry manure gave a higher yield of pepper of 8395.15 and 7436.79 kg ha respectively for both locations.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref8">8</xref>] Poultry manure rates of 8 tons/ha, 10 tons/ha and 12 tons/ha attained the highest yield of 23,000 kg/ha.</p><p>The use of organic manure has been reported to enhance soil productivity, increase the soil’s organic carbon content, soil micro-organism, improves soil structure, the nutrient status of the soil and enhance crop yield [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref10">10</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref11">11</xref>] .</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref12">12</xref>] observed that the application of 10 t/ha of poultry manure gave a significantly greater number of fresh pods and fresh pod weight in okra compared with 50 kg N + 22 kg P + 6 kg K∙ha<sup>−1</sup>.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref13">13</xref>] reported the beneficial effect of the combined application of organic and inorganic sources which increased fruit number, fruit weight/plant and fruit yield of chilli compared with either organic or inorganic fertilizer applied alone.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref14">14</xref>] observed that chemical fertilizer application could be brought down to 25 to 50 percent when applied with vermicompost. Further, the quantity of organic manure level also can be brought down by 50 per cent when vermicompost was used as a source of organic manure.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref15">15</xref>] found that the application of vermicompost and ammonium nitrate (1:1) which increased the sweet pepper yields but had no significant effect on radish yield.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref16">16</xref>] reported that the yield of sweet pepper has increased with organic treated plot than mineral fertilizers under field conditions. While dry matter increased with increased vermicompost (600 g) and root dry matter (400 g) in the greenhouse condition.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref17">17</xref>] observed that the application of vermicompost on soil conditions in combination with chemical and organic fertilizers significantly increased the growth and yield attributes of chilli as compared to organic and chemical fertilizers alone.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref18">18</xref>] observed maximum plant dry weight and fresh fruit weight in capsicum treated with organic manure like chicken manures, compost and vermicompost treatment than inorganic fertilizers and also increased microbial biomass in the field conditions.</p><p>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref19">19</xref>] found that the higher chilli fruit yield was obtained with 50% poultry manure and 50% inorganic N.</p><p>Poultry manure at 9 t per ha resulted in a higher fruit yield of pepper compared to farm yard manure (FYM) at 30 t per ha and poultry manure has the highest manganese, zinc, and phosphorus contents [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref20">20</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s1_3"><title>1.3. Hypothesis</title><sec id="s1_3_1"><title>1.3.1. Null</title><p>There are no significant differences between the mean yield of red, green, and yellow varieties of sweet pepper.</p></sec><sec id="s1_3_2"><title>1.3.2. Alternate</title><p>There are significant differences between the mean yield of red, green, and yellow varieties of sweet pepper.</p></sec><sec id="s1_3_3"><title>1.3.3. Null</title><p>There are no significant differences in yield between inorganic fertilizer and a combination of fertilizer and manure the different fertilizers.</p></sec><sec id="s1_3_4"><title>1.3.4. Alternate</title><p>There are significant differences in yield between inorganic fertilizer and a combination of fertilizer and manure.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s1_4"><title>1.4. Research Objectives</title><p>1) To determine which rates of fertilizers will give the best yield,</p><p>2) To determine which variety will obtain the highest yield,</p><p>3) To determine which variety is more susceptible to pests and diseases,</p><p>4) To determine the cost of production for each variety,</p><p>5) To determine which can improve the storage life of sweet pepper fruits.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Rationals/Description of Methodology</title><p>This experiment was done at NAREI Mon Repos, under a plastic house for a two-year period. Seeds were procured by NAREI and sown in seedling trays in the nursery. The plot size for this trial was 36.4 m<sup>2</sup>. Seedlings were planted 0.45 m apart and 0.45 m between rows. The plot was set out according to the split-plot design with two varieties (Aristotle and Sunsation), four rates (R1: 0 g/plant), (R2:350 kg NPK/ha + 10 t vermicompost/ha), (R3: 10 t poultry manure/ha + 10 t vermicompost/ha and (R4: 350 kg NPK/ha + 10 t poultry manure/ha) and replicated thrice. Nutrients were applied in a split application at four weeks before planting, and four and eight-week intervals after planting. Data were collected on plant height, plant canopy, number of branches, number of fruits per plant, plant weight and length and width of fruits, and total yield.</p><p>Treatment rates are as follows:</p><p>R1: 0 kg.</p><p>R2: 10 t/ha vermicompost + 350 kg NPK fertilizer.</p><p>R3: 10 t/ha vermicompost + 10 t/ha poultry manure.</p><p>R4: 10 t/ha poultry manure + 350 kg NPK fertilizer.</p><p>This experiment was conducted during three crop cycles as follows:</p><p>Crop cycle 1 February 2018-August 2018.</p><p>Crop cycle 2 April 2019-November 2019.</p><p>Crop cycle 3 July 2019-February 2020.</p><p>Information on the fruit shelf was collected where twelve fruits from each rate were stored at room temperature (30.3˚C) and refrigerated temperature (7˚C). And also the number of days until the onset of 50% decay (anthracnose) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Nutrients Analysis was done by GuySuCo Laboratory</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Sample</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >pH</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Corg</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >N</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Ca</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mg</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >K</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >P</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="7"  >%</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vermicompost</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.89</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.65</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.59</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.24</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.18</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.06</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Poultry manure</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.58</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >-</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.35</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.05</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.54</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.21</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><sec id="s3_1"><title>3.1. Plant Growth</title><sec id="s3_1_1"><title>3.1.1. Plant Height</title><p>All growth parameters were influenced by varieties and also the interaction of varieties and rates. The result indicated that plant height did not differ significantly between the two varieties of sweet peppers at 30 DAT, 60 DAT, 90 DAT and 120 DAT (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Plants treated with Rate 2 recorded significantly taller plants of 42.6 cm (30 DAT), 60.5 cm (60 DAT), 76.5 cm (90 DAT) and 91.8 cm (120 DAT) when compared to other rates. Rate 3 and Rate 4 were at par as it relates to plant height. The shortest plants were obtained from Rate 1. The interaction of Rate 2 with Varieties 1 and 2, obtained considerably taller plants at all four growth periods compared to other treatment combinations.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_2"><title>3.1.2. Plant Spread</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref> shows no significant differences between the varieties as it relates to plant spread for the different growth stages. Rate 2 obtained notably wider plants at 30 DAT (38.3 cm), 60 DAT (55.5 cm), 90 DAT (76.1 cm) and 120 DAT (88.1 cm) when matched against the other rates. There were no significant differences between Rate 3 and Rate 4 for plant spread but differed considerably from Rate 1. Rate 1 (control/0 kg) gave the least plant spread for both varieties at all the growth stages. The interaction of Rate 2 with Varieties 1 and 2 led to a remarkable increase in plant spread at 30 DAT, 60 DAT, 90 DAT and 120 DAT as compared to the other treatment combinations.</p></sec><sec id="s3_1_3"><title>3.1.3. Number of Branches</title><p>The varieties of sweet pepper did not differ as it pertains to the average number of branches (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). The number of branches increased with all treated plants except the control. The application of Rate 2 increases the number of branches</p><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Represent the mean plant height (cm) for varieties and rates (Pooled data)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Rates</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >30 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >60 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >90 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >120 DAT</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.1<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.8<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.2<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >43.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.3<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.7<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.3<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.5<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.8<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >60.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >75.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >95.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >87.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >91.8<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78.6<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.5<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >54.4<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >53.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >68.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >65.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >81.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >63.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with the same letters are not significantly different from one another (p &gt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Effects of the various rates and varieties on plant spread (cm) (pooled data)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Rates</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >30 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >60 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >90 DAT</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >120 DAT</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.3<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.8<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.6<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36.1<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.2<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.1<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >44.2<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.7<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >42.4<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.6<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.6d</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >52.1<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >37.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >56<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >55.5<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76.1<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >85.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >90.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >88.1<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.5<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.3<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >77<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.6<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >33.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.8<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >50.3<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.1<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >72.3<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >79.8<sup>ab</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >76<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >31.4<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >45.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >59.6<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >62.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >74.7<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with the same letters are not significantly different from one another (p &gt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Effects of the various rates and varieties on the mean number of branches</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rate</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >V1</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >V2</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.6<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.8<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.5<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.7<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.1<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.9<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10.2<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.5<sup>b</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.9<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.2<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with the different letters are significantly different from one another (p &lt; 0.05).</p><p>(11.5) considerably more than the other Rates tested. Rate 3 and Rate 4 gave a similar number of branches, however, they differ considerably from the Rate 1 at the 5% level. The least number of branches six (6) was attained from Rate 1. Rate 2 interacted significantly with Varieties 1 and 2 for the number of branches.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s3_2"><title>3.2. Yield Parameters</title><sec id="s3_2_1"><title>3.2.1. Fruit Length and Width</title><p>The Rates did not have an effect on the fruit length and fruit width for the varieties tested (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>). Plants treated with Rate 2 (VC + chemical fertilizer) recorded the longest fruit (7.4 cm) and the widest fruits (7.3 cm) which differs considerably from all other Rates. Rate 3 and Rate 4 were at par for the length and width of fruits but differ considerably from Rate 1. Rate 1 attained the shortest fruit (5.5 cm) and smallest fruit (5.4 cm). A significant interaction was noticed as the length and width of fruit increased with the combination of Rate 2 with Varieties 1 and 2.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_2"><title>3.2.2. Fruit Weight</title><p>Varieties and rates differed significantly for fruit weight at the 5% level (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). Sunsation (V2) had considerably heavier fruits (152.2 g) than Aristotle (V1).</p><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Effects of different rates on the mean length and breadth for the varieties of sweet pepper</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Rate</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Fruit length (cm)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Fruit breath (cm)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.5<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.3<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5.4<sup>c </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.2<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.3<sup>a </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>b </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.9<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.8<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6<sup>b </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.6<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.5<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with the different letters are significantly different from one another (p &lt; 0.05).</p><table-wrap id="table6" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref></label><caption><title> Effects of the four rates on the mean yield parameters for the two varieties of pepper</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle"  rowspan="2"  >Nutrient type</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >fruit weight (g)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >No. of fruit/plant</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Yield/Plant(Kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Yield/plot (Kg)</th><th align="center" valign="middle"  colspan="3"  >Total Yield</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >VI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >VI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >VI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >VI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >VI</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >V2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >61.4<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >80.0<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >70.7<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.4<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.9<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0.8<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4<sup>e </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.6<sup>e </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9.0<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.4<sup>e </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8.4<sup>e </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.8<sup>d </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >183.8<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >195.2<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >189.5<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.3<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.1<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22.7<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.7<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.3<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3.0<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >35.7<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >38.1<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30.7<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >34.8<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32.8<sup>a </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128.3<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >144.1<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136.2<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.3<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.8<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >12.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.5<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.7<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.6<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.4<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.2<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.8<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.5<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16.5<sup>d </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0<sup>c </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >154.1<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >173.6<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >163.8<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.8<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.7<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >18.3<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.4<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.3<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2<sup>&amp;</sup>1<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.9<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >29.0<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.1<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >25.7<sup>c </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.9<sup>b </sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Mean</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >131.9<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >152.2<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >15.4<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17.0<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >1.8<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >23.1<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.8<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19.9<sup>b </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.4<sup>a </sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with different letters are significantly different from one another (p &lt; 0.05).</p><p>The Rates obtained statistically significant differences for fruit weight, with effects of ranking Vermicompost + chemical fertilizer (189.5 g) &gt; poultry manure + chemical fertilizer (163.8 g) &gt; vermicompost + poultry manure (136.2 g) &gt; 0 fertilizer (70.7 g). The interaction of varieties and rates recorded statistically significant differences in fruit weight. Sunsation and Aristotle interacted with Rate 2 to achieve significantly higher fruit weights of 195.2 g and 183.8 g respectively than any other combinations. The interaction of Sunsation with Rate 4 obtained a fruit weight of 173.6 g which had notable differences from the interaction of Aristotle and Sunsation with Rate 3 (128.3 g) and (144.1 g). The least fruit weight was noticed from the interaction of varieties with Rate 1.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_3"><title>3.2.3. Number of Fruit per Plant</title><p>There were no differences between the two varieties of peppers as it relates to the number of fruits per plant (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). Rate 2 obtained significantly more fruits per plant (22.7) followed by Rate 4 (18.3). No differences were observed between Rate 3 (12.5) and Rate 1 (11.5) for the number of fruits. Treatment combination V2 R2 and V1 R2 had notably more fruits per plant (24.1) and (21.3) followed by V2 R4 (18.7) and V1 R4 (17.8). The least fruit per plant (11.3) was obtained from treatment combination V1 R3.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_4"><title>3.2.4. Plant Weight</title><p>The varieties and rates had remarkable differences with regard to plant yield at the 5% level. Variety two recorded significantly higher plant weight (2.1 kg) than variety one (1.8 kg). Plant weight obtained statistically significant differences for all rates tested, with effects of ranking Vermicompost + chemical fertilizer (3.0 kg) &gt; poultry manure + chemical fertilizer (2.3 kg) &gt; vermicopost + poultry manure (1.6 kg) &gt; 0 fertilizer (0.8 kg). Rate 2 interacted significantly with Sunsation (V2) and obtained a weight of 3.3 kg compared to all other combinations.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_5"><title>3.2.5. Yield per Plot</title><p>The varieties and rates differed significantly for plot yield at the 5% level (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table6">Table 6</xref>). Sunsation obtained a considerably higher plot yield of 24.8 kg than Aristotle. Plot yield showed statistically significant differences for all rates, with effects of ranking Vermicompost + chemical fertilizer (38.1 kg) &gt; poultry manure + chemical fertilizer (29 kg) &gt; vermicompost + poultry manure (19.8 kg) &gt; 0 fertilizer (9 kg).</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_6"><title>3.2.6. Yield per Crop Cycle</title><p>The Rates recorded remarkable differences among the crop cycles (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). Plants treated with Rate 2 recorded significantly higher yields for cycles 1, 2 and 3 (40.3 t/ha, 30 t/ha and 28.1 t/ha) followed by Rate 4 for cycles 1, 2 and 3 (35.8 t/ha, 21.1 t/ha and 17.9 t/ha) and Rate 3 for cycles 1, 2 and 3 (25.9 t/ha, 17.6 t/ha and15.3 t/ha). Rate 1 obtained the lowest yield for all cycles (13.7 t/ha, 6.7 t/ha and 5.8 t/ha). Yield declined sharply from cycle one to cycle three, due to an increase in temperature, pest incidence, and high percent unmarketable fruits.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_7"><title>3.2.7. Total Yield</title><p>The rates showed statistical differences for all rates tested (p &lt; 0.05) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Rate 2 obtained a significantly higher mean yield of 32.8 kg/ha, followed by Rate 4 (24.9 kg/ha) then Rate 3 (19.7 kg/ha) and Rate 1 obtained the lowest yield of 8.7 t/ha at the 5% level. These increases in yield are directly related to the nutrient composition of the rates. The yield seemed to be affected by temperature increases, higher incidence of pests, and a greater percentage of unmarketable fruit especially in the last cropping cycle.</p></sec><sec id="s3_2_8"><title>3.2.8. Fruit Storage at Different Temperatures</title><p>Sweet pepper fruits were significantly influenced by rates and storage temperatures (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref>). Plants treated with vermicompost and poultry manure had a significantly longer shelf life of 14.71 days at room temperature (30.3˚C). Rate two (vermicompost + chemical fertilizer) and Rate 4 (poultry manure + chemical fertilizer) obtained a similar storage time of 13.29 and 13.04 days respectively at room temperature. Rate 1 (0 fertilizer) obtained the shortest storage period of 7.75 days. The rates did not differ for fruits stored at refrigerated temperature (7˚C), however, they differed significantly from Rate 1.</p><table-wrap id="table7" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table7">Table 7</xref></label><caption><title> Effects of rates and storage temperature on fruit shelf life (days)</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Rates</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Room temperature (30.3˚C and RH 62%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Refrigerated temperature (7˚C and RH 81%)</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7.75<sup>c</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.50<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.29<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.16<sup>ab</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >14.71<sup>a</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.42<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >R4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.04<sup>b</sup></td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.42<sup>b</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>Note: Means with different letters are significantly different from one another (p &lt; 0.05).</p></sec></sec></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><sec id="s4_1"><title>4.1. Effect of Varieties on the Growth and Yield Parameters of Sweet Peppers</title><p>Aristotle obtained significantly better growth parameters for varieties such as plant height, plant spread, and number of branches than Sunsation for crop cycle 1 due to lower average temperature (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). On the other hand, considerably better growth characteristics were achieved by Sunsation for cycles 2 and 3. Sunsation grew better at high average temperatures while Aristotle at lower temperatures. However, the average growth parameters for both varieties did not differ for the three cycles cultivated under the tunnel house (UV plastic) (Tables 2-5). Pest and disease also affected the growth of both varieties in the second and third cycles nevertheless, Aristotle seems to be more affected, especially in the dryer periods. This current study agrees with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref21">21</xref>] reported that high temperatures can severely affect the growth and yield of peppers. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref18">18</xref>] found that sweet pepper growth is retarded at a temperature above 32˚C. A similar result was obtained from this experiment as temperature increases plant growth declines rapidly.</p><p>Sunsation performed better for the weight of 12 fruits (152.2 g) number of fruits per plant [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref15">15</xref>] , yield per plant (2.1 kg) and yield per plot (24.8 kg) as compared to Aristotle. These higher values of yield components can be attributed to the genetic capacity inherited which gave better growth in terms of higher plant height (72.5 cm), plant spread (65.1 cm), number of primary branches (2.2), and secondary branches (16.3). These superior growths and yield parameters as recorded in Sunsation have, in turn, resulted in higher yield (21.4 t/ha). It seems that the variety has a better genetic capacity to utilize natural resources like temperature, relative humidity, and nutrients as compared to the Aristotle variety. This variety is more adapted to the conditions under the tunnel house since it had less incidence of pest, disease, bird, and rodent damage as compared to Aristotle which seems to be more susceptible to damages as mentioned earlier. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref18">18</xref>] conducted a study and found that plant weight for Sunsation declined from 1935 g in 2015 to 1338 g in 2016 a similar result was also obtained from this experiment. The findings from this trial disagree with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref22">22</xref>] found no difference in fruit weight between Sunsation and Aristotle.</p></sec><sec id="s4_2"><title>4.2. Effect of Various Rates on the Growth and Yield Parameters of Sweet Peppers</title><p>Growth parameters such as plant height, plant spread, and the number of branches increased significantly with the application of vermicompost + chemical fertilizer than the other treatments evaluated (Tables 2-5). These enhanced growth characteristics may be a result of better soil health, where vermicompost improved soil structure, aeration, soil compaction, and microbial activity and, therefore enhances water and nutrients uptake by plants. Vermicompost has good physiochemical properties (1.59% N, 0.01% P and 0.06% K, 0.24% Ca, and 0.18% Mg <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) and it is also comprised of enzymes such as amylase, lipase, cellulase, and chitinase which break down organic matter in the soil (to release nutrients and make it available to the plant roots). The addition of chemical fertilizer will further increase the nitrogen level in the soil, promote decomposition and provide adequate nitrogen for greater plant growth. These results are similar to [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref22">22</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref23">23</xref>] also reported an increase in plant growth with the application of vermicompost. These results are consistent with previous research showing the application of vermicompost improved plant growth for sweet pepper and hyacinth bean [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref10">10</xref>] . Plant growth was similar between Rate 4 (poultry manure + chemical fertilizer) and Rate 3 (vermicompost + poultry manure) (Tables 2-5). These rates may have also improved the physicochemical properties of the soil, where a large number of nutrients (macro and micro) may be released especially nitrogen to speed up the rate of decomposition and thus encourage plant growth.</p><p>Rate 2 (vermicompost + chemical fertilizer) had significantly higher yield components such as fruit length (7.4 cm), fruit breadth (7.3 cm), fruit weight (189.5 g), number of fruits (22.7), yield per plant (3.0 kg), yield per plot (38 kg) and total yield (32.8 t/ha) compared to the other treatments. The improvement in yield components can be attributed to the vegetative parameters such as an increase in plant height (91.8 cm), plant spread (88.1 cm), and number of secondary branches (11.5). The vermicompost component in this treatment combination is known to enhance microbial activity which might have improved the availability of macro and micronutrients. It can retain moisture and also regulate the availability of metabolic micronutrients to the plants and thus help in increasing plant growth and yield attributing traits by providing nutrients in the available form. Besides, vermicompost also contains significant quantities of nutrients, a large amount of beneficial microbial populations, and biologically active metabolites particularly gibberellins, cytokinins, auxins, and group B vitamins [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref24">24</xref>] all of which have a beneficial effect on photosynthesis, translocation and transformation into the development of fruits which are the economic part of the plant. These results are in agreement with findings of several earlier workers viz., [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref6">6</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref25">25</xref>] in capsicum and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref27">27</xref>] in chilli. The use of vermicompost in combination with inorganic fertilizers can increase crop yield and the quality of diverse crops [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref24">24</xref>] .</p><p>The application of Poultry manure + NPK fertilizer recorded the second-highest yield of 25 t/ha. These increases in yield components were because of the considerable improvement in fruit weight (163.8 g), number of fruits (18.3), yield per plant (2.3 kg), and yield per plot (29 kg). This may be due to enhancing soil physical properties such as aggregation, permeability, moisture retention, soil structure and aeration (24) which promote plant growth and development. It is also due to improved soil chemical properties (pH, EC, organic carbon, macro and micronutrients) (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>) which provided essential nutrients favouring the rhizosphere more congenial for nutrient uptake and utilization [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref28">28</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref29">29</xref>] .</p><p>Additionally, a notable amount of nitrogen present in poultry manure consists of uric acid and nitrogen in the fertilizer which was readily available to the plant promoting good growth right from the beginning of the crop. A similar observation was observed by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref30">30</xref>] . This manure can also increase the soil microbial population responsible for the mineralization of plant nutrients and thus increase nutrient availability to support crop growth and development. The combination of manure and inorganic fertilizer can improve plant yield and quality of many different crop species [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref24">24</xref>] .</p></sec><sec id="s4_3"><title>4.3. Effects of Interaction of Varieties and Rates</title><p>The varieties and rates had a positive response to the growth and yield of sweet peppers. The positive interaction between varieties and rates may be due to the increased availability of macronutrients and micronutrients along with growth hormones and chelating agents which provided a favourable environment for the proper growth and development of sweet peppers. Among the interactions, plants of Sunsation variety treated with vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer recorded a considerably higher yield of 34.8 t/ha peppers. This may be due to the significant improvement in fruit weight (195.2 g), number of fruits per plant (24.1), plant weight (3.3 kg), and plot yield (40.4 kg). It seems that the Sunsation variety has a better inherited genetic capacity to utilize nutrients provided by vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer. These findings are supported by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref7">7</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref9">9</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref25">25</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref13">13</xref>] in capsicum and [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref13">13</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref14">14</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref26">26</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref27">27</xref>] in chilli, who found that vermicompost increases the growth and development of bell peppers.</p></sec><sec id="s4_4"><title>4.4. Effects of Rates on the Shelf Life of Peppers</title><p>The rates and storage temperature significantly influenced fruit shelf-life. Plants treated with vermicompost + poultry manure (Rate 3) recorded a significantly longer shelf life of 14.71 days at room temperature (30.3˚C). The application of vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer and poultry manure + inorganic fertilizer obtained a similar fruit shelf-life of 13.29 and 13.04 days respectively. These results agree with the findings of [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref3">3</xref>] for fruit shelf-life. The higher shelf-life achieved by Rate 3 may be due to lower respiration and transpiration rates which reduce shrinkage and ethylene metabolism. A similar result was obtained by [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref17">17</xref>] for tomato shelf-life. It seems that the use of inorganic fertilizer combined with manure or compost can also improve sweet pepper shelf-life to a great extent compared to no fertilizer application. This result agrees with [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.125548-ref17">17</xref>] who found that the combined use of manure and inorganic fertilizer significantly increased tomato shelf-life as compared to inorganic fertilizer usage. At a refrigerated temperature of 7˚C, fruit shelf-life increased to about 21 days for all treatments except Rate 1. This higher shelf-life is a result of significantly lower rates of respiration and transpiration rates that reduces shrinkage and ethylene metabolism.</p></sec></sec><sec id="s5"><title>5. Conclusion</title><p>The result of this study indicated that the Sunsation variety gave better growth and yield attributes than Aristotle. The combined use of vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer has significantly influenced plant growth and yield compared to the other rates. Rate 2 (vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer) also had a positive interaction with the Sunsation variety and obtained significantly higher growth and yield responses than other interactions. Rate 2 also enhances fruit shelf-life at room and refrigerated temperatures. From the result, it is sufficient to suggest that the application of vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer will increase sweet pepper yield. Increasing yield and production of sweet pepper can thus translate into an increase in the standard of living of farmers who cultivate these peppers. The cultivation of Sunsation sweet pepper and the application of vermicompost + inorganic fertilizer obtained optimum yield which can be incorporated into the current farming practices to improve their livelihood, become self-sufficient, and ensure sustainable production. This will also reduce the dependence on inorganic fertilizer as the sole source of nutrients.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Conflicts of Interest</title><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>Raghunauth, R., Chandranauth, R., Bacchus, Z., Chibi, S. and Singh, J. (2023) Evaluating Two Varieties of Sweet Pepper Using Different Nutrient Sources to Increase Productivity. Agricultural Sciences, 14, 751-766. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2023.146050</p></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.125548-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of united Nation) (2000) Fertilizers and Their Uses. FAO, 26-39.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Taber, H.G., Howell, N.P. and Havlovic, B.J. (2008) High Tunnel Pepper Production. Iowa State University, Armstrong and Neely-Kinyon Research and Demonstration Farms, ISRF07-12. https://doi.org/10.31274/farmprogressreports-180814-2688</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sanchez, A.C., Prang, H.C. and Bhatt, B.O. (1992) Relative Efficiency of Organic Manure in Soil Improvement and Crop Yield. Journal of Soil Science, 24, 162-164.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Pathak, R.K. and Ram, R.A. (2003) Organic Farming Systems Prevalent in India. National Symposium Organic Farming in Horticulture for Sustainable Production, Central Institute of Subtropical Horticulture, Lucknow, 18-26.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jamir, T., Rajwade, V.B., Prasad, V.M. and Lyngdoh, C. (2017) Effect of Organic Manures and Chemical Fertilizers on Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) Hybrid Indam Bharath in Shade Net Condition. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 6, 1010-1019. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kalembasa, S. and Deska, J. (1998) The Possibility of Utilizing Vermicompost in the Cultivation of Radish and Paprika. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej-w-Poznaniu Ogrodnictwo, 27, 131-136.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Adhikari, P., Khanal, A. and Subedi, R. (2016) Effect of Different Sources of Organic Manure on Growth and Yield of Sweet Pepper. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research, 3, 158-161. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.125</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ikeh, O., Ndaeyo, N.U., Uduak, I.G., Iwo, G.A., Ugbe, L.A., Udoh, E.I. and Effiong, G.S. (2012) Growth and Yield Responses of Pepper (Capsicum frutescens L.) to Varied Poultry Manure Rates in Uyo, Southeastern Nigeria. ARPN: Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 7, 735-742.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Basavaraja, N., Nandi, V.R. and Jholgikar, P. (2003) Protected Cultivation of Capsicum and Bhendi. Proceeding of all India on Sem. Potential and Prospects for Protective, Cultivation, Organized by the Institute of Engineers, Ahnednagar, 12-13 December 2003, 197-199.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Beckman, E.O. (1973) Organic Fertilization Vegetable Farming Luxury or Necessity. Technical Communication, ISHA, 29, 247. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1973.29.16</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Udoh, D.J., Ndon, B.A., Asuquo, P.E. and Ndaeyo, N.U. (2005) Crop Production Techniques for the Tropics. Concept Publication, Lagos, 446. 
Wiel, R.R. and Kroonje, W. (1979) Physical Conditions of Davidson Clay Loam after Five Years of Poultry Manure Application. Journal of Environmental Quality, 18, 387-392. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1979.00472425000800030024x</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Asiegbu, J.E. (1987) Effects of Organic Matter Substrate Sources and Time of Photosynthate—Sink Removal on Flower and Pod Production in Okra. Abelmoschus esculentus (L) Moench. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, 52, 293-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/00128325.1987.11663530</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Nair, M. and Peter, K.V. (1990) Organic, Inorganic Fertilizers and their Combinations on Yield and Storage Life of Hot Chillies. International Journal of Vegetable Science, 17, 7-10.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kale, B.D. and Bano, K. (1994) Promotion of Vermicomposting for Production of Organic Fertilizer. Technical Report, ICAR, 74.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Behera, K.K., Alam, A., Vats, S., Pd. Sharma, H. and Sharma, V. (2011) Organic Farming History and Techniques. In: Lichtfouse, E., ed., Agroecology and Strategies for Climate Change, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, Vol. 8, Springer, Dordrecht, 287-328. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1905-7_12</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Rekha, G.S., Kaleena, P.K., Elumalai, D., Srikumaran, M.P. and Maheswari, V.N. (2018) Effects of Vermicompost and Plant Growth Enhancers on the Exo-Morphological Features of Capsicum annum (Linn.) Hepper. International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, 7, 83-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40093-017-0191-5</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hsieh, S.C. and Hsieh, C.F. (1990) The Use of Organic Matter in Crop Production. Taichung District Agricultural, Improvement Station, Taichung.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sideman, R.G. (2020) Colored Bell Pepper Yields from Cultivars Grown in High Tunnels in Northern New England. HortTechnology, 30, 456-462. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH04577-20</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Sharu, S.R and Meerabai, M. (2001) Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Yield and Quality in Chilli. International Journal of Vegetable Science, 28, 184-185.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Aliyu, L. and Kuchinda, N.C. (2002) Analysis of the Chemical Composition of Some Organic Manures and Their Effect on the Yield and Composition of Pepper. Crop Research-Hisar, 23, 362-368.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Maynard, A.A. (1991) Intensive Vegetable Production Using Composted Animal Manure. Bulletin of Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station No. 892, New Haven, 13. 
Jeevansab, (2000) Effect of Nutrient Sources on Growth, Yield and Quality of Capsicum Grown under Different Environments. Master’s Thesis, The University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Wang, X.X., Zhao, F., Zhang, G., Zhang, Y. and Yang, L. (2017) Vermicompost Improves Tomato Yield and Quality and the Biochemical Properties of Soils with Different Tomato Planting History in a Greenhouse Study. Frontiers in Plant Science, 8, Article 1978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01978</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Kme&amp;#357;ová, M. and Ková&amp;#269;ik, P. (2014) The Impact of Vermicompost Application on Yield Parameters of Maize (Zea mays L.) observed in selected phenological growth stages (BBCH-SCALE). Acta Fytotechnica et Zootechnica, 17, 100-108.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Bhavalkar, V.S. (1991) Vermiculture Biotechnology for LEISA—Seminar. Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture, Amsterdam, 1-6.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jeyabasakaran, K.J., Pandey, S.D., Mustaff, M.M. and Sathiamoorthy, S. (2001) Effect of Different Organic Manures with Graded Levels of Inorganic Fertilizers on Ratoon of Pooven Banana. South Indian Horticultural, 49, 105-109.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hiramani, Y. and Vijayakumari, B. (2003) Influence of Vermicompost with Organic and Inorganic Manures on Biometric and Yield Parameters of Chilli [(Capsicum annum L.) var. Plri]. Crop Research-Hisar, 25, 236-243.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jasvirsingh, B., Sreekrishna, B. and Sudharaman, M.R. (1997) Performance of Scotch Bonnet Chilli in Karnataka and Its Response to Vermicompost. Indian Cocoa, Arecanut &amp; Spices Journal, 21, 9-10.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ron, G. (2016) Evaluation of 11 Bell Pepper Cultivars in Southwest Michigan. Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Naidu, A.K., Kushwah, S.S. and Dwivedi, Y.C. (2002) Influence of Organic Manures Chemical and Biofertilizers on Growth, Yield and Economics of Brinjal. South Indian horticulture, 50, 370-376.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.125548-ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jones, T., Amanda Ferguson Sears and John C. Snyder (2005) Bell Pepper Evaluations for Yield and Quality. Department of Horticulture, Eastern Kentucky, Richmond.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>