Interactive effects of seed rate, sowing method, and variety on Teff (Eragrostis tef) yield, yield components, and lodging trait performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Yemanebirhane Tesfa; Fresew Belete; Wondwosen Tena

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0360297

. 2026 Oct 12;21(10):e0360297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360297

Interactive effects of seed rate, sowing method, and variety on Teff (Eragrostis tef) yield, yield components, and lodging trait performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Yemanebirhane Tesfa ^1,^#, Fresew Belete ^1,^*,^#, Wondwosen Tena ^2,^‡

Editor: Mehdi Rahimi³

PMCID: PMC13657313 PMID: 42862826

Abstract

Teff (Eragrostis tef) occupies close to three million hectares of agricultural land in Ethiopia, nonetheless, realized yields remain substantially below the crop’s inherent genetic yield potential. Thus, this study aimed to examine how different sowing rates and methods impacted productivity of teff varieties in Mojana Wodera Woreda. The treatments included three varieties of teff (namely, Quncho, Kora and Abolse (local variety), three sowing rates (10, 15 and 20 kg ha ⁻¹), and three sowing methods (15 cm and 20 cm spacing between rows and broad casting). The interaction effect of seed rate, sowing method and variety significantly affected crop growth and yield parameters (P < 0.01). The tallest plant (128.33 cm) was achieved from variety Quncho combined with 20 cm row spacing and at a seed rate of 10 kg ha^–1. Quncho sown at a rate of 10 kg ha^–1 with a row spacing of 15 cm produced the maximum amount of aboveground biomass yield (10.76 t ha^–1). Furthermore, the highest lodging index (44%) was recorded when variety Quncho was sown with a broadcasting method at the highest seed rate of 20 kg ha^–1. The main effect of seed rate, sowing method and variety significantly affected days to 50% heading (P < 0.05), panicle length and grain yield (P < 0.01). Variety Kora significantly took longer time (59.18) to reach 50% heading than variety Quncho and Abolse. Increasing row spacing to 20 cm prolong the time for 50% heading of teff varieties, while sowing teff variety at a a rate of 15 kg ha^–1 also significantly increased the days to heading. Quncho produced the largest panicle length (45.14 cm) and yield (2.47 t ha^–1) which is 15.96% higher than variety Kora and 26.67% higher than the grain yield obtained from the local Abolse variety. Furthermore, sowing teff at a row spacing of 20 cm produced the maximum panicle length (44.46 cm) and yield (2.32 t ha^–1). As to the seed rate, thhe highest grain yield and largest panicle were when teff was seeded at 10 kg ha^–1.

Introduction

Teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter) is an ancient, nutrient-dense cereal grain native to the Horn of Africa [1]. Globally, it has gained significant international prominence as a “superfood” and premium gluten-free alternative, driving expanded commercial cultivation in countries such as the United States, Australia, South Africa, and parts of Europe [2,3]. Despite its expanding global footprint, the African continent remains the epicenter of teff production, accounting for over 95% of world output [4]. Within Africa, Ethiopia is the dominant primary producer, contributing more than 90% of global teff production across an estimated 3 million hectares [5,6]. The crop plays an indispensable role in regional food security and rural livelihoods, serving as a primary dietary staple for millions while offering resilience to diverse agro-ecological conditions [7].

Teff (Eragrostis tef) is a highly valued crop for its robust ecological tolerance and its foundational importance to the Ethiopia’s cultural nutrition. It is an annual, self-pollinated, allotetraploid (20 chromosome pairs) [8], C4 crop belonging to the Poaceae family. The crop is domesticated and diverse in Ethiopia [9]. Its value is the largest in the country in terms of both production and consumption [6,10]. Teff is predominantly used to prepare injera, a traditional spongy flatbread that constitutes the main dietary staple in Ethiopia. Therefore, it can be considered an alternative to gluten-containing cereals such as wheat, barley and rye. Furthermore, teff is known for rich iron content [11], and the people consuming it as their main staple food are found in Ethiopia, where it plays a vital role in national food security and human nutrition [11]. Teff grows at altitudes of 1700–2800 m, faces few pests or diseases [12] and tolerates both drought and waterlogging, making it a low-risk, resilient crop [6].

In Ethiopia, Teff ranks first in area coverage but has the lowest productivity. It accounts for 23.85% of the land allotted for cereals and 17.26% of the grain produced from cereals, with meager national average productivity of 1.76 t ha^–1 [5]. In Amhara region, teff ranks first in area coverage, with more than one million hectares, and is the most significant cereal cultivated by the majority of farmers [5]. With respect to the study area (Mojana Wodera), the North Showa Zone, teff covers more than 186 thousand hectares, and it accounts for nearly 40.7% of the total allocated for cereal crops in the 2016 main cropping season [5] Despite its importance, its productivity in the country, particularly in the Amhara region’s Mojana Wodera Woreda, faces substantial production challenges that hinder its yield potential. The major challenges include lodging, the use of traditional sowing methods, improper seed rates, and the use of low yielding local varieties [13].

The seed size of teff is very small, and it creates a havoc during sowing, as it is difficult to control the distribution and population density. Farmers sow the crop at a higher seed rate than the recommended rate, mainly because of the use of unclean seeds with poor germination rates, which results in a 22% reduction in both straw and grain yield [14]. The seed rate and sowing method are essential agronomic aspects that demand careful consideration. The seed rate significantly influences crop growth and development by determining plant density. Traditionally, teff is sown via the broadcasting method at 25−30 kg ha^–1. This resulted in a suboptimal plant population per area, which increased nutrient, water, sunlight, and CO₂ competition. Additionally, compared with unit row spacing, broadcasting increases production costs because it requires a higher seed rate. Broadcasting also causes lodging, which is the main reason for the low yield of teff [13]. Lodging issues in teff can be minimized by using a lower seeding rate, planting in rows and selecting the proper variety [15]. Row planting in teff has a greater yield advantage compared to broadcasting [16]. Various studies have suggested different row spacings for teff. A spacing of 20 cm and 15 cm between rows was suggested by [17] and [18], respectively.

Previous agronomic studies in Ethiopia have evaluated individual components of teff productivity, yet notable geographic and methodology; specific gaps remain. For instance, studies conducted at the Debre Zeit and Holetta Agricultural Research Centers demonstrated that row sowing generally improves grain yield over traditional broadcasting by enhancing light interception and reducing seed rate requirements [19,20]. Similarly, evaluation trials conducted in the moist mid-highlands of the Amhara Region (such as Adet and Debre Tabor) identified significant yield variations among improved varieties like Kora and Dagim when subjected to varying nitrogen rates and plant densities [21].

However, a critical limitation in existing literature is that most prior studies examined seed rates, sowing methods, or varieties in isolation or dual-factorial arrangements, leaving a gap in understanding their three-way interactive effects (seed rate, sowing method and variety). Furthermore, previous findings from centralized research stations cannot be directly extrapolated to specific localized agro-ecologies like Mojana Wodera Woreda, where microclimatic variations particularly seasonal distribution of rainfall and ambient temperatures differ markedly from regional trial centers. Evaluating these three factors simultaneously in Mojana Wodera, Zubaba keble under seasonal rainfall and temperature is essential to generate reliable, site-specific agronomic recommendations for local smallholders.

In the Amhara region, particularly in Mojana Wodera Woreda, farmers use broadcasting for sowing. However, farmers harness low yields due to suboptimal agronomic practices, including a lack of variety specific guidelines for row spacing and seeding [13]. This research investigates how seeding rate and sowing method influence the productivity of different teff genotypes.

Materials and Methods

Study area

The field experiment was conducted during 2022 main cropping season (Meher) in Mojana Wodera woreda at Zubaba Keble (70°55’ N and 39°37’ E) in central Ethiopia. No specific permits or ethical approvals were required for this study, as the work was conducted on publicly accessible land and did not involve protected species, human participants, or regulated animal subjects. The woreda receives 852 mm of rainfall annually and is known for producing rain-fed teff in Ethiopia (Fig 1). The average daily temperatures of the woreda ranges between 12.5°C and 20.5°C. The soil type is mainly pure vertisol, which occupy approximately 4045 ha.

Experimental design and cultural practice

Three distinct teff genotypes: Abolse (a local landrace), kora and Quncho were evaluated using three seed rates (10, 15 and 20 kg ha^–1) and three methods of sowing. Seeds of these varieties were officially obtained from the Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center of the Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research Center, which serves as the national center of excellence for teff improvement in Ethiopia. The three methods of sowing comprised of a traditional broadcast method alongside tow row planting at row spacing of 0.15m and 0.2m, respectively. Factorial randomized block design with three replications was used. Each experimental plot was 3 × 1.5 m². For row spacing treatment each plot contained 18 rows spaced at 15 cm. A blended Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Sulphur and Boron (NPSB) fertilizer at a recommended rate (100 kg ha^–1) was applied at sowing, while 100 kg ha^–1 urea was applied, with half of it applied 15–18 days after seeding and the rest applied at the crop tillering stage [22]. The plots were kept weed free. No insecticides or fungicides were used, as there were no insect or disease outbreaks.

Data collection

The parameters measured included the days to plant height, (PH)50% heading (D50H), number of tillers per plant (NT), panicle length (PL), biomass yield (BY), and grain yield (GY). Lodging index (LI): the extent of lodging was assessed visually by observing the angle between the main stem’s inclination and the vertical base. A scale of 1–5 was used: 1 (0–15°) indicates no lodging, 2 (15--30°) indicates 25% lodging, 3 (30–45°) indicates 50% lodging, 4 (45–60°) indicates 75% lodging, and 5 (60–90°) indicates 100% lodging [23].

Statistical analysis

A three-way ANOVA was performed on the dataset to determine if there were variations among the teff genotypes in response to sowing rate and sowing method utilizing R statistical package Version R-4.05. Mean comparison was performed via the least significance difference (LSD) test at the 5% level of significance.

Results and discussions

Plant height

Plant height is a crucial growth attribute that influences the productivity of a crop, affecting both yield and straw. It is also positively correlated with increased production and productivity of crops [24]. The mean square analysis in this study revealed a significant difference in the height of teff due to the main effects of variety, sowing method, and seeding rate (Table 1). Among varieties, variety Quncho produced the tallest plants (114.6 cm), exceeding the local variety Kora and Abolse by 10.05% and 25.99%, respectively (Table 3). For sowing method row sowing of teff with 20 cm recorded the higher mean plant height (108.17 cm) than broadcasting (99.14 cm) (Table 3). As to seed rate, the lowest rate (10 kg ha^–1) resulted in the highest plant height (107.97 cm). However, because the three-way interaction effect among factors was significant (P < 0.01), the biological response is primarily governed by their specific combination. Variety Quncho reached the tallest height (128.33 cm) when sown at 20 cm row spacing and a 10 kg ha^–1 seed rate. However, the local Abolse cultivar produced the shortest value (84.83 cm) when the seed rate was doubled to 20 kg ha^–1 and rows were narrowed to 15 cm (Table 2). The interaction effect of the Quncho variety, sown at 10 kg ha^–1 with 20 cm between rows, resulted in a 43.5 cm increase in height compared with the local Abolse variety seeded at 20 kg ha^–1 and 15 cm between rows (Table 2).

Table 1. Mean squares from the ANOVA for phenological, growth, and yield related traits of teff varieties as affected by the effects of the seed rate and sowing method in the Mojana Wodera woreda.

Source of variation	Parameters
Source of variation	PH	DH	NT	PL	BY	GY	LI
Rep (2)	5.07	26.43	0.53	11.34	0.31	0.21	1.51
V (2)	3791**	18.06*	11.26**	211.35**	13.48**	0.1.89**	417.51**
SR (2)	646.37**	19.69*	5.52**	32.92**	11.04**	0.35*	1071.73**
SM (2)	562.94**	19.25*	6.12**	76.35**	10.32**	0.49**	288.86**
SR*SM (4)	122.07**	1.59NS	1.34*	1.06NS	0.89**	0.06NS	11.72**
V*SR (4)	19.38*	0.44NS	0.58NS	0.83NS	0.57**	0.06NS	10.85**
V*SM (4)	56.9***	3.22NS	0.02NS	0.71NS	0.39***	0.03NS	9.4***
VSRSM (8)	44.17**	0.24NS	0.15NS	0.55NS	0.4***	0.01NS	5.61**
Error	5.84	1.18	0.34	2.18	0.06	0.04	0.96

Open in a new tab

Where Rep = replication; V = variety; SR = seed rate; and SM = sowing method, NS = non-significant ** = highly significant, numbers in bracket indicate the degree of freedom. PH (cm) = Plant height, DT = Days to heading, NT = Number of tillers per plant, PL (cm)= Panicle length, BY (t ha^-1) = biomass yield, GY (t ha^-1) = Grain yield, LI (%) = Lodging index.

Table 3. Impact of different variety, sowing methods and seed rates on plant height (PH), days to heading (DH), number of tillers per plant (NT), biomass yield (BY) and lodging index (LI) of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Variety	PH (cm)	DH	NT	BY (t ha^–1)	LI (%)
Quncho	114.64^a	58.63^a	6.4^a	8.65^a	38.18^a
Kora	104.17^b	59.18^a	5.68^b	7.71^b	30.33^c
Abolse	90.99^c	57.57^b	5.11^c	7.27^c	34.65^b
Sowing method (cm)
15	102.49^b	58.40^b	5.66^b	8.32^a	27.18c
20	108.17^a	59.33^a	6.24^a	8.14^b	37.11b
BC	99.14^c	57.65^b	5.29^c	7.17^c	38.87 a
Seed rate (kg ha^–1)
10	107.97^a	59.36^a	6.19^a	8.46^a	27.18^c
15	103.62^b	58.37^b	5.71^b	7.99^b	37.11^b
20	98.21^c	57.66^b	5.29^c	7.19^c	38.87^a
LSD (0.05)	1.32	0.59	0.32		0.54
CV (%)	2.34	1.85	10.13	3.13	2.85

Open in a new tab

Mean values sharing a common letter are non-significant (P > 0.05) based on least significance Difference (LSD). CV denotes coefficient of variation. BC = broadcasting.

Table 2. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method, and seed rate on plant height (cm) of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

		Seed rate (kg ha^–1)
Variety	Sowing method (cm)	10	15	20
Quncho	15	122^b	116 cd	110.8^e
	20	128.33^a	117.67^c	114.2^cde
	BC	112^e	112^e	98.77^hi
Kora	15	111.2^e	94.17^j	99.5^ghi
	20	111.1^e	112.4^de	106.13^f
	BC	100.97^gh	105.867^f	96.17^ji
Abolse	15	95.93ij	88^k	84.83^k
	20	103.33^gf	93.47^j	86.9^k
	BC	86.9^k	93^j	86.57^k
LSD (5%)	3.95
CV (%)	2.34

Open in a new tab

Mean values sharing a common letter are non-significant (P > 0.05) based on least significance Difference (LSD). CV denotes coefficient of variation. BC = Broadcasting

In general, plant height significantly increased as the seeding rates were lowered from 20 kg ha^–1 to 10 kg ha^–1 during broadcast sowing, as the additional space between plants allowed for better growth. These findings suggest that using lower seed rates with the drilling method resulted in taller teff plants. This is corroborated by [25], who reported 8.1 cm height advantage when using 5 kg ha^-1 rate versus 25 kg ha^-1 seeding rate. Wider row spacing at constant seed rates tended to produce taller plants [26].

The variation in teff stature among different cultivars might also be attributed to their distinct genomic compositions. A similar result was reported by [13], where compared with the other tested varieties, Quncho had the tallest plant height (130.94 cm). However [27], reported a different result where the local variety surpassed the height of Quncho, which exhibited a comparatively shorter stature in that specific environment.

Days to 50% heading (DH)

The mean square analysis of variance confirmed that variety, row spacing, and seed rate independently impacted days to 50% heading significantly, their combined interactions (two-way and three-way) remained non-significant (Table 1). Significantly, a greater number of days to heading (59.36 and 58.37 days) were recorded from the lower seeding rates (10 and 15 kg ha^–1), whereas the minimum number of days (57.66 days) was from the highest seeding rate (20 kg ha^–1) (Table 3). The earlier heading under higher seeding rates might be induced as a competitive stress response, causing the teff crop to enter the reproductive phase to ensure seed production before resources are exhausted. On the contrary, a lower seed rate reduces competition and enables plants to access necessary growth resources, which leads to vegetative growth extension, resulting in a delay in the heading of the teff crop. An increase in planting density hastens the inflorescence emergence in rice plants [16]. In contrast to the findings of this study [25], reported a significant ontogenetic delay in teff when it was sown at 20 kg ha ⁻¹.

Among the varieties, Kora took a significantly longer time (59.18 days) to heading than did the variety Quncho (58.63 days) and the local variety Abolse (57.57 days) (Table 3). The variation in heading date could be due to the genetic differences among the three cultivars in response to different seeding rates and planting methods. Similarly, the time required for teff to reach heading stage varies by cultivar.

With respect to the sowing method, the present study revealed that sowing teff with 20 cm row spacing significantly delays the number of days to heading compared with that with narrower 15 cm spacing and broadcasting (Table 3). The wider spacing and improved management within rows may have reduced intraspecific competition, allowing efficient utilization of growth resources. The earlier heading of teff plants observed in this study with narrow spacing may be due to the increased competition for resources in closer rows. This competition might have caused the plants to experience resource shortages, leading them to head earlier to escape stressful conditions rather than extending their vegetative growth and biomass accumulation. Additionally, genetic factors may play a role [13].

Number of tillers

The mean square analysis demonstrated that tiller production per plant was significantly (P < 0.01) influenced by variety, sowing method and seed rate (Table 1). Variety Quncho produced the highest number of tiller (6.4 tillers/plant), exceeding variety Kora (5.68 tillers/plant) by 12.68% and the local variety (5.11 tilers/plant) by 25.24%. As to sowing method, row sowing of teff with 20 cm spacing increased tiller production (6.24 tillers/plant) over traditional broadcasting (5.29 tillers/plat) by 17.96%. For seed rate, lower seeding rate (10 kg ha^–1) resulted in higher tiller counts (6.19 tillers/plant), recording a 17.01% increase over higher seeding rate (20 kg ha^–1, 5.29 tillers/plant) (Table 3). Furthermore, sowing methods and seed rate interactions also had notable effects on this trait. But neither the two-way interaction effect of varieties with sowing method and varieties with seed rate nor by three-way interaction effect of varieties, sowing method and seed rate were significant (Table 1). The highest tillering capacity (7.09 per plant) was achieved through a seeding rate of 10 kg ha^–1 combined with 20 cm row spacing. In contrast, broadcasting yielded to a significantly the lowest tiller count per plant (Table 4). This finding highlights a low seed rate and increased inter-row spacing optimize plant access to nutrients and light allowing plants to express their full tillering potential, while denser populations lead to nutrient stress that stunts tillering [28]. These result aligns with the findings of [26], who noted that lowering teff seeding rate from 20 to10 kg ha^–1 during broadcast conditions enhanced tiller production by alleviating spatial constraints. Similarly [29], reported that increasing the seeding density reduced total and productive tillers in teff crops. Compared to broadcasting method, the row sowing result garnered in significantly more tillers per plant [9]. In contrast [30], confirmed that seeding rate had no significant effect on individual plant tillering, while broadcasting at different seed rates significantly influenced the total tiller populations compared to structured row arrangement.

Table 4. Tillering performance of teff as a function of row spacing and seed rate in Mojana Wodera Woreda district.

Sowing method (cm)	Seed rate kg ha^–1
Sowing method (cm)	10	15	20
15	6.2^b	5.56 cd	5.22^de
20	7.09^a	5.95^bc	5.67^bcd
BC	5.29^de	5.61 cd	4.98^e
CV%	10.13
LSD (0.05)	0.55

Open in a new tab

Mean values sharing a common letter are non-significant (P > 0.05) based on least significance Difference (LSD). CV denotes coefficient of variation. BC = broadcasting.

Panicle length

Panicle length is a key attribute of teff yield [31]. Statistical analysis revealed this trait was significantly influenced by variety, sowing method and seed rate, whereas their combined impact is non-significant (Table 1). The longest panicles (43.82 cm) were resulted from sowing teff at a rate of 10 kg ha^–1, while the shortest panicles (41.61 cm) were from 20 kg ha^–1 (Table 7). In general, a reduction of rate of sowing from 20 kg ha^–1 to 10 kg ha^–1 resulted in an increase of 2.21 cm in panicle length. This increased panicle length under lower seeding rate is attributed to the reduction in competition among plants, allowing more efficient use of growth resources. A significant increase in panicle length was recorded for teff as the sowing rate was lowered from 25 kg ha^–1 to 10 kg ha^–1 [32,33].

Table 7. Effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on panicle length (cm) and grain yield of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Varieties	Panicle length(cm)	Grain yield (t ha^–1)
Quncho	45.14 ^a	2.47^a
Kora	43.24 ^b	2.13 ^b
Abolse or Local	39.63 ^c	1.95^c
Sowing method (cm)
15	42.42 ^b	2.18^b
20	43.24 ^b	2.32^a
BC	41.13 c	2.05^c
Seed rate (kg ha^-1)
10	42.42 ^b	2.22^a
15	42.59^b	2.27^a
20	41.61^b	2.05^b
LSD (%)	0.16	0.09
CV (%)	3.72	8.11

Open in a new tab

Values with the same letter for the same parameter are not significantly different. LSD = least significant difference; CV = coefficient of variation. BC = broadcasting.

The present study revealed that the greatest panicle length was recorded in the variety Quncho (45.14 cm), followed by the varieties Kora (43.24 cm) and Abolse (39.63 cm) (Table 7). The variation in panicle length among varieties is due to their genetic differences, meaning that the differences in panicle length are attributed to heritable traits rather than to environmental factors [13]. also reported greater panicle length (48.34 cm) in the improved variety Quncho than in the local variety. Contrary [27], reported greater panicle length in the local variety (42.53 cm) than in the improved varieties Kora and Quncho. This discrepancy is likely driven by genotype-by-environment (G × E) interactions, where high phenotypic plasticity allows specific local landraces to exhibit pronounced organ elongation under distinct micro-climates or lower-input conditions.

As to the effect of the sowing method on panicle length in teff, the longest panicle (44.46 cm) was recorded in response to sowing teff at 20 cm row spacing. The traditional broadcasting method produced the shortest panicle length (41.13 cm) (Table 7). The variation between the longest and shortest panicle lengths could be attributed to the optimal nutrient utilization and partitioning of photosynthates under wider spacing. Increased competition for available resources restricts vegetative development, leading to a significant reduction in panicle length [24].

Biomass yield

Biomass yield is important because farmers give a high value for teff not only to its grain but also to its straw. The main effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate significantly affected biomass yield (Table 1). Variety Quncho produced the maximum biomass yield (8.65 t ha^–1), representing an increase of 18.98% over the local Abolse variety. Among the sowing method, row sowing of teff 15 cm apart between rows produced significantly a higher biomass yield (8.32 t ha^–1). While the traditional broadcasting method produced the lowest amount of biomass yield (7.17 t ha^–1) (Table 3). As the seed rate increased from 10 to 20 kg ha^–1, biomass yield decreased significantly from 8.46 to 7.19 t ha^–1 representing 15.01% reduction (Table 3).

The interaction effect of variety, sowing method, and the seed rate on biomass yield was also statistically significant (Table 1). Variety Quncho produced the highest biomass yield (10.76 t ha^–1) when it was seeded at a rate of 10 kg ha^–1 and 15 cm between rows, and the lowest biomass yield (6.00 t ha^–1) was recorded from the local Abolse cultivar when it was broadcasted and sown at 20 kg ha^–1 (Table 5). The results further revealed an increase in the aboveground biomass yield as the sowing rate decreased from 20 kg ha^-1 to 10 kg ha^–1 with 15 cm row spacing.

Table 5. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on teff aboveground biomass yield (BY) at Mojana Wodera Woreda.

	BY (t ha^–1)
Variety	Sowing method (cm)	Seed rate (kg ha^–1)
		10	15	20
Quncho	15	10.76^a	9.33^bc	7.8^efg
	20	9.32^bc	9.54^b	8.0^def
	BC	8.31^d	7.65^ihgf	7.20^j
Kora	15	9.09^c	8.05^def	7.28^hij
	20	8.33^d	8.11^ed	7.5^ghij
	BC	7.30^hij	7.20^j	6.50^k
Abolse	15	8.09^edf	7.34^ghij	7.19^j
	20	7.7^efgh	7.50^ghij	7.23^j
	BC	7.19^j	7.19^j	6.00^l
LSD (5%)	0.43
CV (%)	3.13

Open in a new tab

Values in a column followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level of significance. where LSD = least significant difference and CV = coefficient of variation. BC = Broadcasting.

The relatively high biomass of the Quncho variety in the selected treatments in this study might be attributed to its biological yield potential, ease of agronomic management at a relatively low seed rate, and the effectual utilization of growth resources, which facilitated the growth of a plant. Consistent with this study [34], reported that the variety Quncho produced the highest aboveground biomass yield when sown at 15 cm row spacing and sowing rates of 10 kg ha^–1. In general, despite the variety and sowing method, there was as significant decline in biomass yield as the seeding rate increased from 10 to 20 kg ha^–1. This might be due to the direct relationship between biomass yield and factors such as plant height and tiller number, all of which are influenced by the seed rate, sowing method, and variety. The Quuncho variety produced the highest aboveground biomass yield when it was seeded at a row spacing of 15 cm [9,11].

Lodging index (%)

The percentage of lodging in teff was affected by the main factors variety, sowing method, and seed rate (P < 0.01) (Table 1). Among the evaluated varieties, variety Kora showed superior lodging resistance, recording the lowest lodging percentage (30.33%), whereas variety Quncho was the most susceptible (38.18%). Regarding sowing method, sowing teff at a spacing of 15 cm significantly reduced lodging (27.18%) compared to broadcasting (38.87%). As the seed rate increased from 10 kg ha^–1 to 20 kgha^–1 lodging increased significantly from 27.18% to 38.87% (Table 3).

A significant three-way interaction effect (variety× sowing method ×seed rate) was observed for lodging percentage (P < 0.01) (Table 1). Broadcasting of Quncho cultivar at a sowing rate of 20 kg ha^–1 produced the highest percentage in lodging index (44.00%). Sowing variety Kora at a row spacing of 15 cm combined with a seed rate of 10 kg ha^–1 had the least value of lodging index (16.33%) (Table 6). The increased lodging percentage of the Quncho variety with the broadcast sowing method, particularly at seeding rates of 15 and 20 kg ha^-1, could be attributed to greater competition for nutrients, moisture, and air, which was mainly due to the greater plant density at these sowing rates. This competition likely resulted in weaker, more succulent stems that are susceptible to damage from strong winds and rainfall. However, the stems of the teff varieties tested in this study, which were sown in rows at an ample seed rate, were strong enough to hold the weight of the grain heads [27]. Broadcasting of teff at higher seed rate increased the lodging percentage of teff [33].

Table 6. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on the logging index (%) of teff in the Mojana Wodera Woreda district 2021.

Variety	Sowing method (cm)	Seed rate (kg ha^–1)
		10	15	20
Quncho	15	29.33ⁱ	38.00^e	40.00^c
	20	31.67^g	40.00^c	42.33^b
	BC	35.00^f	43.33^ab	44^a
Kora	15	16.33^m	31.00^gh	32.00^g
	20	20.00^l	32.33^g	36.00^f
	BC	30.00^hi	35.33^f	40.00^c
Abolse	15	24.33^k	36.17^f	35.00^f
	20	27.00^j	38.00^e	38.33^de
	BC	31.00^gh	39.83 cd	42.17^b
LSD (5%)	1.62
CV (%)	2.85

Open in a new tab

Values with the same letter are not significantly different at the 5% level of significance. Where LSD = least significant difference and CV = coefficient of variation. BC = broadcasting.

The broadcasting at higher seed rates resulted in more lodging compared to lower seed rate [32]. These findings suggest that the seed rate and row spacing are critical factors in determining the lodging percentage of teff crops, despite the variety of varieties used. Similarly, a significant lodging index was reported at a seeding rate of 25 kg ha^–1 for Vertisols and Cambisols [10]. Additionally [35], reported that reducing the recommended teff seeding rate from 25 kg ha^–1 to 10 kg ha^–1 enhances the strength and lodging resistance of teff shoots. This contradicts the findings of [36], who reported a high lodging index (47%) at the lowest seeding rate of 10 kg ha^–1.

Grain yield

The impact of varying variety, sowing methods and seed rate and in teff crop affected grain yield significantly (Table 1). The maximum (2.47 t ha^–1), medium (2.13 t ha^–1), and minimum (1.95 t ha^–1) yields were recorded for the Quncho, Kora, and Abolse varieties, respectively (Table 7). In general, the Quncho variety outperformed the local Abolse variety and the Kora variety by 21.05% and 8.45%, respectively. This difference might be attributed to differences in their genetic makeup. Similarly [35], reported that grain yield differences among different varieties of teff. Compared with local varieties, improved varieties of teff presented yield advantages of 16.57% and 13.61% from the Kora and Quncho varieties, respectively [27].

As to the impact of seed rate, 15 kg ha^–1 produced the highest yield (2.27 t ha^–1), while a seed rate of 20 kg ha^–1 resulted in the lowest yield (2.05) (Table 7). This improvement at the lower seed rate in grain yield was attributed to the increased space available for teff tillers. Similar findings were also reported despite of the soil type [26]. Contradictory to this study sowing teff at highest seed rate (25 kg ha^–1) produced the highest yield [9].

Sowing teff at 20 cm row spacing produced a significantly greater yield (2.32 t ha^-1) which is 11.6% greater than the yield recorded from broadcasting, which produced the lowest yield (2.05 t ha^–1) ¹ (Table 7). The increase in grain yield because of wider spacing is resulted from a robust plant population by reducing intra-row competition. Similarly, a 27.06% greater teff yield was recorded with the row sowing method than with the broadcasting method [37].

Conclusion

Teff is one of the most widely cultivated cereal crops in the lowlands of Ethiopia, including Mojana Wodera Woreda. Farmers in the study area produce teff both as food and cash crops under rain-fed conditions. The productivity of teff in the Amhara region and Mojana Wodera Woreda remains low, even though there is significant potential for increased production and yield. This is due to several constraints, such as the limited adoption of improved varieties and sowing methods (only 2% of farmers), lodging problems due to the inappropriate use of varieties and the seed rate. This study evaluated the interactive effects of seed rate, sowing method, and crop variety to identify optimal agronomic combinations for enhanced productivity of teff under local field conditions. The trial was conducted in 2022 at a training center in Mojana Wodera woreda, central Ethiopia using a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. The result revealed significant differences among the evaluated treatments, showing that agronomic performance of teff was strongly influenced by the management practices and variety choice. Specifically, variety Quncho produced the highest grain yield (2.47 t ha^–1). In addition, sowing teff at a rate of 10 kg ha^–1 and with a row spacing of 20 cm produced the highest grain yield of 2.22 t ha^–1 and 2.32 t ha^–1, respectively. In conclusion, the sowing method, seed rate and variety significantly affected teff growth and productivity. The row sowing of teff in this experiment enhanced field management and the plant population, reducing competition for growth resources by improving the yield and yield components of the crop. Low seed rates also resulted in relatively high grain yields. Among the varieties, Quncho and Kora consistently outperform the local Abolse variety, with Quncho showing the greatest yield advantage. Overall, optimizing these factors can lead to substantial improvements in the productivity. While this study provides a valuable insight to the agronomic practices of teff in Mojana Wodera woreda, a kely limitation is that the trial was conducted at a single location over a single cropping season. Because genotype by environment interaction (G × E) vary across years and location, future research should be conducted as multi-location and multi-year trials to test yield stability under fluctuating climatic conditions.

Supporting information

S1 Data. Raw data for variety, sowing rates, and methods on teff.

This file contains the complete plot-level experimental data, including replications, variety, sowing methods, sowing rates, and corresponding yield measurements used in the statistical analysis.

(XLSX)

pone.0360297.s001.xlsx^{(14.5KB, xlsx)}

S2 Data. Meteorological data containing monthly rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature during the experimental period.

(XLSX)

pone.0360297.s002.xlsx^{(17.8KB, xlsx)}

S1 Code. R script used for the statistical analysis of agronomic and yield data.

(R)

pone.0360297.s003.R^{(4.9KB, R)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

1.Vandercasteelen J, Dereje M, Minten B, Taffesse AS. Labour, profitability and gender impacts of adopting row planting in Ethiopia. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2018;45(4):471–503. [Google Scholar]
2.Baye K. Baye K. Teff: nutrient composition and health benefits. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2014. [Google Scholar]
3.Cheng A, Mayes S, Dalle G, Demissew S, Massawe F. Diversifying crops for food and nutrition security - a case of teff. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017;92(1):188–98. doi: 10.1111/brv.12225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Crymes AR. The international footprint of teff: Resurgence of an ancient Ethiopian grain. 2015.
5.Central Statistical Agency CSA. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Farm Management Practices (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). III. Central Statistical Agency. 2020. [Google Scholar]
6.Minten B, Tamru S, Engida E, Kuma T. Ethiopia’s value chains on the move: The case of teff. Ethiop Strateg Support Progr II Work Pap. 2013;52:1–26. [Google Scholar]
7.Gebremariam MM, Zarnkow M, Becker T. Teff (Eragrostis tef) as a raw material for malting, brewing and manufacturing of gluten-free foods and beverages: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2014;51(11):2881–95. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0745-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Cannarozzi G, Plaza-wüthrich S, Esfeld K, Larti S, Wilson YS, Girma D. Genome and transcriptome sequencing identifies breeding targets in the orphan crop tef (Eragrostis tef). 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
9.Reda A, Dechassa N, Assefa K. Evaluation of seed rates and sowing methods on growth, yield and yield attributes of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Ada District, East Shewa, Ethiopia. Agric Environ Sci. 2018;18(1):34–49. [Google Scholar]
10.Tesfay T, Gebresamuel G. Agronomic and economic evaluations of compound fertilizer applications under different planting methods and seed rates of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Northern Ethiopia. J Drlylands. 2016;6(1):409–22. [Google Scholar]
11.Assefa K, Aliye S, Belay G, Metaferia G, Tefera H, Sorrells ME. Quncho: the first popular tef variety in Ethiopia. In: Sustainable Intensification. Routledge; 2012. p. 25–34. [Google Scholar]
12.Beyene G, Chauhan RD, Villmer J, Husic N, Wang N, Gebre E, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated tetra-allelic mutation of the “Green Revolution” SEMIDWARF-1 (SD-1) gene confers lodging resistance in tef (Eragrostis tef). Plant Biotechnol J. 2022;20(9):1716–29. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Negash W, Menzir A, Kassaye M. Effect of row spacing on yield and yield components of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) varieties in Gonji Kolela district, North Western Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2017;7(23):35–43. [Google Scholar]
14.Tefera H, Belay G, Sorrells M. Narrowing the Rift. Tef Research and Development. 2001. [Google Scholar]
15.Takele A, Nandeshwar BC, Jalata Z, Lamessa K. Response of tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter.) variety to varying seed rates and inter-row spacings for growth, yield and lodging severity in Western Ethiopia. All Life. 2023;16(1). doi: 10.1080/26895293.2023.2225761 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Kitata S, Abera T. Effects of seed rate and row spacing on phenology, growth, yield and economic feasibility of teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter.) production in Kiltu Kara District of Western Ethiopia. Am J Sustain Agric. 2020;20:165–75. doi: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2020.165.175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17.Alemat E, Kidu G, Mihreteab H, Haftamu H. Determination of the optimum population density of seedlings during transplanting for the productivity improvement of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)] Trotter] in the Central zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2016;6(1). [Google Scholar]
18.Asargew F, Bitew Y, Asfaw M, Liben M, Getahun W. Row spacing and fertilizer rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis teff (Zucc.) Trotter) under transplanting planting method. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2014;4(15):133–7. [Google Scholar]
19.Berhe T, Gebretsadik Z, Edwards S, Araya H. Boosting tef productivity using improved agronomic practices and appropriate fertilizer. Achievements and prospects of Tef improvement. 2011. p. 133–40. [Google Scholar]
20.Abebe A. Effect of seed rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostic tef) Trotter at Konso and Arbaminch, Southern. Vol. 2018;8(5):38–45. [Google Scholar]
21.Girma F, Wolde A, Assefa K. Performance evaluation of improved teff varieties under different agronomic management practices in Amhara Region. Ethiop J Agric Sci. 2018;28(2):45–58. [Google Scholar]
22.Hameso H, Tefera T, Tadewos T. Effects of lime and NPSB fertilizer rates on yield attributes and yield of wheat, and soil properties in Harbagona district of Sidama region, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Agric. 2023;33(3):58–77. [Google Scholar]
23.Girma D. The relationships between stem characters and lodging tolerance in tef (Eragrostis tef) genotypes. Ethiop J Agric Sci. 2019;29(2):59–70. [Google Scholar]
24.Biya M. Response of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) to seeding rate and row spacing at Tiro-Afeta district, southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Sci Eng Technol. 2020;7(8):22–30. [Google Scholar]
25.Abebe B, Abebe A. Effect of seed rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis tef Trotter) at Shebedino, Southern Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2016;6(21). [Google Scholar]
26.Dereje G, Adisu T, Dimberu A. Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing on Growth and Yield of Tef (Eragrostis tef) Production at Assosa, Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, Western Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech. 2018;06(01). doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000335 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Abera T, Gemechu D. Effect of Varieties and Seed Rate on Yield and Yield Components of Teff (Eragrostis tef) in Ambo District, Oromia Region, Western Ethiopia. World J Agric Sci. 2020;16(3):170–9. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wjas.2020.170.179 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
28.Farooq M, Shahzad MA, Basra AS, Basharat AS. Direct seeding method popular among rice farmers. DAWN Group of News letter. 2006;89(2):11–28. [Google Scholar]
29.Soomro UA, Rahman MU, Odhano EA, Gul S, Tareen AQ. Effects of sowing method and seed rate on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum). World J Agric Sci. 2009;5(2):159–62. [Google Scholar]
30.Adam MY. Effect of seed rate and nitrogen on growth and yield of teff grass (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). University of Khartoum. 2004. [Google Scholar]
31.Ketema HTS, Tesemma T. Variability, heritability and genetic advance in tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) cultivars. Trop Agric. 1990. [Google Scholar]
32.Shiferaw T. Effects of inorganic fertilizer types and sowing methods of variable seed rates on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). Haramaya Univ. 2012. [Google Scholar]
33.Sahle S, Altaye T. Effects of sowing methods and seed rates on yield components and yield of tef in soro woreda, hadya zone, southern Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2016;6(19):109–14. [Google Scholar]
34.Biya M. Response of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) to seeding rate and row spacing at Tiro-Afeta district, southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Sci Eng Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar]
35.Yihun YM, Schultz B, Haile AM, Erkossa T. Optimizing Teff productivity in a water stressed region of Ethiopia. In: ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. Tehran, Iran. 2011. 285–96. [Google Scholar]
36.Tenaw Workayehu BA. Effect of Method of Sowing and Time of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) Fertilizer Application, on Yield and Yield Components of Tef ((Eragrostic tef) Trotter) At Shebedino, Southern Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech. 2015;03(02). doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
37.Mengie Y, Assefa A, Jenber AJ. Sowing methods and seeding rates effects on yield and yield components of Tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter) at Adet, North West Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2021;7(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360297.r001

Decision Letter 0

Mehdi Rahimi

22 Jul 2026

Dear Dr. Belete,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 05 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Mehdi Rahimi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures.

5. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #1: Teff (Eragrostis tef) occupies close to three million hectares of agricultural land in

Ethiopia, nonetheless, realized yields remain substantially below the crop’s inherent

genetic yield potential. Thus, this study aimed to examine how different sowing rates

and methods impacted productivity of teff varieties in Mojana Wodera Woreda. The

treatments included three varieties of teff (namely, Quncho, Kora and Abolse (local

variety), three sowing rates (10, 15 and 20 kg ha -1), and three sowing methods (15 cm

and 20 cm spacing between rows and broad casting) . Sowing variety quncho at a rate

of 10 kg ha-1 with a row spacing of 15 cm produced the maximum amount of

aboveground biomass yield (10.76 t ha-1). It also produced the largest panicle (45.14

cm) and yield (2.47 t ha-1). Furthermore, the maximum panicle length (44.46 cm) and

yield (2.32 t ha-1) were recorded when teff was sown 20 cm apart between rows. The

highest grain yield and largest panicle were when teff was seeded at 10 kg ha-1.

Therefore, variety Quncho was the best for the study area, and sowing teff at a rate of

10 kg ha-1 with 20 cm spacing between rows enhanced its productivity.

Reviewer #2: General comments

Generally, the manuscript is written well. However, revision is important to improve the clarity and novelty of the study

Major comments

Abstract

Clearly explain the results

Conclusion

In conclusion, clearly explain the presented result and what it means. Readers expect to see the objective of the study and the key methodology that was not explained.

Minor comments

To the introduction, add the world and continental production status

Explain the source of those two improved varieties under the methodology

Clearly explain the previous finding by including where it was conducted and its gap to increase reliability of this study

This study was only one location and one season, what would be your suggestion for future studies

Specific comments

Page 2, line 22: describe whether it is panicle length or panicle number

Page 2, Line 28: You concluded 10kg per ha rate by 20cm spacing as better productivity for Quncho variety. However, the result you wrote on Line 25 for the same variety Quncho showed better yield and panicle length at 10kg per ha and 15 cm spacing (e.g. 2.47 yield is higher than 2.32 per ha)

Page 2, Line 34: Cite statement with the chromosome number

Page 3, Line 50 to 52: use data of recent cropping season, 2016 is old.

Page 5, Line 90 to 91: When you look at the statement started from the later comprised…, some thing is missing.

Reviewer #3: Title: The current title appears overly broad. The title should be precise and reflect study specific focused towards the agronomic manipulations. I recommend modifying the title to align with manuscript findings

Abstract: The section is poorly written and needs redrafting, there is lot of ambiguity and delicacy in presenting the values. Since author wants to compare the performance of varieties, but creates confusion while comparing crop with variety. Furthermore the advantage associated with particular treatment should be quantified.

Line 23 delete the word variety

Line No 25, 26 and 27 are confusing and contradictory.

Introduction. The purpose of the research is nicely grounded, however lack of coherence unnecessary lengthening of sentences, overlapping of ideas needs clarity and improvement.

Line No 37 redraft this sentence

Material and methods: Text is clear and provides good details, but needs to be tightened for better academic flow and conciseness.

Line No 80 season should be mentioned.

Line No. 89. Treatments should follow similar sequence in tables as well as text and same should be followed throughout.

Line No 96. Full word should be written at first mention in your text followed by abbreviation in parenthesis.

Results and discussion:

Results are clearly written, but author needs to further strengthened this section

While the author mentions significant impact of cultivars on tillering, but the magnitude of its increment/ decrement is lacking in text, which needs further elaboration.

The author should follow the sequence while highlighting the results, like PH should have been discussed first followed by other parameters. Also the author needs to quantify the advantage associated with the respective treatment. Under the sub heading Plant height, the author shall follow the proper sequence in writing the results, first main factors and then interaction results should be discussed.

Under panicle length, author has highlighted the effect of seed rate followed by varieties followed by sowing methods which is contradictory to the table structure as well as same pattern was not followed although eg biomass etc.

Line No.228 author needs to substantiate the reason for this variable response of genotype.

Line No 281: author highlights non-significant effect varieties on lodging, whereas the values such as Qucho and Kora seem to be significantly different (Table No 6),

Conclusion: Author should be more specific rather than optimizing the effects, there is no conclusive finding in the conclusion which highlights remedy to the objectives identified in the introduction. The variety names should be italicized although

I recommend revising the conclusion to clearly link your findings to the productivity concerns.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nezif AbaJebal Abadura

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments.docx

pone.0360297.s004.docx^{(10.7KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-15264.pdf

pone.0360297.s005.pdf^{(833.6KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2026 Oct 12;21(10):e0360297. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360297.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1

3 Sep 2026

Subject: Response to Reviewers for PONE-D-26-15264 Manuscript

Title: “Genotypic Differences in Teff (Eragrostis tef) Yield Response to Sowing Rates and Methods in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia”

Dear Academic Editor,

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript. We also wish to express our sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their constructive feedback and insightful suggestions, which have helped us significantly improve the quality of our manuscript.

Please note that all page and line numbers referenced in our responses below correspond to the marked-up version of the manuscript (Revised Manuscript with Track Changes).

Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment raised by the Academic Editor and the reviewers.

Section 1. Response to Academic Editor

Comment 1: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming

Response: We have thoroughly reviewed the journal’s formatting guidelines and updated the manuscript accordingly. All file names, heading structures, table and citation formats have been adjusted to comply with the journal's requirements. Location: Throughout the manuscript

Comment 2: In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work.

Response: We have updated the Methods section to state explicitly that no specific permits were required for the site used for this study. Location: Materials and Methods, Page 6-7, Lines 139-142

Comment 3: Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work.

Response: We have complied fully with PLOS ONE’s Data Availability and Code Sharing policies. All underlying raw data and author-generated R code supporting the manuscript’s findings have been made publicly available without restriction to facilitate reproducibility and reuse.

1. Raw Data: The minimal dataset containing all recorded observations for the evaluated traits (plant height, days to heading, number of tillers, panicle length, lodging index, biomass yield, and grain yield) has been provided as Supporting Information (S1 Data).

2. Raw Data: the minimal dataset containing rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature has been provided as Supporting Information (S2 Data)

3. Analysis Code: The full R script used for processing the data, fitting the three-factor ANOVA models, and executing Fisher’s LSD post-hoc mean separations has been provided as Supporting Information (S1 Code).

Comment 4: Please upload a new copy of Figure 1 as the detail is not clear

Response: We apologize for the low resolution of Figure 1 in the previous submission. We have regenerated Figure 1 at high resolution (300 DPI) to ensure all details and text are clear and legible, in accordance with PLOS ONE's figure specifications.

Comment 5: Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study...

Response: We confirm that our submission contains the complete "minimal data set" required to fully replicate all statistical analyses, means, figures, and study findings reported in the manuscript, without restrictions.

All raw, individual observations behind the reported means and statistical outputs for all evaluated factors (variety, sowing method, and seed rate) and dependent traits (plant height, days to heading, number of tillers, panicle length, lodging index, biomass yield, and grain yield) have been compiled and uploaded as Supporting Information (S1 Data). The graph data points for rainfall, maximum and minimum temperature was uploaded as (S2 Data). Additionally, the R script used to analyze these data is uploaded as (S1 Code).

Comment 6: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works...

Response: We note the journal's policy regarding citation recommendations. None of the reviewers requested or recommended the citation of specific previously published works for this manuscript.

SECTION 2: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #2

Comment 1: “Abstract: Clearly explain the results”

Response: We have revised the Abstract to clearly present numerical findings, treatment comparisons, and exact percentage/yield advantages rather than generic descriptions. Location: Abstract, Page 2, Lines 32-45.

Comment 2: “Conclusion: In conclusion, clearly explain the presented result and what it means. Readers expect to see the objective of the study and the key methodology that was not explained.”

Response: We have revised the Conclusion section to explicitly state the objective of the study, summarize the key methodology and synthesize the main agronomic findings. Location: Conclusion, Page 22-23, Lines 441-449.

Minor Comment 1: “To the introduction, add the world and continental production status”

Response: We have added recent global and continental teff production status to the Introduction to properly contextualize the crop's global and regional economic importance. Location: Introduction, Page 3, Lines 54-62.

Minor Comment 2: Explain the source of those two improved varieties under the methodology

Response: We added the source for the improved teff varieties under the Materials and Methods section. Location: Materials and Methods, Page 7, Lines 151-154.

Minor Comment 3: Clearly explain the previous finding by including where it was conducted and its gap to increase reliability of this study

Response: We have revised the Introduction section to explicitly detail previous findings, clearly stating the geographic locations and agro-ecological of the studies were conducted. Furthermore, we have highlighted the specific research gaps; regarding variety, seed rate and sowing method interactions. Location: Introduction, Pages 5–6, Lines 109-126.

Minor Comment 4: This study was only one location and one season, what would be your suggestion for future studies

Response: We explicitly acknowledged this single-location, single-season study limitation in the Conclusion sections, adding a recommendation for multi-location and multi-year trials across contrasting agro-ecological zones. Location: Conclusion, Pages 23, Lines 456-460.

Specific Comment 1: Page 2, line 22: describe whether it is panicle length or panicle number

Response: We confirm that the measured parameter is panicle length (cm)

Specific Comment 2 : Page 2, Line 28: You concluded 10kg per ha rate by 20cm spacing as better productivity for Quncho variety. However, the result you wrote on Line 25 for the same variety Quncho showed better yield and panicle length at 10kg per ha and 15 cm spacing (e.g. 2.47 yield is higher than 2.32 per ha)"

Response: We have clarified the reporting of our statistical results to address this area of potential confusion. The value of 2.32 t ha⁻¹ represents the main effect for the sowing method, whereas 2.47 t ha⁻¹ represents the yield for the Quncho variety. We have updated the text on Page 2 to explicitly distinguish treatment means. Location: Abstract, Pages 2, Lines 43–46.

Specific Comment 3: Page 2, Line 34: Cite statement with the chromosome number

Response: We added the official citation supporting the chromosome number of teff (Eragrostis tef,) at this statement. Location: Introduction, Page 3, Line 66.

Specific Comment 4: Page 3, Line 50 to 52: use data of recent cropping season, 2016 is old

Response: We updated the statistical data to reflect the most recent available agricultural production figures (2021/2022 CSA data) instead of the 2016 figures. Location: Introduction, Page 4, Lines 85,87 & 89.

Specific Comment 5: Page 5, Line 90 to 91: When you look at the statement started from the later comprised…, some thing is missing.

Response: We rewrote this sentence to ensure complete structural and grammatical clarity. Location: Materials and Methods, Page 7, Lines 154-155.

SECTION 2: RESPONSE TO REVIEWER #3

Comment 1:"Title: The current title appears overly broad. The title should be precise and reflect study specific focused towards the agronomic manipulations. I recommend modifying the title to align with manuscript findings"

Response: We modified the title to be precise and focused on agronomic manipulations and variety-specific responses. New Title: ' Interactive Effects of Seed Rate, Sowing Method, and Variety on Teff (Eragrostis tef) Yield, Yield Components, and Lodging Trait Performance in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia'. Location: Title Page, Line 3-5.

Comment 2: "Abstract: The section is poorly written and needs redrafting, there is lot of ambiguity and delicacy in presenting the values. Since author wants to compare the performance of varieties, but creates confusion while comparing crop with variety. Furthermore, the advantage associated with particular treatment should be quantified."

Response: The Abstract has been completely redrafted. We eliminated ambiguity, provided exact quantified percentage/yield increases for top treatments, and removed unnecessary words as requested. Location: Abstract, Page 2, Lines 32–46.

Comment 3: "Line 23 delete the word variety"

Response: We deleted the word 'variety' at Line 23 as instructed. Location: Abstract, Page 2, Line 35.

Comment 4: "Line No 25, 26 and 27 are confusing and contradictory."

Response: We rephrased Lines 25–27 to present the treatment comparisons clearly without contradictory statements. Location: Abstract, Page 2, Lines 40–46.

Comment 5: "Introduction. The purpose of the research is nicely grounded, however lack of coherence unnecessary lengthening of sentences, overlapping of ideas needs clarity and improvement. Line No 37 redraft this sentence"

Response: We restructured the Introduction, eliminated repetitive sentences, improved logical transitions, and redrafted Line 37 for clarity and conciseness. Location: Throughout Introduction, Pages 3-6, Line 68-69.

Comment 6: Material and Methods: Text is clear and provides good details, but needs to be tightened for better academic flow and conciseness.

Response: we have edited the Materials and Methods section to remove wordiness and improve its flow while retaining all technical parameters (design, plot sizes, seed sources, measured traits, and statistical tests). Location: Throughout the Material and Method Section

Comment 7: Line No 80: Season should be mentioned.

Response: We have revised the text at Line 80 to explicitly mention the specific growing season during which the field experiment was conducted (2022 main cropping season, Meher). Location: Materials and Methods, Page 6, Lines 138.

Comment 8: “Full word should be written at first mention in your text followed by abbreviation in parenthesis.”

Response: We have updated the manuscript text to define all abbreviated terms in full upon their first appearance, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Location: Materials and Methods, Page 9, Lines 163.

Comment 9: “Results and discussion: While the author mentions significant impact of cultivars on tillering, but the magnitude of its increment/ decrement is lacking in text, which needs further elaboration.”

Response: We extended the tillering discussion by quantifying exact percentage increases/decreases between cultivars. Location: Results and Discussion, Page 14, Lines 272-277.

Comment 10: The author should follow the sequence while highlighting the results, like PH should have been discussed first... Under plant height follow proper sequence (main factors first, then interactions)."

Response: We reorganized the Results section sequence: Plant height (PH) is now presented first, followed sequentially by phenological parameters (days to 50% heading), yield components, and finally grain yield and we rearrange the table order. Location: Throughout the Results and Discussion Section

Comment 11: "Also the author needs to quantify the advantage associated with the respective treatment."

Response: We have revised the Results section to systematically quantify the advantages of superior treatments explicitly stating percentage increases relative to the control and inferior treatments. Location: Throughout the Results and Discussion Section

Comment 12: "Under the sub heading Plant height, the author shall follow the proper sequence in writing the results, first main factors and then interaction results should be discussed."

Response: We have revised the "Plant Height" and Other parameters to follow a systematic sequence, presenting the main effects of individual factors first, followed by interaction effects, and concluding with the specific quantified advantages of the best treatment combinations. Location: Results and Discussion, Pages 9, line 188-194, page 17, 331-338, Page 20, 369-375.

Comment 13: "Under panicle length, author has highlighted the effect of seed rate followed by varieties followed by sowing methods which is contradictory to the table structure as well as same pattern was not followed although eg biomass etc."

Response: We have standardized the sequence of factors across the entire Results section (including text and tables) to ensure complete alignment and logical flow throughout the manuscript. Across all subsections, including Panicle Length and Biomass Yield, Lodging Index the factors and their interactions are now consistently presented in the following order: 1) Variety, 2) Sowing Method, and 3) Seeding Rate. Location: Throughout the Results and Discussion section: Panicle Length, Page 15, Line 301, as well as Biomass Yield, page 15, line 340 and associated summary tables (Tables 2-7).

Comment 14: Line 228: Author needs to substantiate the reason for this variable response of genotype.

Response: We have revised the text at Line 228 to explain that the differential performance between cultivars (Quncho vs. Kora) is driven by genotype-by-environment interaction. Location: Results and Discussion, Page 16, Lines 316–318.

Comment 15: (Line 281): Author highlights non-significant effect of varieties on lodging, whereas the values such as Quncho and Kora seem to be significantly different (Table No 6).

Response: The data in Table 6 show a statistically significant difference between cultivars. We have deleted the erroneous sentence reflect the significant varietal difference shown in Table 6.

Comment 16: "Author should be more specific rather than optimizing the effects, there is no conclusive finding in the conclusion which highlights remedy to the objectives identified in the introduction. The variety names should be italicized although. I recommend revising the conclusion to clearly link your findings to the productivity concerns.

Response: We have substantially revised the Conclusion section to provide specific, quantifiable recommendations that directly solve the productivity and lodging challenges highlighted in the Introduction. Furthermore, we have ensured all teff variety names (e.g., Quncho, Kora) are italicized throughout the entire manuscript. Location: Conclusion, Page 22-23, Lines 441-449, 456-460.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0360297.s006.docx^{(30.9KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360297.r003

Decision Letter 1

Mehdi Rahimi

24 Sep 2026

Title: Interactive Effects of Seed Rate, Sowing Method, and Variety on Teff (Eragrostis tef) Yield, Yield Components, and Lodging Trait Performance in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia

PONE-D-26-15264R1

Dear Dr. Belete,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Mehdi Rahimi, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: I thank the authors for their careful response to my previous comments. All issues raised in my initial review have been adequately addressed. I have no further comments and recommend the manuscript for publication.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes: Nezif Abajebal Abadura

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: attachment.docx

pone.0360297.s007.docx^{(10.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0360297.r004

Acceptance letter

Mehdi Rahimi

PONE-D-26-15264R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Belete,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS One and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS One Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Associate Prof. Mehdi Rahimi

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Data. Raw data for variety, sowing rates, and methods on teff.

This file contains the complete plot-level experimental data, including replications, variety, sowing methods, sowing rates, and corresponding yield measurements used in the statistical analysis.

(XLSX)

pone.0360297.s001.xlsx^{(14.5KB, xlsx)}

S2 Data. Meteorological data containing monthly rainfall, maximum temperature, and minimum temperature during the experimental period.

(XLSX)

pone.0360297.s002.xlsx^{(17.8KB, xlsx)}

S1 Code. R script used for the statistical analysis of agronomic and yield data.

(R)

pone.0360297.s003.R^{(4.9KB, R)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: comments.docx

pone.0360297.s004.docx^{(10.7KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-26-15264.pdf

pone.0360297.s005.pdf^{(833.6KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .docx

pone.0360297.s006.docx^{(30.9KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: attachment.docx

pone.0360297.s007.docx^{(10.5KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0360297.ref001] 1.Vandercasteelen J, Dereje M, Minten B, Taffesse AS. Labour, profitability and gender impacts of adopting row planting in Ethiopia. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2018;45(4):471–503. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref002] 2.Baye K. Baye K. Teff: nutrient composition and health benefits. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. 2014. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref003] 3.Cheng A, Mayes S, Dalle G, Demissew S, Massawe F. Diversifying crops for food and nutrition security - a case of teff. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2017;92(1):188–98. doi: 10.1111/brv.12225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref004] 4.Crymes AR. The international footprint of teff: Resurgence of an ancient Ethiopian grain. 2015.

[pone.0360297.ref005] 5.Central Statistical Agency CSA. The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Farm Management Practices (Private Peasant Holdings, Meher Season). III. Central Statistical Agency. 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref006] 6.Minten B, Tamru S, Engida E, Kuma T. Ethiopia’s value chains on the move: The case of teff. Ethiop Strateg Support Progr II Work Pap. 2013;52:1–26. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref007] 7.Gebremariam MM, Zarnkow M, Becker T. Teff (Eragrostis tef) as a raw material for malting, brewing and manufacturing of gluten-free foods and beverages: a review. J Food Sci Technol. 2014;51(11):2881–95. doi: 10.1007/s13197-012-0745-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref008] 8.Cannarozzi G, Plaza-wüthrich S, Esfeld K, Larti S, Wilson YS, Girma D. Genome and transcriptome sequencing identifies breeding targets in the orphan crop tef (Eragrostis tef). 2014. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[pone.0360297.ref009] 9.Reda A, Dechassa N, Assefa K. Evaluation of seed rates and sowing methods on growth, yield and yield attributes of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Ada District, East Shewa, Ethiopia. Agric Environ Sci. 2018;18(1):34–49. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref010] 10.Tesfay T, Gebresamuel G. Agronomic and economic evaluations of compound fertilizer applications under different planting methods and seed rates of tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] in Northern Ethiopia. J Drlylands. 2016;6(1):409–22. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref011] 11.Assefa K, Aliye S, Belay G, Metaferia G, Tefera H, Sorrells ME. Quncho: the first popular tef variety in Ethiopia. In: Sustainable Intensification. Routledge; 2012. p. 25–34. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref012] 12.Beyene G, Chauhan RD, Villmer J, Husic N, Wang N, Gebre E, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated tetra-allelic mutation of the “Green Revolution” SEMIDWARF-1 (SD-1) gene confers lodging resistance in tef (Eragrostis tef). Plant Biotechnol J. 2022;20(9):1716–29. doi: 10.1111/pbi.13842 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref013] 13.Negash W, Menzir A, Kassaye M. Effect of row spacing on yield and yield components of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) varieties in Gonji Kolela district, North Western Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2017;7(23):35–43. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref014] 14.Tefera H, Belay G, Sorrells M. Narrowing the Rift. Tef Research and Development. 2001. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref015] 15.Takele A, Nandeshwar BC, Jalata Z, Lamessa K. Response of tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter.) variety to varying seed rates and inter-row spacings for growth, yield and lodging severity in Western Ethiopia. All Life. 2023;16(1). doi: 10.1080/26895293.2023.2225761 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref016] 16.Kitata S, Abera T. Effects of seed rate and row spacing on phenology, growth, yield and economic feasibility of teff (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter.) production in Kiltu Kara District of Western Ethiopia. Am J Sustain Agric. 2020;20:165–75. doi: 10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2020.165.175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref017] 17.Alemat E, Kidu G, Mihreteab H, Haftamu H. Determination of the optimum population density of seedlings during transplanting for the productivity improvement of Tef [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.)] Trotter] in the Central zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2016;6(1). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref018] 18.Asargew F, Bitew Y, Asfaw M, Liben M, Getahun W. Row spacing and fertilizer rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis teff (Zucc.) Trotter) under transplanting planting method. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2014;4(15):133–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref019] 19.Berhe T, Gebretsadik Z, Edwards S, Araya H. Boosting tef productivity using improved agronomic practices and appropriate fertilizer. Achievements and prospects of Tef improvement. 2011. p. 133–40. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref020] 20.Abebe A. Effect of seed rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostic tef) Trotter at Konso and Arbaminch, Southern. Vol. 2018;8(5):38–45. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref021] 21.Girma F, Wolde A, Assefa K. Performance evaluation of improved teff varieties under different agronomic management practices in Amhara Region. Ethiop J Agric Sci. 2018;28(2):45–58. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref022] 22.Hameso H, Tefera T, Tadewos T. Effects of lime and NPSB fertilizer rates on yield attributes and yield of wheat, and soil properties in Harbagona district of Sidama region, Ethiopia. Ethiop J Agric. 2023;33(3):58–77. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref023] 23.Girma D. The relationships between stem characters and lodging tolerance in tef (Eragrostis tef) genotypes. Ethiop J Agric Sci. 2019;29(2):59–70. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref024] 24.Biya M. Response of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) to seeding rate and row spacing at Tiro-Afeta district, southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Sci Eng Technol. 2020;7(8):22–30. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref025] 25.Abebe B, Abebe A. Effect of seed rate on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis tef Trotter) at Shebedino, Southern Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2016;6(21). [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref026] 26.Dereje G, Adisu T, Dimberu A. Influence of Seed Rate and Row Spacing on Growth and Yield of Tef (Eragrostis tef) Production at Assosa, Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State, Western Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech. 2018;06(01). doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000335 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref027] 27.Abera T, Gemechu D. Effect of Varieties and Seed Rate on Yield and Yield Components of Teff (Eragrostis tef) in Ambo District, Oromia Region, Western Ethiopia. World J Agric Sci. 2020;16(3):170–9. doi: 10.5829/idosi.wjas.2020.170.179 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref028] 28.Farooq M, Shahzad MA, Basra AS, Basharat AS. Direct seeding method popular among rice farmers. DAWN Group of News letter. 2006;89(2):11–28. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref029] 29.Soomro UA, Rahman MU, Odhano EA, Gul S, Tareen AQ. Effects of sowing method and seed rate on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum). World J Agric Sci. 2009;5(2):159–62. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref030] 30.Adam MY. Effect of seed rate and nitrogen on growth and yield of teff grass (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). University of Khartoum. 2004. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref031] 31.Ketema HTS, Tesemma T. Variability, heritability and genetic advance in tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) cultivars. Trop Agric. 1990. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref032] 32.Shiferaw T. Effects of inorganic fertilizer types and sowing methods of variable seed rates on yield and yield components of tef (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter). Haramaya Univ. 2012. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref033] 33.Sahle S, Altaye T. Effects of sowing methods and seed rates on yield components and yield of tef in soro woreda, hadya zone, southern Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2016;6(19):109–14. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref034] 34.Biya M. Response of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc) Trotter) to seeding rate and row spacing at Tiro-Afeta district, southwestern Ethiopia. Int J Res Stud Sci Eng Technol. 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref035] 35.Yihun YM, Schultz B, Haile AM, Erkossa T. Optimizing Teff productivity in a water stressed region of Ethiopia. In: ICID 21st International Congress on Irrigation and Drainage. Tehran, Iran. 2011. 285–96. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref036] 36.Tenaw Workayehu BA. Effect of Method of Sowing and Time of Di-Ammonium Phosphate (DAP) Fertilizer Application, on Yield and Yield Components of Tef ((Eragrostic tef) Trotter) At Shebedino, Southern Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech. 2015;03(02). doi: 10.4172/2329-8863.1000168 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0360297.ref037] 37.Mengie Y, Assefa A, Jenber AJ. Sowing methods and seeding rates effects on yield and yield components of Tef (Eragrostis tef [Zucc.] Trotter) at Adet, North West Ethiopia. Heliyon. 2021;7(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Interactive effects of seed rate, sowing method, and variety on Teff (Eragrostis tef) yield, yield components, and lodging trait performance in the central highlands of Ethiopia

Yemanebirhane Tesfa

Fresew Belete

Wondwosen Tena

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Study area

Fig 1. Rainfall, minimum and maximum temperatures during 2022 in Mojana wodera woreda.

Experimental design and cultural practice

Data collection

Statistical analysis

Results and discussions

Plant height

Table 1. Mean squares from the ANOVA for phenological, growth, and yield related traits of teff varieties as affected by the effects of the seed rate and sowing method in the Mojana Wodera woreda.

Table 3. Impact of different variety, sowing methods and seed rates on plant height (PH), days to heading (DH), number of tillers per plant (NT), biomass yield (BY) and lodging index (LI) of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Table 2. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method, and seed rate on plant height (cm) of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Days to 50% heading (DH)

Number of tillers

Table 4. Tillering performance of teff as a function of row spacing and seed rate in Mojana Wodera Woreda district.

Panicle length

Table 7. Effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on panicle length (cm) and grain yield of teff in Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Biomass yield

Table 5. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on teff aboveground biomass yield (BY) at Mojana Wodera Woreda.

Lodging index (%)

Table 6. Interaction effects of variety, sowing method and seed rate on the logging index (%) of teff in the Mojana Wodera Woreda district 2021.

Grain yield

Conclusion

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Mehdi Rahimi

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 1

Mehdi Rahimi

Roles

Acceptance letter

Mehdi Rahimi

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases