i RESPONSE OF GARLIC (Allium sativum L.) VARIETIES TO TYPES OF BLENDED FERTILIZERS IN MIHUR-AKLIL DISTRICT OF GURAGE ZONE, ETHIOPIA Msc. Thesis By HABTEMARIAM FIKADU BEREKA WOLKITE UNIVERSITY, WOLKITE, ETHIOPIA JULY, 2023 i RESPONSE OF GARLIC (Allium sativum L.) VARIETIES TO TYPES OF BLENDED FERTILIZERS IN MIHUR-AKLIL DISTRICT OF GURAGE ZONE, ETHIOPIA HABTEMARIAM FIKADU BEREKA A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE WOLKITE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES WOLKITE UNIVERSITY WOLKITE, ETHIOPIA MASTER OF SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE WOLKITE UNIVERSITY, ETHIOPIA JULY, 2023 i SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES WOLKITE UNIVERSITY ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Response of Garlic (allium sativum l.) Varieties to Different Types of Blended Fertilizers in Mihur-Aklil District of Gurage Zone, Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master's with specialization in Horticulture, the Graduate Program of the Department/School of Horticulture, and has been carried out by Mr. Habtemariam Fikadu Bereka Id. No 013/13, under our supervision. Therefore we recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department. Habtemariam Fikadu Bereka _________________ _______________ Name of the Student Signature Date Zenebe Woldu Adane (PhD) ________________ _________________ Name of Major Advisor Signature Date Abreham Mulatu (MSc, Asst. Prof) ____________________ ________________ Name of Co-Advisor Signature Date ii SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES WOLKITE UNIVERSITY EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET =============================================================== We, the undersigned, members of the Board of Examiners of the final open defense by Habtemariam Fikadu Bereka have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Response of Garlic (Allium sativum L.) Varieties to Different Types of Blended Fertilizers in Mihur-Aklil District of Gurage Zone, Ethiopia”, and examined the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master science _________________ ________________ Name of the Chairperson Signature Date ________________________ _____________ Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date _____________ _________ _____________ Name of External examiner Signature Date Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy of the thesis to the School of Graduate Studies (SGS) through the Department/School Graduate Committee (DGC/SGC) of the candidate’s department. Thesis approved by ________________________ ____________________ ________________ DGC/SGC Approval Signature Date iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Above all and beyond, I would like to thank and glorify the Almighty God for His unlimited blessings and guidance over the period of my life and this MSc. study. Secondly, I would like to express my sincere and profound gratitude to my major advisor Zenebe Woldu (PhD) and co-advisor Abreham Mulatu (Asst. Prof.) for their unreserved advice, technical guidance and invaluable comments all the way from the proposal development stage up until the completion of the research work as well as the final write up of the thesis. Without their help, it would have been so difficult to get to this stage. Furthermore, I would like to sincerely express my unreserved appreciation to Wolkite University and Mihur-Aklil Woreda Administration for providing me the educational and sponsorship opportunity to do this MSc. study. In line with this, I would also like to thank Debre-Zeit Agricultural Research Center (EIAR) for supplying me the required quantity planting materials of the four improved garlic varieties, which I used for the study. In this case, my special gratitude goes to Dr. Fikadu G/Tensay, a Senior Researcher and coordinator of the Cool Season Vegetable Research Program. Also I would like to express my special appreciation to Wolkite soil laboratory for the analysis of physio-chemical property of the sampled soil. Last but not least, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to all my best friends, colleagues as well as beloved families for their candid and unreserved assistance throughout the period of my course and research work. iv DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this piece of work to my beloved wife, Mrs. Kibrinesh Tigistu, for her boundless contribution towards the successful completion of this study and beyond. v TABLES OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Page ADVISORS’ APPROVAL SHEET .................................................................................................. i EXAMINERS’ APPROVAL SHEET ............................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ iv TABLES OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURE ......................................................................................................................... xii LIST OF TABLES INAPPENSDIX ............................................................................................. vxi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................... xiix ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ xxiv 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Objectives...................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1. General objective ................................................................................................ 3 1.1.2. Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 3 2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 4 2.1. Origin and Distribution of Garlic .................................................................................... 4 2.2. Importance of Garlic ....................................................................................................... 4 2.3. Suitable Climatic and Soil conditions for Garlic Production .......................................... 5 2.4. Status, Potentials and Constraints of Garlic Production in Ethiopia ............................... 5 2.5. The Role of Varieties on Garlic Yield and Yield Components ...................................... 6 2.6.Response of garlic to fertilizer ......................................................................................... 7 2.6.1. Type and characteristics of blended fertilizers. ..................................................... 7 2.6.2. Response of garlic for NPS fertilizers.................................................................... 7 2.6.3. Response of garlic for boron fertilizer ................................................................... 9 2.6.4. Response of garlic for zinc fertilizer ...................................................................... 9 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................................... 11 vi 3.1. Description of the study area ........................................................................................ 11 3.2. Experimental Materials ................................................................................................. 11 3.2.1. Planting Materials ............................................................................................... 11 3.2.2. Fertilizers ............................................................................................................ 12 3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design ............................................................................. 12 3.4. Experimental Procedure and Management ..................................................................... 13 3.5. Data Collected ................................................................................................................. 14 3.5.1. Soil sampling and analysis ...................................................................................... 14 3.5.2. Growth and yield parameters .................................................................................. 14 3.5.2.1. Phenological parameters ............................................................................. 14 3.5.2.2. Growth parameters ...................................................................................... 15 3.5.2.3. Yield parameters ......................................................................................... 15 3.5.3. Economic analysis (Partial Budget Analysis) ......................................................... 16 3.6. Data analysis .................................................................................................................. 17 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 18 4.1. Soil Sample Analysis Results ......................................................................................... 18 4.2. Phenological Parameters ................................................................................................. 19 4.2.1. Days to emergence .................................................................................................. 19 4.2.2. Days to maturity ...................................................................................................... 21 4.3. Growth Parameters .......................................................................................................... 22 4.3.1. Plant height (cm) ..................................................................................................... 22 4.3.2. Leaf length (cm) ...................................................................................................... 23 4.3.3. Leaf number/plant ................................................................................................... 24 4.3.4. Leaf width (cm) ....................................................................................................... 25 4.3.5. Leaf area (cm 2 ) ........................................................................................................ 26 4.3.6. Leaf area index (LAI) ............................................................................................. 27 4.4. Yield and yield components ............................................................................................ 28 4.4.1. Bulb diameter (mm) ................................................................................................ 28 4.4.2. Mean bulb weight.................................................................................................... 29 4.4.3. Average clove weight .............................................................................................. 30 vii 4.4.4. Number of cloves .................................................................................................... 31 4.4.5. Total bulb yield (t ha -1 ) ........................................................................................... 32 4.4.6. Marketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) .................................................................................. 33 4.4.7. Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) ............................................................................. 34 4.5. Correlation coefficient of yield and yield components of garlic varieties and types blended fertilizers ....................................................................................................................... 35 4.6. Partial Budget Analysis (PBA) ........................................................................................ 38 4.7. Marginal Rate of Return (MRR) ...................................................................................... 40 5. SUMMURY AND CONCLUSION........................................................................................... 41 6. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................... 43 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... 55 BIOGRAPHIC SKETCH .............................................................................................................. 61 viii LIST OF TABLES 1: Description of the four improved garlic varieties and one local check selected for the study. ........................................................................................................................................... 12 2: Treatment combinations and their adjusted fertilizer rate ...................................................... 13 3: Soil physicochemical properties of the study Site .................................................................. 19 4: Effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on days to 50% emergence of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 20 5: Effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on days to 75% physiological maturity of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping seasons ........................................................................................................................................ 22 6: Interaction effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on plant height (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 23 7: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf length (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 24 8: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf number/plant of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season………………………………………………………………………………………25 9: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf width (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 26 10: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf area (cm2) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 27 11: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Leaf area index (LAI) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ……………………………………………………………………………………..28 12: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on bulb diameter (mm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 29 ix 13: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average bulb weight (g) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season .......................................................................................................................................... 30 14: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average clove weight (g) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season .......................................................................................................................................... 31 15: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average number of cloves/bulb of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ................ 32 16: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on total bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ............ 33 17: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Marketable bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season .......................................................................................................................................... 34 18: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season ............ 35 19: Correlation coefficient among yield and yield Components of garlic varieties as influenced by different types of blended fertilizers .................................................................... 37 20: Partial Budget Analysis (PBA) of garlic varieties as influenced by different types of blended fertilizers ........................................................................................................................ 39 21: Marginal rate of return of garlic varieties as influenced by different types of blended fertilizers ..................................................................................................................................... 40 x LIST OF FIGURE Figure 1: Location map of the study area……………………………………………..11 xi LIST OF TABLES INAPPENSDIX 1: Analysis of variances for growth parameters of garlic as affected by varieties and blended fertilizers at Mihur-Aklil District Yasinawra kebele 2023 cropping season .......... 55 2: Analysis of variances for yield and yield attribute of garlic as affected by varieties and blended fertilizer at Mihur-Aklil .......................................................................................... 56 xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AFAP African Fertilizer and Agribusiness Partnership AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa AjY Adjusted Yield ANOVA Analysis of Variance ATA Agricultural Transformation Agency AvY Gross Average Bulb Yield Birr Ethiopian Birr CRV Crop Variety Register CIMMYT Center of International Maize and Wheat Improvement CSA Central Statistical Agency (Ethiopia) CV Coefficient of Variance DABPI Department of the Agricultural Bureau of Plant Industry DAIS Directorate for Agricultural Information Service DZARC Deberziet Agricultural Research Center (EIAR, Ethiopia) EMA Ethiopia Mapping Agency EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research EthioSIS Ethiopian Soil Information System FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations FAOSTAT Food and Agricultural Organization Statistics FDRECSA Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistics Agency GFB Gross Field Benefit xiii IFDC International Fertilizer Development Center LAI Leaf Area Index LSD Least Significance Difference MAWAO Mihur Aklil Woreda Agricultural Office MRR Marginal Rate of Return NB Net Benefit NPS Nitrogen-Phosphorus-Sulphur NPSB Nitrogen-Phosphrous-Sulphur-Boron NPSZn Nitrogen-Phosphrous-Sulphur-Zinc RCBD Randomized Complete Block Design SAS Statistical Analysis System SNNPR Southern Nation Nationalities People Region WKU Wolkite University xiv RESPONSE OF GARLIC (Allium sativum L.) VARIETIES TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF BLENDED FERTILIZERS IN MIHUR- AKLIL WOREDA OF GURAGE ZONE, ETHIOPIA ABSTRACT Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is one of the major vegetable and cash crops cultivated throughout the world including Ethiopia. Garlic productivity in Ethiopia (9.18t ha -1 ) is very low compared to the world average (18.4t ha -1 . Its production is constrained by several factors including lack of productive varieties, improved agronomic practices, diseases and insect pests. Among these, inappropriate type of fertilizer and lack of improved varieties are the major ones. Hence, this experiment was conducted in 2023 at Mihur-Aklil District of Gurage zone, Ethiopia with the objective of investigating the effect of blended fertilizer type on growth, yield and yield attributes of garlic varieties. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design in three replications using 20 treatments formed from factorially combined five garlic varieties (Tsedey, Kuriftu, Chefe, Holeta and local) and four types of blended fertilizers (0, NPS, NPSB and NPSZn ). Data on different Phenological, growth, yield and yield related variables were collected and analyzed using SAS, version 9.3. The analysis of variance showed that most of the studied parameters were significantly affected by the interaction of the two factors. The highest total bulb yield (17.08t ha -1 ), marketable bulb yield (14.94 ha -1 ), bulb weight (37.27g), bulb diameter (24.27mm), plant height (77.8cm), leaf length (52.33) and leaf area (38.80cm 2 ) was recorded from Tsedey variety at NPSB blended fertilizer type while the widest leaf width (1.04cm) was recorded from Tsedey variety treated with NPSZn blended fertilizer type and the highest clove weight (2.70g) was recorded from Kuriftu variety treated with NPSZn blended fertilizer type. The partial budget analysis result showed that the highest net benefit of 963881.281Eth-Birr ha -1 was obtained from variety Tsedey and NPSB fertilizer. Thus, from the present study, the variety Tsedey and NPSB fertilizer are recommended for economic production in the study area and areas with similar agro-ecological settings. However, since the study was carried out only for one cropping season and in single location, it is as well recommended that to be repeated across seasons and locations. Keywords: Garlic, varieties, blended fertilizers, yield components, yield 1 1. INTRODUCTION Garlic (Allium sativum L.) that belongs to the alliaceae family is among the most important bulb vegetable crops and the second most widely used allium next to onion is used as spice due to its pungent flavor (Mohammed et al., 2021 ). It has been originated in Central Asia and spread to all other parts of the world through trade and colonization (Muluken, 2020). Garlic produces unique flavors savored by most of the world’s culture (Weldemariam et al. 2017). Its volatile oil has many Sulphur containing compounds that are responsible for its strong odor, its distinctive flavor and pungency as well as for its healthful benefits (Yayeh et al., 2019). It has high nutritive value and used for households throughout the year (Dessie and Mulat 2019). The chemical constituents of garlic have been reported to treat cardiovascular diseases, cancer, diabetes, blood pressure, atherosclerosis, and hyperlipidemia (Vincent, 2019). Garlic is one of the most important bulb vegetables, produced by small and commercial growers for the local or export market (Gizachew et al., 2021). In Ethiopia, the total area under garlic production during 2019/20 was reported to be 18,344.47 ha with total production of 1,525,946.34 Q (Zewdu, 2022) and the average 10.04 tons/ha. Which is very low compared to world average productivity of 18.4 tons/ha (Bizuayehu et al., 2021) and some the neighboring country like Egypt 24.34 t/ha (Mohammed et al., 2021). Ethiopia is ranked 13 th in the world’s garlic production (Muluken, 2020) but it is the third in Africa in the area of production (19,412.49 ha) next to Egypt and Algeria (Weldemariam et al. 2017). Besides its importance, in many parts of the world its productivity is low mainly due to genetic and environmental factors affecting its yield and yield related traits .But in Ethiopia, productivity of garlic is less than half of the world average because of lack of productive varieties, improved agronomic practices that clean planting material (PM) as well as diseases and insect pests are the major causes for the low productivity (Getachew et at., 2022). However to overcome such production problems great effort should be made in the selection and breeding of high-yielding cultivars and the development of cultural techniques (Gizachew et al., 2021) and correspondingly selections of variety with proper 2 rate and fertilizer types are very important factors to increase the productivity and marketability of garlic (Abraham et al., 2014). Similarly (Tadesse, 2015) stated that selections based on morphological and agronomical characteristics of varieties that respond to fertilizer rates are essential to produce high yield, adaptable and high market acceptance. N, P and K fertilizers are especially very important to get the maximum yield of garlic. However the type of fertilizer application should be determined based on the results of soil tests that may be influenced by soil type, the previous crop grown, the rat of organic matter present and also the climatic conditions during the growing season. The application of fertilizer for garlic production in Ethiopia is based on a blanket recommendation set by EIAR (2007), which is 92 kg phosphorous and 105 kg nitrogen sourced from DAP and urea. Such recommendations did not consider the type and fertility of the soil, environmental conditions and other factors that could influence the rate of fertilizer application (Ewnetu et at., 2020). Though, the use of fertilizers in crop production has generally increased in Ethiopia within the last few years, garlic producers still use fertilizers below the blanket recommendation. Furthermore, they depend on fertilizers containing only N and P. Earlier, there is no fertilizers that contain potassium, sulfur and micronutrients that are important to increase production and productivity in garlic production that lead for nutrient level in the soil steadily declined. However, the government of Ethiopia recently introduced different blended fertilizer types containing nitrogen, phosphorous, boron, zinc and sulfur. Garlic plant showed differential responses to the different types of compound fertilizers (Diribaw, 2017). However, the Ethiopian Soil Information System (EthioSIS) indicated that Ethiopian soils lack about seven nutrients Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), potassium (K), sulfur (S), cupper (Cu), Zinc (Zn) and boron (B) in soil fertility assessment study conducted in different Woreda and Kebele (EthioSIS,2014). Although a number of blended fertilizers containing multi-nutrients were formulated to be used in different areas of the country, those fertilizers were not evaluated for their effectiveness in different soils and agro-ecologies (Mulugeta and Abay 2017). The nutrient supplying powers of the soils and demanding levels of the plants need further conclusive 3 site-soil-crop specific fertilizer recommendation with appropriate rate and type (Kedir et al., 2016). Even though Mihur- Aklil woreda has a potential for garlic production, research on variety performance and agronomic practices for improved garlic productivity had not yet conducted. Therefore farmers use only the local varieties with their own traditional production methods. As a result the average yield of the crop is very low 8.3t/ha -1 (MAWAO, 2021). Thereby the income generation from garlic production is still unsatisfactory. Therefore, this experiment was initiated to examine the effect of different types of blended fertilizer on yield and yield components of garlic varieties in Mihur-Aklil Woreda of Gurage Zone, Ethiopia. 1.1. Objectives 1.1.1. General objective  To evaluate the growth and yield response of Garlic (Allium sativum L) varieties to different types of blended fertilizers in Mihur- Aklil district, Gurage zone, Ethiopia. 1.1.2. Specific objectives  To evaluate Garlic varieties with better productivity in the study area  To identify the best type of blended fertilizer that maximizes Garlic productivity in study area.  To determine the economic feasibility of different blended fertilizers on Garlic production in the study area 4 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Origin and Distribution of Garlic The native land of garlic is Middle Asia. It beliefs that the exact origin of garlic is originates from West China, around Tien Shan Mountains to Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan (Biljana et al., 2010). Evidence for its use as a medicinal plant dates to more than 1550 B.C. and its distribution to other parts of the world has made possible by nomadic traders. Today, it is cultivated in many countries worldwide including Asia, Europe, America, and Africa where it is consumed as a spice or therapeutic food (Timothée et al., 2021). Garlic species are widely distributed in boreal areas having temperate climates and mountainous areas from tropical regions. Most of the species diversity is found from Mediterranean countries to Central Asia. USA being as a center for Alliumdiversification (Héctor et al.,2012). 2.2. Importance of Garlic Garlic (Allium sativum L.) is one of the world’s most important vegetables cultivated both for its culinary and health properties. Garlic cloves are recognized as a valuable source of bioactive compounds for functional foods, natural health products, cosmetics, and medicine for people and animals. Garlic could be a seasonal vegetable, which loses its beneficial substances during long-term storage (Aneta et al., 2020). It is old as a spice and flavor agent for foods and is a fundamental component in most dishes of an assortment of the world. It’s frequently balanced with onion, tomato, or ginger and is hypothetical to be in use raw, boiled or mixed with honey, meat, cheese, butter and with milk or with coffee. Clinical studies have shown that garlic reduced blood pressure in more than eighty percent of patients (Bayan et al., 2014). Eating a clove of garlic a day was associated with cholesterol levels dropping about nine percent. It may also boost the immune system, balance blood sugar and prevent heart disease. It also prevents heart disease in two ways: by reducing free radicals that cause damage to cholesterol and by inhibiting the infiltration of damaged fats and cholesterol through the wall of our arteries (Nelson, 2019).Garlic is rich in sugar, protein, fat, calcium, potassium, phosphorus, sulfur, iodine, fiber and silicon in addition it contains vitamins (Abdisa et al., 2021). 5 2.3. Suitable Climatic and Soil conditions for Garlic Production Garlic grows under different agro-climatic conditions and a variety of soil types. Ethiopia has diversified agro ecological conditions suitable for garlic production (Dessie and Mulat 2019). Preferring higher elevations ranging from 1800–2800 (m.a.s.l.) and temperatures12– 24°C in soil having pH ranging from 6.0-8.4 (Betewulign et al. 2014, Shege et al., 2017 and Amandeep et al., 2017). But heavy black soil holds water during the rainy season and cracks during the dry season, it prevent bulb growth. However a good yield can be obtained by carefully irrigating the black vertisoil. Slightly decomposed soils are suitable for plants (Getachew et al., 2019). The ecological requirement of garlic is with reasonably mild winter regions which have some rainfall followed by a sunny dry summer, in good maturity and harvesting of the bulbs are ideal for garlic production. It is easily stressed by insufficient moisture and water logging during its growing period (Brewster, 1994). 2.4. Status, Potentials and Constraints of Garlic Production in Ethiopia The annual national production and productivity of garlic are 178,221 tons and 9.18 ton ha - 1 , which were produced on 19,412.5 hectares of land. The number of householders practicing garlic farming is likely to be 1,782,218.93 farmers, which are much less than that of grains or cereals crops (CSA, 2018). Ethiopia is ranked 13 th in the world garlic production. But, the share of Ethiopian garlic to the world market is very small, only about (0.1%) from the total production (FAO, 2018). The yield differences showed by Ethiopia compared to the world average (18.42 t ha -1 ) most likely reflect differences in technological resources and aspects related to the management of the crop, rather than to differences in genetic related and performance of the cultivars used. Ethiopia is one of the countries in Africa which have enormous potential for the development of different varieties of horticultural crops such as, favorable agro-ecological conditions and natural resources, government policy encouragement, proximity to European and Middle Eastern markets and cheap labors which are suitable for the cultivation of horticultural products meanwhile, the farmers never reached its full potential for the production of garlic crop (Kassa, 2015). However, small growers in the highlands grow garlic traditionally but due to obsolete cultural practices, yields are generally low Several factors are responsible for low garlic 6 yield among which, major production constraints include lack of improved varieties, inappropriate agronomic practices, absence of proper pest and disease management practices and marketing facilities, and lower soil fertility status in many soil types (EIAR, 2007). Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) which operates at federal level and regional agricultural institutes are working on the improvement of crop varieties including garlic however, much of their work is concentrated on grain crops than horticultural crops (DZARC, 2003). Garlic growers use their own saved planting material or purchase local varieties from market through informal planting material system; this influence garlic yield in terms of productivity and quality (Amsalu et al., 2014). 2.5. The Role of Varieties on Garlic Yield and Yield Components Variety selection plays an important role in enhancing the productivity of garlic (Yogesh, 2017). Apart from its adaptation, the variety should have high yield potential, tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, good marketability and high consumer preferences (Yemane et al., 2017). The character of yield reflects the performance of all plant components and might be considered as the end result of many others i.e. every plant contains an inherent physiological production capacity that operates on the energy required for normal plant performance through all accessions didn’t have the same inherent physiological capacity to yield. Breeders commonly find yield to be a very complex array of plant component interactions and by the manipulation of those genetic systems as yield is improved as the result of plant efficiency improvement (Yemane et al., 2017). Garlic variety on morphological characters such as plant height and number of leaves per plant, fresh weight of leaves, root dry weight, yield attributing traits such as bulb diameter and the number of cloves per bulb and bulb yield has a significant difference (Rahman et al., 2020). Its germplasm is diverse in Ethiopia and in recent years, the collection has been carried out by the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR) at Deberziet Agricultural Research Center (DZARC and screening trials were conducted on-station at Deberzeit (Yebirzaf et al., 2018). 7 2.6. Response of Garlic to Fertilizer Allium species including garlic have low nutrient extraction capacity than most plants because of their shallow and un-branched root system. Thus they require and frequently respond well to additional fertilizers application (Brewster, 1994). Fertilizer requirements of garlic crop vary with fertility status of the soil, availability of soil moisture, variety of the crop, purpose for which the crop is grown. Fertility status of the soils significantly affecting garlic crop yield (Diriba, 2016). Garlic requires intensive and complete fertilization system to obtain high yield and good quality (Nasef et al., 2016). 2.6.1. Type and Characteristics of Blended Fertilizers. Blanket fertilizer application recommendations regardless of differences in crop need soil types and agroecology. Fertilizer blending is a special type of fertilizer mixing; containing nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), sulfur (S) and other essential plant nutrients. Where blended are prepared by the mechanical mixing of two or more granular materials of fairly uniform size and density in defined proportions. It originated in the USA and now dominates the fertilizer market in many countries (ATA, 2015). The application of balanced fertilizers is the basis to produce more crops output from existing land under cultivation. Understanding the plant nutrients requirement of a given area has a vital role in enhancing crop production and productivity on a sustainable basis The main advantages of using blended fertilizer for the farmers are: Nutrients are supplied in ratios to suit the requirement of particular soils and crops, the cost per unit of plant nutrient is usually low and the cost of transportation and spreading is low because of the high analysis of bulk blends (ATA, 2015). Indicating that the particular amount of fertilizer to use depends on soil fertility, crop variety and fertilizer use efficiency of the variety. Recently acquired soil inventory data from Ethiopian Soil Information System (Ethio-SIS) revealed that additionally to N and P, nutrients like S, B, and Zn are deficient in most soils of Ethiopia(ATA, 2015). 2.6.2. Response of Garlic for NPS Fertilizers Application of inorganic N, P and S fertilizers significantly influenced the growth of plant height, leaf number, neck diameter and leaf area index of garlic, and better performances of those attributes at rates of 92 kg N, 40 kg P and 30 kg S ha -1 (Diriba et al., 2016). 8 Experiment conducted on garlic varieties treated by NPS fertilizer showed that significant difference for growth parameters (Bewuket, 2021). Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) are referred to as the primary macronutrients because of the probability of being deficient in plants and their large quantities are taken up from the soil relative to other essential nutrients (Murphy, 1995). Kakara et al., (2002) reported that the effects of nitrogen on the growth and yield performance of garlic and similar vegetables are reported by researchers in many parts of the world. It affects mostly vegetative growth like plant height, leaf count and area, fresh and dry weight of garlic plants. Bulb yield of garlic could be a complex parameter that’s resulted from the interaction of various yield components like bulb length, bulb diameter, number of cloves and single bulb weight which are also affected by nitrogen fertilizer. Appropriate nitrogen fertilizer rates are very significant factor to increase the productivity, bulb quality and marketability of garlic (Tadesse, 2015). In the study conducted by Zaman et al., (2011) indicated that all yield components of garlic were positively affected by the application of nitrogen up to 200 kg/ha. However, the mean values of most yield components obtained from garlic plots treated with 150 kg/ha and 200 kg/ha nitrogen was statistically similar. Similarly, maximum bulb yield of garlic was obtained from plants that were supplied with 150 kg/ha nitrogen. Yield as well as yield components was at a low level in garlic plants that were not supplied with nitrogen fertilizer. Phosphorus had a significant influence on the number of leaves per plant and bulb yield of garlic. It was reported that leaf per plant and bulb yield had significantly affected by the interaction effect of N and P (Abreham et al., 2014). The outcome of N and P fertilizer application on the performance of different garlic varieties suggested that both the fertilizer type significantly enhanced plant height, produced the marketable and total bulb yield. As reported by (Shamim et al., 2018) maximum bulb yield had recorded garlic treated at 200 kg ha- 1 of N and K from the different rate of application. Sulfur application in garlic also enhanced the uptake of N, P, K, and Ca by the crop. It has a very important role of plant protein synthesis and some hormone formation (Abraha et al., 2015). It is also necessary for enzymatic action, chlorophyll formation, and synthesis of 9 certain amino acids and vitamins, hence it helps to have good vegetative growth leading to get high yield (ElShafie et al., 2002). Sulphur plays an important role in plants’ growth and development. The mean bulb yield of garlic increased significantly with successive increases in the level of Sulphur up to 25mg kg -1 . The plant height, the number of leaves per plant and chlorophyll content of leaves increased significantly up to application of Sulphur 60 kg ha -1 (Kavita, 2015). The garlic yield attribute namely the average weight of clove, the average weight of bulb and bulb yield/plot and bulb yield/hectare increased significantly with the application of Sulphur (Choyal et al., 2022). 2.6.3. Response of Garlic for Boron Fertilizer Boron is an essential micronutrient required for normal plant growth and development (Rashid et al., 2019). Boron applications at higher levels (4 kg/ha) significantly improved total soluble solid, Sulphur uptake, boron uptake, total chlorophyll content and volatile oil content of garlic bulbs as compared to lower levels of boron. This might have been caused by increased production of carbohydrates during photosynthesis due to increased uptake of nutrients by crops and photosynthates might have been translocating from leaves to the bulb. 2.6.4. Response of Garlic for Zinc Fertilizer Zinc application markedly increased the number of cloves per bulb and weight of the cloves (Shukla et al., 2018).It is involved in a diverse range of enzymatic system, auxin metabolism, influence on the activities of dehydrogenase and carbonic anhydrate enzymes, synthesis of cytochrome and stabilization or ribosomal fractions (Rashid et al., 2019). Zinc is essential for the regular growth, development and reproduction of plants. Furthermore, the application of zinc was found to increase the green pigments of necrotic leaf of plants (Trivedi et al., 2013). Application of zinc significantly influenced the plant height, number of clove/bulb, bulb weight, 100-clove weight and bulb yield of garlic. Yield per unit area was also remarkably influenced by the application zinc fertilizers. The highest bulb yield (6.84 t ha -1 ) was obtained with the application of 2 kg Zn perhactar which was 11.2 t/ha -1 higher than the control (6.15 t ha -1 ) (lslam el al., 2012). Biochemical pathways affected by Zn in plants include protein synthesis, hormone regulation and energy production.Zinc, copper, boron and molybdenum played an important role in increasing the growth and bulb yield of garlic (Yousuf et al., 2016). 10 Micro minerals (Zn and Fe) supplementation played a vital role in enhancing the growth, yield and quality of garlic (Alam et al., 2019). Zinc helped in the translocation of constituents from one part to the other. Zinc application markedly increased the number of cloves bulb and weight of cloves. The improvement in weight and number of cloves might be due to increase in size and weight of bulb under the influence of zinc, which might be due to rapid transformation and storage of food material in the bulb which ultimately increased the number of cloves bulb and weight of cloves. The improved vegetative growth of plant and yield attributing characters due to zinc application and has also direct relation in improvement of bulb development and increase in bulb yield (Uzma et al., 2016). The application of zinc and potassium significantly influenced the uptake of Zn and K by garlic. It is an essential component and activator of many enzymes involved in auxin biosynthesis and photosynthesis (Sakarvadia et al., 2009). Micro minerals Zn 5 kg ha -1 supplementation played a vital role in enhancing the growth, yield and quality of garlic (Shariq et al., 2019). 11 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1. Description of the study area A field experiment was conducted in Mihur Aklil Woreda, Yasinawra Kebele under rain fed condition during the main cropping season of 2023 G.C. The area is located at 215 km away from Addis Ababa to Jimma road in a south-west direction to the Gurage Zone and 37 0 52' 00" to 38 0 18' 00'' E latitude and 8 0 7 00" to 8 0 20' 00" N longitude and an elevation ranges from 1712 to 3467 meter above sea level (Sahle, 2018). The administrative capital of the district is Hawariat town that shares borders with Meskan woreda in East, Kebena woreda in West, Kokir-Gedebano woreda in North, and Eza woreda in the southwest (Mengistu, 2016). The agro-climatic zones account for 53% is Sub-tropical (Woina Dega) and 47% high land (Dega) having an altitude ranges 1712-2500m and 3301-3467m respectively (Sahle, 2018). The specific location for the experiment (Yasinawra) is founded in the highland range where the altitude is 2850 to 2482m. The average annual rainfall of the area is between 1000mm to 1400mm. The maximum and minimum annual average temperature of the area is 22 o C and 11 o C respectively (Mesfin 2018). Figure 1: Location map of the study area (EMA, 2020) 3.2. Experimental Materials 3.2.1. Planting Materials Four nationally released garlic varieties Chefe (G-104-1/94, Kuriftu (G-59-2/94), Holeta (G-HL),) and Tsedey 92 which are obtained from Deberziet Agricultural Research Centre 12 and one local variety (“Tumma”) where obtained from Farmers of study area used for the experiment. Table 1: Description of the four improved garlic varieties and one local check selected for the study. No Varieties Optimum Average productivity Year of Breeder Altitude (m.a.s.l.) on farmer filed qt./ha Released /Maintainer 1 Local “Tumma” >2500 83 - Farmers of study area 2 Chefe(G-104-1/94) >1800 65.9 2015 DzARC 3 Kuriftu (G-59-2/94) 2100 – 2400 41 2010 DzARC 4 Holeta (G-HL) >1800 66.5 2015 DzARC 5 Tsedey 92(G-493) 1900 – 2400 85 1999 DzARC Source: Deberzeit Agricultural Research Center (EIAR, 2019). 3.2.2. Fertilizers The fertilizers used for the experiment were: Blended NPS fertilizer (19.0% N, 38.0% P2O5and 7% S); Blended NPSB fertilizer (18.9% N, 37.7% P2O5, 6.95% S and 0.1% B); and Blended NPSZn fertilizer (18%N, 35.9% P2O5, 7.7% and S, 2.2% Zn) 3.3. Treatments and Experimental Design The experiment covered a total area of 243.6 m 2 (43.5 m*5.6 m). The treatments were arranged in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications under factorial arrangement. Each block contained 20 plots with randomized treatments. The size of each plot was 2.04 m 2 (1.7 m * 1.2 m). The spacing between plots was 0.5m and 1.0m between block. Each plot accommodated four single rows with 17 plants in each row and a total of 68 plants. As shown under Table 2 below, the experiment had a total of 20 treatment combinations and with a total of 60 experimental units (plots). The treatments consisted of improved and one local varieties of garlic, three blended fertilizer types(containing five nutrients, i.e. N, P, S, B, and Zn) and one control (without fertilizer). 13 Table 2: Treatment combinations and their adjusted fertilizer rate Treatment Blended fertilizer rate (kg/ha) Varieties used Calculated/adjusted elemental composition of the fertilizer rates (kg/ha) N P2O5 S B Zn T1 control - Local “Tumma” - - - - - T2 control - Chefe - - - - - T3 control - Kuriftu - - - - - T4 control - Holeta - - - - - T5 control - Tsedey 92 - - - - - T6NPS 242 Local Nech 105.75 91.96 16.94 - T7NPS 242 Chefe 105.75 91.96 16.94 - T8NPS 242 Kuriftu 105.75 91.96 16.94 - T9NPS 242 Holeta 105.75 91.96 16.94 - T10NPS 242 Tsedey 92 105.75 91.96 16.94 - T11NPSB 245.8 Local Nech 105.64 92.36 17.02 0.25 - T12NPSB 245.8 Chefe 105.64 92.36 17.02 0.25 - T13NPSB 245.8 Kuriftu 105.64 92.36 17.02 0.25 - T14NPSB 245.8 Holeta 105.64 92.36 17.02 0.25 - T15NPSB 245.8 Tsedey 92 105.64 92.36 17.02 0.25 - T16NPSZn 256 Local Nech 105.88 91.9 19.71 - 5.632 T17NPSZn 256 Chefe 105.88 91.9 19.71 - 5.632 T18NPSZn 256 Kuriftu 105.88 91.9 19.71 - 5.632 T19NPSZn 256 Holeta 105.88 91.9 19.71 - 5.632 T20NPSZn 256 Tsedey 92 105.88 91.9 19.71 - 5.632 3.4. Experimental Procedure and Management The experimental field was ploughed and harrowed to prepare fine seedbeds before planting. Raised beds were then prepared with 20cm height from the ground level in order to provide good soil drainage, reduce soil compaction, etc. (Muluken, 2021). Subsequently, 14 the cloves were planted in each plot at a depth of 5cm across the single rows with intra-row spacing of 10cm and inter-row spacing of 30cm as commonly used in Ethiopia (MoA, 2019). Healthy and uniform medium-sized cloves (2g) that were nationally recommended (Bizuayehu et al., 2021) used as planting materials. Planting was carried out during the main rainy season of 23 June 2022. The blended fertilizers were applied at the time of planting using the banding method as recommended by Betewulign et al. (2014) but top- dressing of Urea is in two splits. 1 st top-dressing is a week after emergence while 2 nd top- dressing is 4 weeks after 1 st application (MoA, 2019). All other necessary agronomic and management practices such as cultivation and weeding were applied uniformly across all plots of the experiments as stated in the DZRC (EIAR) record sheet. Finally, harvesting was carried out when75% of the tops of the plants were dried out and collapsed (Abdisa, 2021). 3.5. Data Collected 3.5.1. Soil sampling and analysis The soil sample was collected before planting diagonally along the cross-section of the experimental site using the auger at a depth of 30cm from six spots. The total Nitrogen (mg/kg ppm), Phosphrous (mg/kg (ppm) and the available of Zinc (mg/kg (ppm). Organic matter (%), soil pH, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and soil texture were determined in Wolkite Soil Laboratory. Soil pH was measured in 1:2.5 soil water ratio using an electrode pH meter, organic carbon content of the soil was determined by Walkley and Black method (Walkley and Black, 1934), available phosphorus was estimated following the standard procedure of (Olsen et al., 1954) and total nitrogen was estimated by the Kjeldahl method (Jackson, 1958). The available Zn in soils is extracted using a chelating agent DTPA (diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid) (Lemma et al., 2021). 3.5.2. Growth and yield parameters 3.5.2.1. Phenological parameters  Days to 50 % emergence: was recorded when 50 % of the planted cloves sprouted and emerged out of the soil in each plot. 15  Days to maturity: The number of days from planting to maturity when 75% of the leaves of the plants in each plot become yellow, dry, and/or show senescence (Dickerson, 1999). 3.5.2.2. Growth parameters  Plant height (cm): is the mean vertical length from the base of the pseudo stem up to the tip of leaf. It was measured from ten randomly selected plants from the two central rows by using ruler at physiological maturity from each plot.  Leaf length (cm): The average length of the longest leaf, at physiological maturity was measured in cm from the two central rows of ten randomly taken plants.  Leaf width (cm): was measured from the two central rows of ten randomly taken plants per plot considering the widest part leaves and the average value recorded as width of single leaf.  Leaf number per plant: number of healthy leaves was counted from the ten randomly plants in the central rows and the average value recorded as number of leaf per plant.  Leaf area index: The average LAI was recorded from ten randomly taken plants from each plot; one leaf from each sample plant was measured at the widest part at the time of physiological maturity. It was determined using the value of the leaf area divided by the area of the land occupied by the plants using the formula leaf area index (LAI) = LAm× N/A. Where: (1) LAI= mean leaf area of the plant multiplied by N = number of leaves on the plant divided by the area (cm 2 ) occupied by one plant in the cropping area (2) Leaf Area (LA) = LA = LL*LW*0.733 Where: LAm = mean leaf area of the plant LL = leaf length LW = maximum leaf width 0.733 = conversion factor for leaf area. 3.5.2.3. Yield parameters  Bulb diameter (mm): Bulb size was recorded at harvest and average bulb diameter measured from ten randomly taken garlic plants of two central rows using side caliper and the mean value was recorded and used for analysis. 16  Bulb length (cm): It was measured at the basal end point from the bottom scar of the bulb to the tip point of the bulb using graduated caliper in cm from two central rows ten randomly selected plants after curing.  Bulb weight per plant (g): The bulb fresh weight was measured from two central rows ten randomly taken bulbs and divided for the number of sampled plants and then expressed as bulb weight per plant after ten days curing.  Number of cloves per bulb: the total number of cloves produced from two central rows ten randomly taken plants was counted and divided by the number of bulbs.  Average clove weight (g): It was determined by weighting the cloves of ten bulbs harvested from the net plot area and dividing the weight by the total number of cloves.  Clove width (cm): width of clove was measured at the widest point in the middle portion of the clove using graduated caliper in cm from the two central rows of ten randomly selected after ten days curing.  Total yield per hectare (t ha -1 ): total bulb yield of plants grown a plots was measured after bulbs were cured or exposed for ten days to sunlight. The yields obtained from plots were converted to hectare base. Yield per net plot (kg) x 10000 m 2 Yield per hectare in tones = ---------------------------------------------- Net area of the plot (m 2 ) x1000kg  Marketable bulb yield per hectare (t ha -1 ): Bulbs which were free of mechanical damage, disease and insect pest damages, healthy, compact were considered as marketable bulb and the yield was calculated and expressed as tone per hectare using similar formula for total bulb yield  Unmarketable yield per hectare (t ha -1 ): bulbs which were defected, diseased, badly stained skins, and damaged, that did not acceptable by the market weighted and converted to tons per hectare as unmarketable bulbs. 3.5.3. Economic analysis (Partial Budget Analysis) Partial budget analysis was employed for economic analysis of fertilizer application and it was carried out for combined bulb yield data. The potential response of crop 17 towards the added fertilizer and price of fertilizers during planting ultimately determine the economic feasibility of fertilizer application (CIMMYT, 1988). To estimate the total costs, blended fertilizer (NPS, NPSB and NPSZn) was collected at the time of planting and market price of garlic bulbs had also taken the time of harvest. The economic analysis was based on the formula developed by CIMMYT (1988) and given as follows:  Gross Average Bulb Yield (kg ha -1 ) (AvY): is the average yield of each treatment.  Adjusted Yield (AjY): is the average yield adjusted downward by a 10% to reflect the difference between the experimental yield and yield of farmers. AjY = AvY- (AvY-0.1).  Gross Field Benefit (GFB): is computed by multiplying field/farm gate price that farmers receive for the crop when they sale it as adjusted yield. GFB = AjY*field/farm gate price  Total cost: is the cost of blended fertilizer used for the experiment. Their prices were based on 2014 price during planting. The costs of other inputs and production practices such as labor cost for land preparation, planting, weeding, crop protection and harvesting were assumed to remain the same or were insignificant among treatments  Net Benefit (NB): is calculated by subtracting the total costs from gross field benefits for each treatment. NB = GFB – total cost.  Marginal Rate of Return (MRR %): is calculated by dividing change in net benefit by change in cost which was the measure of increasing in return by increasing input. 3.6. Data analysis All agronomic data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the general linear model using SAS version 9.3 .Wherever treatment effects were significant at 5% probability level, the means were separated using Least Significant Difference (LSD) (Gomez and Gomez, 1984). Correlation analysis was carried out using Pearson’s simple correlation coefficients for growth, yield and yield components of garlic as affected by, NPS, NPSB and NPSZn applications to garlic varieties. 18 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Soil Sample Analysis The composite soil sample of the experimental site was analyzed for soil texture and chemical properties before planting. Based on the analysis results, the texture of the soil of the experimental site was clay loam based on the soil textural triangle of the International Society of Soil Science System (Rowell, 1994). The clay texture indicates a good deal of plant nutrients and supports most types of plants and crops. The experimental site had a pH of 6.3, which is close to the neutral range (EthioSIS, 2013). Conferring to Landon (1991) soils having pH value in the range 5.5 to 7.5 is considered suitable for most agricultural crops. In addition, Bachmann (2001) indicated that pH in the range of 5 to 7.5 is favorable for garlic production. Hence, the pH of the experimental soil was within the range optimum for productive soil. Soil organic matter content of before plant was 1.89 % (Table 3), which is medium according to Meron (2018), i.e. < 1% Very low, 1 – 2% Low, 2 – 4% medium, 4.2 – 6% High and > 6% Very high. The cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the soil was ranged from 28 meq/100g (Table 3). It is medium according to rating of (Egel et al., 2014). Cation exchange capacity indicates that the soil has the capacity to hold nutrient cations and supply to the crop. Soils high in CEC contents are considered as agriculturally fertile. Total nitrogen of the experimental soil was 0.12 (%) (Table 3), according to EthioSIS (2013) this value is low. The soil analysis result indicated that the need to apply N for garlic crop to get optimum yield and quality. The available phosphorus of the experimental soil was 16 (PPM). Hence, available Phosphrous of soil was categorized within optimum (160 ppm) which was based on the ranges rated by (Egel et al., 2014). The availability of sulfur in experimental soil was 7.5 (mpp). According to Bashour and Sayegh (2007) this value is very low. It indicate that how much precipitation an area receives, or at least how much water is running through the soil profile or if the sulfur is low, that means it’s getting leached out. But he availability of zinc in experimental soil was medium 9.5 (mpp) (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978). The availability of boron in experimental soil was 0.5 (mpp) Where soil B levels are less than 0.5 mg kg soil–1, deficiency is likely to occur for most crops. However, where levels are greater than about 5.0 mg kg soil, 19 toxicity may occur. Thus, there is a narrow range between sufficiency and toxicity levels (Lemma et al., 2021). The soil sample analysis results showed that the experimental site was deficient in some macro and micronutrients as shown in Table 3 below. This complies with the previous ATA (2014) report that the following seven soil nutrients are deficient in SNNPR (i.e. total nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, available sulfur and extractable iron, zinc and boron). As reported by Tegbaru (2016), the soil critical point concept of P, K, S, Zn, Cu and B are considered deficient when they are respectively below 30, 190, 20, 0.5, 0.9, and 0.8 ppm; which confers with the present study results. Table 3: Soil physicochemical properties of the study Site Soil physical property Value Soil status Reference Clay (%) 36 - - Sand (%) 31 - - Silt (%) 33 - - Soil Texture - Clay loam Rowell, (1994). Soil chemical property Total N (%) 0.12 Low EthioSIS (2013) Available P (ppm) 16 Optimum Egel et al., (2014) Available S (ppm) 7.5 Very low Bashour and Sayegh (2007) Available B (ppm) 0.5 Very low Tegbaru (2016), Available Zn (ppm) 9.5 Optimum Lindsay and Norvell, (1978). Organic matter (%) 1.89 Low Meron (2018) CEC meq/100g 28 Medium Egel et al., (2014). pH 6.3 Moderately acidic EthioSIS, (2013). 4.2. Phenological Parameters 4.2.1. Days to emergence The analysis of variance showed that both the variety and blended fertilizer had highly significantly (P<0.01) influenced but their interaction effect had non-significant (p<0.05) effect on garlic days to 50% emergency (appendix table 1). 20 Tsedey-92 took 11.58 days to emerge 50% whereas the local variety “Tumma” took longest days (15.33) taking 3.75 days more than tsedey92 .On the other hand Chefe and Holeta varieties had statistically similar days to 50% emergence (table 4). These may due to genetic makeup of the different cultivars. Asrat et al., (2015) who proved that variety had a highly significant effect on days to 50% emergence. And also it might be the day of harvesting and time to break their dormancy period varied. Bewuket et al., (2017) who observed, the main effect of variety and different forms of fertilizer significantly influenced days to emergence. However, the interaction effect of variety and different forms of fertilizer application did not significantly affected days to emergence of garlic. The blended fertilizer types had also highly (P<0.01) significant effect on garlic days of emergence (appendix 1) and hence, the earliest day to emergence (12.10) was recorded by NPSB fertilizer followed by NPSZn (13.1). The latest day for emergence (15.10 was recorded from garlic plots with zero (0) fertilizer application (Table 4). This could be attributed to the impact of nitrogen on enhancing leaf and root formation during the earliest period of plant growth. Moreover, (Getachew and Temesgen. 2020) observed the earliest days to emergence at optimum fertilizer level is due to the role of phosphorous in root initiation Table 4: Effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on days to 50% emergence of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Variety Days to emergence Local (‘’Tumma’’) 15.33 a Chefe 14.25 b Kuriftu 12.25 c Holeta 13.50 b Tsedey 11.58 c LSD (0.05) 0.88** Blended fertilizer Days to emergence 0 (Without fertilizer) 15.06 a NPS 13.33 b NPSB 12.07 c NPSZN 13.07 b LSD (0.05) 0.78** CV (%) 7.926776 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other ** 21 4.2.2. Days to maturity Both the main of varieties and fertilizer types had a highly (P<0.01) significant effect While their interaction had non-significant (p<0.05) effect on days to maturity (Appendix Table 1). Chafe and Holeta varieties were early matured taking 137.750 and 139.583 days respectively than the remaining varieties used for the experiment which were statistically similar for days to maturity (table 5). This may due to varieties have genetic variations that influence their growth and development and, adaptation to the environment resulting in different morphological and physiological senescence. The result is also in agreement with the finding of (Dessie and Mulat 2019) and (Mulu et al. 2020), who reported that garlic varieties showed different days to maturity suggesting that the variation in maturity among the varieties might be due to their genetic differences. Days to maturity ranges from 127.4 to 140.4 days. Tsedey 92 took a long time of 140.4 days to mature, while the local variety took shorter days of 127.4 to mature. Also Ministry of Agriculture reported that reported that Tsedey takes 120 days, Kuriftu 140 days and Tsedey 138 days to maturity (MoA, 2019). The earliest day to maturity (136.80) recorded when the plots were tread with zero fertilizer (control plot) whereas the prolonged day to maturity (146.67) was recorded when a treatment treated with NPSB blended fertilizer types. Though, it was statistically at par days to maturity in response to the rest blended fertilizer types (table 5). The earliest day of maturity at the control treatment may be due to the insufficient supply of nutrients that enhance the vegetative growth of the crop. Delay in days to maturity with high levels of N could be attributed to delayed senescence of the canopy of the crop (garlic) and extended physiological activity and continuing in photosynthesis (Abreham et al., 2014). 22 Table 5: Effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on days to 75% physiological maturity of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping seasons Variety Days to 75% physiological maturity Local (‘’Tumma’’) 144.58 a Chefe 137.75 b Kuriftu 147.08 a Holeta 139.58 b Tsedey 147.17 a LSD(0.05) 4.57* Blended fertilizer Days to 75% physiological maturity 0 (Without fertilizer) 136.80 b NPS 143.33 a NPSB 146.67 a NPSZN 146.13 a LSD(0.05) 4.08** CV (%) 3.857164 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.3. Growth Parameters 4.3.1. Plant height (cm) As observed from analysis of variance, plant height had highly significantly (p<0.01) influenced by both main effect but significantly (p<0.05) influenced on their interaction effects (Appendix Table 1). The longest (77.8cm) plant height was recorded by Tsedey with NPSB type of blended fertilizer application followed by (72.2cm) of Tsedey variety treated with NPS type of blended fertilizer. Shortest plant height (48.389cm) was recorded by Holeta variety with zero (0) fertilizer application which, was statistically to Chefe variety treated with NPS type of blended fertilizer (Table 6). This might be due to the differences of the cultivars genetic constituted to respond to the applied fertilizer in enhancing meristematic elongation. This result is in agreement with (Hassan et al., 2015) who observed significant result of interaction effects cultivars and fertilizer types on plant height. Tadesse, (2015), also reported that cultivars had different plant height at different rates of nitrogen fertilizer. 23 Under his observation a wide range of variation was measured in plant height among different garlic varieties. Table 6: Interaction effects of varieties and blended fertilizers on plant height (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Plant height (cm) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZN Local (‘’Tumma’’) 53.53 f-h 62.78 f-c 66.5 b-e 58.38 e-g Chefe 55.33 f-h 53.44 hg 65.39 b-e 64.67 b-e Kuriftu 59 f-c 67.94 b-d 68.08 b-d 68.5 bc Holeta 48.39 h 58 e-g 65.82 b-e 55 f-h Tsedey 66.56 b-e 72.19 ba 77.8 a 69.42 a-c LSD(0.05) 9.28 CV (%) 8.95 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.3.2. Leaf length (cm) Output from the analysis of variance indicated that the main effects of variety and the main effects of blended fertilizers and varieties showed that there is highly significant difference (P<0.01) while their interaction effect of variety and blende fertilizer was significantly (P<0.05) influenced leaf length of garlic plants (Appendix Table 1). The highest leaf length (52.33cm) was recorded by the application of NPSB on Tsedey variety. It was statistically insignificant to the same variety treated with NPSZn (50.56cm). However, the smallest leaf length (34.83) was recorded from zero fertilizer application on Holeta variety. There was 50.02% higher than the smallest leaf length (34.833cm) Holeta variety of non-fertilized treatments but it was statistically similar to Chefe variety treated with without fertilizer (Table 7). The higher leaf length at the Tsedey treated with NPSB and NPSZn blended fertilizer type may be due to the positive effect of nutrients in blended fertilizer especially boron and zinc on vegetative growth and leaf expansion .Similarly, it may be associated with the fact that nutrients in blended fertilizer is important for plant cell division, elongation, synthesis of chlorophyll, enzymes and proteins which are important for plant growth. 24 This result is in agreement with the findings of Ahmed et al., (2007) who reported that availability nutrients that allowed young garlic plants to be more vigorous in their growth and development. Table 7: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf length (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Leaf length (cm) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZN Local (‘’Tumma’’) 37.33 h-f 43.11 b-f 46.33 d-a 40.67 h-c Chefe 35.56 h 36 hg 40.67 h-c 46 e-a Kuriftu 40.22 h-d 42.56 b-g 47.11 a-c 46.33 d-a Holeta 34.83 h 39.67 e-h 46.11 e-a 38.44 h-f Tsedey 46.11 e-a 48.56 ba 52.33 a 50.56 a LSD(0.05) 6.66 CV (%) 9.38 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.3.3. Leaf number/plant Results of analysis of variance of this study indicated that both main effects variety and blended fertilizer showed very highly significant differences (P<0.001) in contrast to this their interaction effects were not significantly (P<0.05) influenced leaf number of garlic plants (Appendix Table 1). The highest number of leaves (9.55) was recorded from Tsedey variety followed by (8.47) from Kuriftu variety but the lowest number of leaves (7.20) was recorded from Holeta cultivar. This significant difference may be due to the genetic difference of the varieties in their adaptation and growth performance. The present experimental result is in line with that of Abera, (2015) he observed Variety showed significant difference on leaf number plant. The highest leaf number (10.9) was observed on the plot with the variety Tsedey however, the lowest leaf number (8.44) was observed in plot planted with the variety Chefe. The finding of (Ayalew et al., 2015) stated that Varieties had significant effect on number of leaves per plants. Significantly highest number of leaves per plant was recorded from the local variety than Kuriftu and Tsedey 92 25 NPSB fertilizer enables to produce an increased number of leaves (9.05) followed by NPS fertilizer, it produces (7.97) numbers of leaves however 0 fertilizer application (without fertilizer) was given the smallest number of leaves (Table 8). Abera (2020) who reported that the highest leaf number was recorded from NPS rate of 305.5kg ha -1 (10.34) and the lowest leaf number (7.94) recorded from zero application respectively. There was increasing trend of leaf number as the NPS rate increased from 0 up to 242 kg ha -1 , but further increasing up to 305.5 kg ha-1 decreased the leaf number. Table 8: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf number/plant of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Variety Leaf number/plant Local (‘’Tumma’’) 7.33 c Chefe 7.55 c Kuriftu 8.47b Holeta 7.20 c Tsedey 9.55 a LSD(0.05) 0.57** Blended fertilizer Leaf number/plant 0 (Without fertilizer) 7.27 c NPS 7.97 b NPSB 9.05a NPSZN 7.77 cb LSD(0.05) 0.52** CV (%) 8.69 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.3.4. Leaf width (cm) The main effects of variety and blended fertilizer, and their interaction showed a significant influence on leaf width (Appendix table 1). The widest leaf width was recorded from the cultivar Tsedey (1.04cm) when the plant received NPSZn blended fertilizer followed by (1.02cm) Tsedey variety treated with blended NPS fertilizer. However, the smallest leaf width (0.56cm) was recorded from 26 variety Holeta with no nitrogen fertilizer and from the cultivar Chefe (0.63s cm) when the variety is received no nitrogen fertilizer (Table 9). These results revealed that leaf width was more related to the function of genetic makeup in the cultivars and the application of fertilizer. Tadesse, (2015) stated that varieties and nitrogen rates showed highly significance differences of leaf width among the treatments. Table 9: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf width (cm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Leaf width(cm) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZN Local (‘’Tumma’’) 0.82 d-g 0.89 a-f 0.89 a-f 0.88 a-f Chefe 0.63 hi 0.69 g-i 0.73 i-f 0.78 e-h Kuriftu 0.92 e-a 0.84 c-f 0.95 d-a 0.87 b-f Holeta 0.57 i 0.72 i-f 0.89 a-f 0.73 i-f Tsedey 1.01 a-c 1.02 ba 0.89 a-f 1.04 a LSD(0.05) 0.18 CV (%) 12.18 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other. 4.3.5. Leaf area (cm 2 ) The analysis of variance indicated that the main effects variety and blended fertilizer had very highly significant difference (P<0.001) while their interaction effects were also had significantly influenced (P<0.05) leaf area of garlic plants (Appendix Table 1). The widest leaf area was recorded from the variety Tsedey (38.81cm 2 ) when the plant received NPSB blended type of fertilizer however the smallest leaf width (17.52cm 2 ) was recorded from variety Chefe with no fertilizer application which, was without significance difference between this varieties planted with NPS type of blended fertilizer (Table 10). [ This might be due to the differences of the cultivars genetic constituted to respond to the applied fertilizer in enhancing meristematic elongation. This nutrients can promote healthy leaf growth and increased the leaf size of garlic plant by improve soil fertility and increase the availability of nutrients to the plants. This can lead to better nutrient uptake by the plants which can result in larger and healthier leaves. 27 Table 10: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on leaf area (cm2) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Leaf area (cm 2 ) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 23.96 g-c 28.16 f-b 30.35 d-a 28.80 f-b Chefe 17.52 h 18.40 gh 22.16 d-h 27.15 g-c Kuriftu 28.57 f-e 26.72 g-c 31.54 a-c 29.47 b-e Holeta 19.84 f-h 20.88 e-h 28.67 f-e 20.81 e-h Tsedey 31.72 a-c 36.91 ba 38.81 a 38.7 a LSD(0.05) 9.04 CV (%) 19.91 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.3.6. Leaf area index (LAI) The analysis of variance revealed that the main effects blended fertilizer showed highly significant difference (P<0.001) while the main effect of variety and their interaction effects were significantly (P<0.05) influenced leaf area of garlic plants (Appendix Table 1). Variety Tsedey resulted in significantly higher leaf area index of (1.25) from application of NPSB type of blended fertilizer, which was 267.64% higher than the leaf area index of garlic variety Holeta treated without fertilizer. But it was statistically similar to some other treatment combinations. However the smallest leaf area index (0.34) of garlic was recorded Holeta variety planted without fertilizer, which was statistically similar with Chefe variety (0.38) planted without fertilizer (Table 11). The increase in leaf area index with blended fertilizer may due to the fact that fertilizer greatly increases leaf area by delaying leaf, sustained leaf photosynthesis and extended leaf area, which ultimately resulted in maximum leaf area index. (Fikru and Fikreyohannes. 2020) stated that Leaf area index was significantly affected by application of N. Nitrogen supplement at a rate of 130 kg ha-1 increased leaf area index of garlic by 71.6% compared to control. Similarly Abreham et al., (2014) stated that in all the sampling periods, the highest values of LAI were recorded at 150 kg N ha-1 and the lowest from the control. 28 Table 11: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Leaf area index (LAI) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Leaf Area Index (LAI) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 0.50 e-h 0.66 g-d 0.84 b-d 0.63 d-h Chefe 0.37 gh 0.45 f-h 0.63 d-h 0.71 fedc Kuriftu 0.71 f-c 0.771 b-e 1.04 ba 0.78 b-e Holeta 0.34 h 0.48 e-h 0.85 b-d 0.49 e-h Tsedey 0.96 a-c 1.25 a 1.20 a 1.15 a LSD(0.05) 0.30 CV (%) 24.80 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4. Yield and yield components 4.4.1. Bulb diameter (mm) The analysis of variance revealed that both the main effect variety and fertilizers show very highly significant (P<0.001) influence on bulb diameter however their interaction effect was significant at (P<0.05 (Appendix Table 2). So Tsedey variety treated with NPSB type of blended fertilizer resulted in significantly widest (24.2733mm) bulb diameter followed by this variety treated with NPSZn types of blended fertilizer (24.1367mm). In contrast to this the narrowest bulb diameter (17.2400mm) was recorded from Chefe variety when it is treated without fertilizers. It was statistically insignificant with Holeta variety when it planted without fertilizer. (Table 12) This significant difference on garlic bulb diameter might have attributed to the synergistic role played by the three nutrients in providing balanced supply of nutrients to the crop. It might also be attributed to high level of phosphorus throughout the growth period of the plant in the root zone which is essential for the cell enlargement, rapid root development and good utilization of water that resulted indirectly in increased bulb diameter. Additionally, boron stimulate the enzymatic actions and chlorophyll formation which might increase bulb size of garlic Also in agreement with this finding, Abera, (2020) recorded the widest bulb diameter (5.1 cm) was recorded from the variety Tsedey treated by fertilizer treatment level of 305.5 kg 29 ha -1 NPS fertilizer however, narrowest bulb diameter (2.11 cm) was recorded from the unfertilized Chefe variety. Table 12: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on bulb diameter (mm) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Bulb diameter (mm) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 18.28 k-i 18.95 g-k 20.41 d-h 20.25 e-i Chefe 17.24 k 18.48 k 19.74 f-j 19.82 f-j Kuriftu 19.62 g-j 20.88 g-c 22.67 a-c 22.22 b-e Holeta 17.98 kj 19.87 f-j 21.41 f-c 20.26 e-h Tsedey 21.25 f-c 22.27 b-d 24.27 a 24.13 ba LSD(0.05) 1.9868* CV (%) 5.862765 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4.2. Mean bulb weight Both the main effects of garlic variety and blended fertilizer had very highly significantly (P<0.001) influenced but their interaction effect was significant at (P<0.05) influenced the bulb weight of garlic (Appendix Table 2). Tsedey variety treated with NPSB type of blended fertilizer resulted in maximum (37.27g) bulb weight then the next maximum bulb weight (36.87g) obtained from Kuriftu variety when it was planted with NPSB type of blended fertilizer. However, the smallest average bulb weight (29.40g) was recorded from Chefe variety without fertilizer, which was statistically insignificant with Chefe variety with NPS type of blended fertilizer (Table 13). This could be recognized to the increase in number and length of leaf, bulb diameter and extended physiological maturity in response to fertilization, all of which may have led to increased photosynthetic assimilate production and allocation to the bulbs. 4. Abraha et al., (2015), In agreement with the current experimental result, variety Tsedey with produced significantly highest average bulb weight of 35.74 g at the rate of 242 kg ha - 1 NPS blended fertilizer. On the other hand, variety Chefe with 0 kgha -1 NPS rate gave the lowest average bulb weight of 5.22 g. 5. 30 Table 13: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average bulb weight (g) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Bulb weight (g) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZN Local (‘’Tumma’’) 31.92 i-f 33.24 g-f 34.65 a-f 34.25 b-f Chefe 29.4 i 30.03 i 30.54 g-i 30.40 hi Kuriftu 33.74 ef 33.60 ef 36.88 ba 36.25 e-a Holeta 33.18 h-f 33.88 e-f 34.55 a-f 34.06 c-f Tsedey 34.69 a-f 36.69 d-a 37.27 a 36.81 a-c LSD(0.05) 2.8156* CV (%) 5.03882 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4.3. Clove weight The analysis of variance revealed that the main effects blended fertilizer and varieties showed significant difference (P<0.001) while their interaction effect were significantly (P<0.05) influenced clove weight of garlic plants (Appendix Table 2). In light of this, variety Kuriftu resulted in significantly maximum (2.70g) from application of NPSZn type of blended fertilizer, which was statistically insignificant with Tsedey variety treated by NPSZn types of blended fertilizer. But it was statistically similar to some other treatment combinations. However the smallest clove weight (1.88g) of garlic was recorded Holeta variety planted without fertilizer, which was statistically similar with local “Tumma” variety (1.9567g) planted without fertilizer (Table 14). Similarly this might be increased photosynthetic assimilate production and allocation, thereby increasing partitioning of assimilate to the storage organ (cloves). The finding of Abera, (2020) indicate that Varieties and NPS blended fertilizer had significant effect on average clove weight. The highest average clove weight (2.98 g) was recorded by cultivar Tsedey at 242 kg ha-1 NPS. On the other hand, the lowest average clove weight of 0.44 g was recorded from unfertilized Chefe. 5. 31 Table 14: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average clove weight (g) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Clove weight (g) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 1.9567 ji 2.2037 h-e 2.24 h-d 2.44 d-c Chefe 2.03 h-j 1.96 ji 2.11 f-i 2.37 e-c Kuriftu 2.07 j-g 2.26 d-g 2.44 d-c 2.70 a Holeta 1.8867 j 2.25 h-d 2.28 d-g 2.39 e-c Tsedey 2.14 f-i 2.33 f-c 2.51 a-c 2.64 ba LSD(0.05) 0.22 CV (%) 5.90 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4.4. Number of cloves The analysis of variance revealed that the main effects variety and blended showed a very highly significant difference (P<0.001) influenced the number of cloves/plants. Despite their interaction effect variety and blended fertilizers were not significantly (P >0.05) influence the number of cloves (Appendix Table 2). Consequently, the maximum average clove number (15.98) was recorded from Kuriftu variety followed by (14.65) from Tsedey 92. On the other hand the smallest average clove numbers (12.94) were recorded from Chefe cultivar and Holeta varieties (13.69). Then again the largest average clove numbers (14.94) were observed on garlic plants planted at blended NPSB fertilizer followed by blended NPSZN fertilizer (14.63). Whereas garlic varieties are planted without fertilizer gives the smallest clove number (13.19) (Table 15). The variation in number of cloves per bulb of garlic variety might be attributed to genetic difference among the varieties. This finding is supported with the results of (Abara et al., 2015), application of combined fertilizers and compost significantly increased number of cloves per bulb of garlic over control in both seasons. The maximum numbers of cloves per bulb (8.69 in 2012/2013 and 11.0 in 2013/2014) were recorded in plots fertilized with N, P, S, and Zn nutrients while the minimum values (4.48 in 2012/2013 and 4.60 in 2013/2014) were recorded in plants where no fertilizers was applied. 32 Table 15: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Average number of cloves/bulb of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Variety Number of cloves/bulb Local (‘’Tumma’’) 13.81 cb Chefe 12.94 c Kuriftu 15.98 a Holeta 13.69 c Tsedey 14.65 b LSD(0.05) 0.94** Blended fertilizer Numbers of cloves/bulb 0 13.19 c NPS 14.09 b NPSB 14.94 a NPSZN 14.63 ba LSD(0.05) 0.84** CV (%) 8.03 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4.5. Total bulb yield (t ha -1 ) Both the main effect of variety and blended fertilizer influenced highly significantly (P<0.001) the Total bulb yield of garlic. However, their interaction effect variety and blended fertilizers were significantly (P <0.05) influenced the Total bulb yield of garlic (Appendix Table 2). The highest total bulb yields (17.08t ha -1 ) and (16.76 ha -1 ) were obtained from Tsedey 92 and Kuriftu varieties treated with NPSB types of blended fertilizer respectively, while, the lowest total bulb yield (9.09 t ha -1 ) was recorded from Chefe variety planted without fertilizer and (10.63t ha -1 ) from Holeta variety which was treated without fertilizers (Table 16). The highest total bulb yield recorded from large improved garlic variety planted with blended fertilizer might be due to an genetic potential of variety and blended fertilizer provide optimum nutrient for the plant yield and yield components (Table 16). 33 Similar to the present result, Abera, (2020) reported that the highest total bulb yield of 12.9 t ha -1 was recorded from the variety Tsedey at 242 kg ha -1 NPS blended fertilizer treatment level. However, the lowest yield (1.87 t ha -1 ) was accrued from unfertilized Chefe variety. Table 16: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on total bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Total bulb yield (t ha -1 ) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 11.34 l-j 12.92 -g 14.10 ef 12.73 i-g Chefe 9.09 m 11.04 lk 13.02 i-f 12.05 i-k Kuriftu 12.76 i-g 14.42 ed 16.77 ba 15.77 bc Holeta 10.63 l 12.21 h-j 13.35 e-h 12.82 i-g Tsedey 13.70 e-g 15.32 dc 17.09 a 15.95 a-c LSD(0.05) 1.16* CV (%) 5.28 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.4.6. Marketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) The analysis of variance shows that both the main effect of variety and blended fertilizer influenced highly significantly (P<0.001) the marketable bulb yield of garlic. However, their interaction effect variety and blended fertilizers were significantly (P<0.05) influenced the marketable bulb yield of garlic (Appendix Table 2). 6. Based on these, the highest marketable bulb yield (14.94 t ha -1 ) was recorded from Tsedey 92 variety treated with NPSB type of blended fertilizer and (14.65t ha -1 ) achieved by Kuriftu cultivar which was treated with NPSB type of blended fertilizer. Still, the lowest marketable bulb yield (7.95t ha -1 ) was recorded by Chefe variety when it was planted without fertilizer and (9.28) t ha -1 was recorded by Holeta variety when it was planted without fertilizer (Table 18). This significant difference on marketable bulb yield might have attributed to the synergistic role played by the three nutrients in providing balanced supply of nutrients to the crop and due to variation in yield potential of varieties. 7. 34 In agreement with the current experimental result, Abera (2020) reported that the variety Tsedey with produced the significantly highest marketable bulb yield of 12.9 t ha -1 from application of 242 kg ha -1 NPS blended fertilizer. The lowest (1.02 t ha -1 ) was observed from unfertilized Chefe variety. Table 17: Interaction effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Marketable bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Marketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) Variety 0 (Without fertilizer) NPS NPSB NPSZn Local (‘’Tumma’’) 9.92 L-j 11.28 i-g 12.31 ef 11.12 i-g Chefe 7.95 m 9.64 Lk 11.37 i-f 10.53 i-k Kuriftu 11.13 i-g 12.60 ed 14.65 ba 13.77 c Holeta 9.28 l 10.66 h-j 11.67 e-h 11.21 i-g Tsedey 11.96 e-g 13.38 dc 14.94 a 13.93 a-c LSD(0.05) 1.01* CV (%) 5.26 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other. 4.4.7. Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) Both the main effect of variety and blended fertilizer influenced significantly (P<0.001) the unmarketable bulb yield of garlic. However, their interaction effect none significantly (P >0.05) influence the unmarketable bulb yield of garlic (Appendix Table 2). The highest unmarketable bulb yield (1.99t ha -1 ) of garlic was achieved by Tsedey 92 variety whereas the lowest unmarketable bulb yield (1.34t ha -1 ) was recorded by local “Tumma” variety. The highest unmarketable bulb yield (1.97t ha -1 ) recorded from NPSB type blende fertilizer application statistically similar NPSZn fertilizer (1.76 t ha -1 ). In contrast to this the lowest unmarketable bulb yield (1.23t ha -1 ) was recorded plants treated without fertilizer and (1.70t ha -1 ) from NPS types of blended fertilizer (Table 18). This may be related to the variety of garlic been grown like poor growing condition, bulb splitting (some varieties in particular Tsedey prone to bulb splitting, which can result in smaller and unmarketable bulb). 8. 35 Abera, (2020) who stated that the highest unmarketable yield (0.85 t ha -1 ) was obtained from unfertilized plot of Chefe variety that have statistical parity with all unfertilized varieties and Chefe and Kuriftu varieties at 181.5 kg ha -1 . Table 18: Effects of variety and blended fertilizers on Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha-1) of garlic in Yasinawra Kebele of Mihur-Aklil Woreda, Gurage Zone, 2022/23 cropping season Variety Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) Local (‘’Tumma’’) 1.34 d Chefe 1.63 bc Kuriftu 1.84 bc Holeta 1.54 dc Tsedey 1.99 a LSD(0.05) 0.44** Blended fertilizer Unmarketable bulb yield (t ha -1 ) 0 (Without fertilizer) 1.23 c NPS 1.71 b NPSB 1.97 a NPSZN 1.76 ba LSD(0.05) 0.21** CV (%) 17.39 Where: Means represented with same letter(s) are not significantly different from each other 4.5. Correlation coefficient of yield and yield components of garlic varieties and types of blended fertilizers The correlation between growth and yield parameters of garlic as influenced by variety and blended fertilizer was computed to measure the relationship between any two parameters as explained by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Accordingly, the total bulb yield of garlic was a positive and significant relation with Physiological maturity (r=0.7295 ** ), plant height (r= 0.600 ** ), leaf length (r= 0.672 ** ), leaf width (r= 0.636 ** ), leaf number (r= 0.6417 ** ), leaf area (r= 0.631 ** ), leaf area index (r= 0.7268 ** ), bulb diameter (r= 0.8051 ** ), bulb weight (r= 0.79 ** ), clove number (0.69 ** ), clove width (r= 0.483**) and marketable bulb yield (r= 0.875 ** ). Whereas, the day to emergency(r= -0.6377**) and unmarketable bulb yield (r= - 0.08**) of garlic were highly and negatively correlated with total tuber yield. 36 Marketable bulb yield also showed a positive and highly significant relationship with all growth and yield parametric data except day to emergency, it was a negative and highly significant relation with marketable bulb yield (Table19). Hence, it increases the photosynthetic efficiency of the plant for the production of photosynthetic assimilates which increased mean bulb diameter and weight. Generally, improving the plant height, diameter and weight of bulbs and clove weight by manipulating the variety and blended fertilizer helps to increase marketable bulb yield of garlic. 37 Table 19: Correlation coefficient among yield and yield Components of garlic varieties as influenced by different types of blended fertilizers Parameters DE PM PH LL LW LN LA LAI BD BW CN CW MBY UMBY TBY DE 1 PM -0.6188** 1 PH -0.4800** 0.5894** 1 LL -0.5179** 0.6350** 0.654** 1 LW -0.3912ns 0.5901** 0.521** 0.762** 1 LN -0.6036** 0.6591** 0.702** 0.774** 0.6514** 1 LA -0.4301ns 0.5576** 0.500** 0.836** 0.9295** 0.66953** 1 LAI -0.5748** 0.6900** 0.649** 0.906** 0.8697** 0.89954** 0.9** 1 BD -0.7546** 0.7234** 0.666** 0.647** 0.6272** 0.74821** 0.635** 0.7683** 1 BW -0.5110** 0.6664** 0.500** 0.584** 0.5517** 0.54968** 0.567** 0.6287** 0.691** 1 CN -0.5618** 0.6793** 0.455ns 0.451ns 0.4933** 0.42525ns 0.43ns 0.4763** 0.62*** 0.67** 1 CW -0.4486ns 0.6818** 0.3914* 0.4176* 0.3343* 0.28609* 0.307* 0.3734* 0.4987** 0.47* 0.5946** 1 MBY -0.6103** 0.7680** 0.626** 0.693** 0.507** 0.637** 0.514** 0.6723** 0.6697** 0.73** 0.6225** 0.605** 1 UMBY 0.16022ns -0.325ns -0.26ns -0.26ns 0.05ns -0.2109ns 0.036ns -0.132ns 0.0103ns -0.1ns -0.084ns -0.44ns -0.55ns 1 TBY -0.6377** 0.7295** 0.600**