1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Traditional vegetable include many species which are wild, semi –

cultivated or are protected in some way. They may also include species mainly

cultivated for pods, fruits, roots or tubers, but whose leaves are sometimes

consumed as a vegetable. The diversity in traditional vegetables offers variety

in family diet. 175 different species have been documented as local vegetables

in Zambia (Jahansson, 1989).Among the more prominent species are the

Amaranthus species.

Amaranthus species collectively known as Amaranthus belong to the

family Amanthaceae. All members that belong to the genus are propagated by

seeds. They grow well at temperature between 21 oC to 35oC, germination often

take 4-6 days to emerge. Direct broadcast seedlings are thinned 3 inches apart

when quite young (about 2 weeks). Weeding, may be done when seedlings are

still young and tender. The leaves are a good source of vitamin A and C. They

are also widely used in urban markets and thus generate income with minimum

inputs.

Many studies have been undertaken with the aim of determining the

different phytochemical constituents of medicinal plants and using them for the

treatment of both tropical and systemic microbial infection as possible

alternative to chemical synthetic drugs to which many infectious

 2

microorganisms have become resistant (Harbone, 1973). These plant derived

medicines have made large contribution to human health and well being.

Amaranthus species are not only important ingredients of unique

gastronomic dishes but also traditional functional food to maintain wellness

(Okwu, 2001).

1.2 Aims and objectives

The aims and objectives of the study are;

 To carry out phytochemical analyses of the 3 Amaranthus species.

 To study the morphological variation of the 3 Amaranthus species.

 3

PLATE 1A: Morphology of plant studied from Amaranthus spinosus.

 4

PLATE 1B: Morphology of Plant studied from Amaranthus

hybridus
 5

PLATE 1C: Morphology of plant studied from Amaranthus dubius

 6

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Classification and description of Amaranthus species

Amaranthus commonly called “green” belongs to the family

Amaranthaceae. They are rapidly growing annuals which typically reach 60cm

(2ft) tall members have been propagated for centuries and used as vegetable

and grain in different parts of the world (Daiziel, J.H., 1937) and is consumed

as vegetable in Africa, Caribbean, China, Greece, India and South Pacific

islands (Carlton W.M, 1933). They have simple leaves that have acute apex.

There are several cultivated species of this genus, some of the individual

representatives of this group includes; bush greens, pigweed, Chinese, spinach

etc, leaf shape and colour vary considerably in the genus. In Amarathus

cruentus for instance, different ear colours are found and these includes; red,

green, orange, pink, and two colour (red and green). The colouring of the ear

and in some cases, the stem is similar. The seed may be white, translucent,

cream or golden.

2.2 Morphological characterization of Amaranthus species

Amanranthus hybridus is an erect, annual herb (30-100cm) with a

fleshy often pink stem and inconspicuous green or dish flowers densely

crowded into a leafy inflorescence of erect lateral and terminal, cylindrical,

chaffy spikes. The leaves are wild and gradually narrowed at the base into a 1-

5cm long stalk (Ivens, et al., 1978).

 7

This is the species that is mostly grown in gardens, horticultural centers

and in some agricultural institutes and centers in Nigeria. It is usually used in

preparing yams, rice, beans and other delicious foods and is found in Calabar

and its environments.

Amaranthus dubius is another common species grown by the natives of

Calabar and other south Easterners of Nigeria. The plant has a distinctive dark-

green, broad ridge leaves of length 8 – 14cm and width 6-10cm. it has

considerable morphological variation repeated hybridization with A. spinosus.

The plant is erect, annual and much branched. It has a stem length of 60-100cm

and a diameter of 1-3cm. (Pal, M. and khoshoo, T.N., 1971)

In Nigeria, especially in the southern part, Amaranthus hybridus and

Amaranthus dubius are of nutritional importance; however its leaves are

utilized medicinally. The vegetable species Amaranthus hybridus and

Amaranthus dubius can be grown all around the year provided there is adequate

watering, especially during the dry seasons.

Amaranthus spinosus is the wild and commonest type. It is an annual

herb with an erect habit. The herb is 50-150cm high on the average with pairs

of sharp pointed spines, 6-10cm long at the axils and the leaves are 3-7cm long

and 2-4cm wide, with short spines at the indented tip, the leaf stalk measures 2-

7cm (lvens, et al., 1978).

The inflorescence is made up of terminal and lateral spikes which have

male flowers at the top and female flowers below. Amaranthus spinosus,

because of its spines is also known as prickly Amaranthus (Dutta, 1983).

 8

No two individuals are exactly alike in all species of organisms (plants

and animals exhibit variation).These may be differences in length of leaves,

number of leaves, diameter of stem, root system, flowers, length of petiole, leaf

coloration and pigmentation and even protein content. The reason that no two

species are exactly alike is that, each one combines variants of a large number

of attributes such that two species may have difference in length of

inflorescence (Iwu, M.M 1993).

2.3 Economic importance of Amaranthus species

Researches done here in Nigeria and in other parts of the world have

proven Amaranthus as one of the most delicious leafy vegetable. It is a food

crop for greens especially during the summer months when it is hard to grow

other kinds of vegetables; because of its wide array of importance as

enumerated below.

2.3.1 Food uses

Amaranthus are recorded as food plants for some Lepidoptera (butterfly

and moths) species including the nutmeg moth and various case – bearer moths

of the genus Coleophara; Coleophara amarnthlia, Coleophara enchorda

(feeds exclusively on Amaranthus), Coleophara immoratalis (feed exclusively

on Amaranthus, Coleophara lineapulveila and Colephara versurella (recorded

on A. spinosus).

Grain Amaranthus has been used for food in a number of ways. The

most common usage is to grind the grains into flour for use in breads, noodles,
 9

pancakes, cereals, granola, cookies or other flour based products. The grain can

be popped or flaked like oat meal more currently in the market.

Amaranthus leaves are used in stews, soups and sauces and used in

dished wherever spinach is used. According to (Baltensperger, 1995), South

Americans cook it for gruel or porridge or mill it to produce a light colored

flour. These plants are high in protein and calcium. It is used as a source of

food crop by the Aztec Indians of Mexico, as a spinach substitute in Australia

and a vegetable in china. The seed can be boiled into a hot cereal cooked for at

least an hour. The young shoot makes a very tasty potherb or in salads.

2.3.2 Agricultural uses

It specifically helps in animal husbandry where the leaves are used as

fodder for the animals thus it is nicknamed “pigweed”.

2.3.3 Medicinal importance

Amaranthus species are recommended as a good food with medicinal

properties for young children, lactating mothers and for patients with fevers,

hemorrhages, anaemia and kidney complaints.

The wild Amaranthus spinosus is used as a depurative against venereal

diseases and in dressing of boils. The weed has been reported to have some

pharmacological properties (Ayethan, et al., 1996). Extracts of the leaf has also

been used in the treatment of menstrual disorders in women (Ayethan et al.,

1996). The plant is used as a soporific and febrifuge and is recommended for

eruptive fevers.
 10

The leaves of Amaranthus spinosus are considered a good emollient,

lactogogue and a specific treatment for colic (Ayethan, et al., 1996).

Externally, the bruised leaves are applied locally to treat eczema, gonorrhea

and as a mild purgative (Ayethan, et al., 1996). The plant’s leaves and stem

paste with palm oil is used to cure pile and stomach aches used by the Hopi (a

tribe in Western United States) as the sources of a deep red dye. There is also a

synthetic dye that has similarity in color to the natural Amaranthus pigment

known as belalains. This synthetic dye is also known as Red No 2 in North

America and E 123 in the European Union.

2.4 Global potential uses of Amaranthus species

Amaranthus proves to be one of the best suited crops to address certain

health problems globally. They are a very good source of vitamins including

vitamin A, vitamin K, vitamin B6, vitamin C, riboflavin and foliate while

dietary minerals includes calcium, iron, magnesium, phosphorus , potassium,

zinc, copper and manganese.( Ayethen, et al., 1996).

In addition, Amaranthus seed with croons is a major component of the

local diet which forms a complete protein. The high macronutrients of both

micro and macronutrients in the seeds and leaves have been proven very

important in addressing many easily preventable health problems (Ayethen, et

al., 1996).
 11

CHAPTHER THREE

MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Data collection for morphological studies

The following data were collected; number of leaves per plants, plant

height, number of branches per plant, leaf area and measured for in the various

plant species morphology for the characterization studies.

3.2 Experimental site

The planting was done on a farm land behind the biological science

block, University of Calabar, Calabar, Cross River State, phytochemical

analysis was carried out at Biochemistry Department, University of Calabar.

3.3 Seed planting

Amaranthus seeds were collected from a local farmer, the seeds was

spread on portions and allow growing and later thinned 3 inches apart when

quite young (about 2 weeks).

3.4 Experimental design

The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design

(RCBD).

3.5 Statistical analysis

Analysis of variances test (ANOVA) was done on the morphological

characteristics and the least significant differences (LSD) test was used to

separate their mean.

 12

3.6 Phytochemical study method

The plant under study should be free of contamination with other plants

and should not be affected by viral, bacterial or fungal infections (Harbone,

1973). The fresh vegetable were harvested early in the morning, properly

washed and meshed with an electric. The cold ethanolic extract was obtained

by overnight soaking of the blended Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus dubius

and Amaranthus spinosus leaves in 98% ethanol and then filtering. The filtrates

were evaporated to dryness at room temperature by exposure to air in a wide

tray. Chemical tests were carried out on the aqueous extract using standard

procedures to identify the constituents as described by Sofowara (1984) Trease

et al, (1989) and Harborne (1973).

3.6.1 Test for tannins (Trease & Evan 1989)

2 ml of alcoholic plant extract was stirred with 10ml of distilled water &

heated in the water bath. 1ml of 1% fecl3 was added to the filtrate. Blue- black,

green or blue- green precipitation or colouration indicate the presence of

tannin.

3.6.2 Test for flavonoids (Sofowora, 1984)

2ml of ammonia solution were added to 2ml of the aqueous filtrate of

each plant extract followed by addition of concentrated. A yellow H 2SO4

colouration observed in the extract indicated the presence of flavonoids. The

yellow colouration disappeared on standing.

 13

3.6.3 Test for steroids (Sofowora, 1984)

2ml of acetic anhydride was added to 0.5g of ethanolic extract of each sample

with 2ml of H2SO4. The colour changed from violet to blue or green in some

samples indication the presence of steroids.

3.6.4 Test for cardiac glycosides (Sofowora, 1984)

2ml of each extract was dissolved in 2ml of chloroform; sulphuric acid

was carefully added to form a lower layer. A reddish brown colour at the

interface indicates the presence of glycoside.

3.6.5 Test for saponins (Sofowora, 1984)

2ml of the aqeous extract was diluted with 10ml of distilled water and

heated in a water bath. After cooling, this was shaken vigorously, stable forms

indicates the presence of saponins.

3.6.6 Test for Alkaloids (Sofowora, 1984)

2mls of the aqeous extract was stirred with 5mls of 1% aqeous HCL in a

water bath. 1ml of the filtrate of each sample was treated with few drops of

Dragendoff’s reagent and a second 1ml with Meyer’s reagent. Turbidity and

precipitation with either of those reagents were taken as evidence for the

presence of alkaloid.
 14

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Results of morphological studies

Morphological studies of the three species Amaranthus spinosus,

Amaranthus hybridus and Amaranthus dubius have show both similarities and

differences between the three species as summarized in Table 1 below. Table 2

shows the mean ± standard errors of the morphological differences while Table

3 is the summary of the analysis of variance. Also, Table 4 shows the result of

the phytochemical analysis.

 15

TABLE 1: Summary of the morphological characters of the three species

of Amaranthus studied

Features Amaranthus spinosus Amaranthus hybridus Amaranthus dubius

Growth habit This is an erect annual herb. It is This is the also an annual This is an erect annual
the most widespread in Calabar herb. It is however not as herb. It is the least
and Cross River state at large. widely spread as A.spinosus. distributed. It is
it is planted in most vegetable cultivated by the native
gardens in the state. in their various kitchen
gardens.

Root system It has a tap-root that grows This is also has tap-root This species has the
vertically downwards and produces which grows vertically largest root system
braches that grows obliquely downward and produces when compared to
downwards. while the green type branches that grows obliquely either A.spinosus or
grows vertically upward and downwards. The branches can A.hybridus. the tap-
produces branches that grows be said to scanty. root grows to great
upward. The density of the depth into the soil.
branches roots can be said to be
tope moderate.

It’s stem is glabrous, round much- This also is a glabrous and it The stem is round and
STEM branched, fleshy and pink. There is ridged. It is fleshy but also ridged. It has a
are averagely 16 branches per green. It has a minimums of reddish green colour. It
plant. about 14 branches when it is brings out enough
nipped i.e cutting with a sharp braches even if it was
knives. A.spinosus has pained nipped at all
spines at the axils of the throughout the year.
leaves and branches.

LEAF The leaves are alternately arranged These are alternately arranged The leaf has a flat base.
along the stem. There are along the stem. The leaf The plant has an
averagely 76 leaves for plant. each gradually narrows at the base. average of 54 leaves
plant has a spines at its apex. These are average of 53 per plant and each leaf
leaves per plant. Each leaf has has a slightly indented
an axillaries bud attached to lip.
stem where new branches can
grow from.

SEEDS The seeds are enclosed in an ovary. The seeds are borne are in a The seed of dubius is
the seeds are shiny, black and lens utricle fruit. The seeds are almost the same shape
– shaped. shiny, black and also shaped. as other black and
shiny.

COLOUR OF leaf of A. spinosus is not as green Leaf of A. hybridus is a sort of Leaf of A. dubius is
LEAVES as A. dubius light green in colouration. much darker in
colouration than the 2
other.
 16

4.2 Statistical analysis of the morphological characterization

Table 2 shows the morphological of the plants studied. The mean leaf

number ± standard error value were 53.8 ± 2.8, 70.4 ± 2.8 and 47.4 ± 3.1 for

Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus spinosus and. Amaranthus dubius. The

analysis of variance shows that they are significantly different from each other

at (LSD) 9.58

The mean leaf area of accession from Amaranthus hybridus, was 29.0

± 2.5, Amaranthus spinosus 32.4 ± 2.0 and Amaranthus dubius was 42.2 ± 3.0.

Analysis of variance (Anova) shows that Amaranthus hybridus and

Amaranthus spinosus are statistically the same i.e. no significant different but

differ from Amaranthus dubius.

The mean branches number for Amaranthus hybridus was 13.2 ± 0.8,

Amaranthus spinosus was 12.8 ± 0.9 and Amaranthus dubius was 14.0 + 0.9.

Analysis of variance shows that there are no significant differences in number

of branches per plant between the 3 variety studies.

The mean plant height of accessions from Amaranthus hybridus was

25.42 ± 2.5, Amaranthus spinosus was 24.36 ± 1.4, and Amaranthus dubius

was 23 + 1.4. There were no significant differences in plant height between the

3 varieties.
 17

TABLE2: Means + SE of morphological characterization of the three

Amaranthus specie studied in one month

Number of leaves per Leaf area Number of Plant height

plant branches

hybridus 53.8 + 2.8a 29.0+ 2.5a 13.2 + 0.8a 25.42+2.5a

spinosus 70.4+2.8c 32.4+2.0a 12.8+_ 0.9a 24.36+1.6a

dubius 47.4+3.1b 42.2+_3.0b 14.0+_0.9a 23.88+1.4a

Means with same letter are not significantly different along horizontal array
 18

TABLE3: Summary of analysis of variance (Anova) table of morphological

characteristic studied from the three species (Amaranthus hybridus,
Amaranthus spinosus and Amaranthus. dudius)

source of variation Df No of leaf Leaf area No of branches Plant height

MS VR MS VR MS VR MS VR

Total 14 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Bloch ** * NS NS
4 352.3 8.17 1117.45 3.98 3.95 0.21 1.55 0.26

Variety NS NS NS *
2 35.2 0.81 78.065 2.549 6.35 1.37 47.7 8.28

Error 8 176.1 29.483 4.61 5.76

(P<0.05)

X= significance at (p<o.5)

XX= significance at (p<0.01)

NS= significance difference

 19

4.3 Phytochemical composition of the plants

The result of the phytochemical test conducted revealed variation in the

composition of the chemical constituent of the vegetables.

The leaves of the Amaranthus hybridus under study were found to

contain compounds like alkaloids, glycosides, tannins, steroids, while

compound like saponins and flavonoids were absent.

The leaves of Amaranthus spinosus contain compounds such as

alkaloids, tannins, steroids and glycosides while compound like flavonoids and

saponins were absent. The leaves of Amaranthus dubius under study contain

compound like alkaloid, tannins and steroids while compound like glycosides,

flavonoids and saponins were absent.

4.4 Discussion

The aim of this research project was to study the phytochemical

composition of the 3 Amaranthus species in Cross River State and to

compare their phytochemical and morphological characteristics.

The three species showed some similarities in their morphological

characters. For instance, they have the same arrangement of flowers occupy the

lower portion. Beside flower arrangement, the three species are characterized

by one seeded fruit, and the seeds are black and tiny, they also occupy in huge

numbers. The three species also have fleshly stems and leaf arrangement.

The results of the statistical test and analysis of variance have shown

that there is no significant different in number of branches per plant and

plant height studied hue to variation (P<0.05). However, the mean number of
 20

leaves per plant of Amaranthus hybridus, Amaranthus Spinosus and

Amaranthus dubius were significantly different from each other while the

mean leaf area of Amaranthus dubius were significantly different from

Amaranthus hybridus and Amaranthus spinosus as studies. These differences

have great influence on the phylogeny and taxonomy of the three species.

Iven, et al., (1998) used morphological characters to place the three

species in the same genus separate species.

Pal et al., (1971) also showed that such differences in plants indicate

obvious (divergence) in evolution between species and are the basic for

grouping them into the same genus but different species.

The result of the phytochemical teat conducted revealed variation in the

composition of the chemical constituents of the vegetables. The three species

contain alkaloids, steroid, glycosides and tannins but the tests were negative for

flavonoids and saponins.

Carlton, (1933) suggests that due to the presence of these obvious

dangerous should be boiled before consumption.

The three plants are therefore grouped into the same genus because they

share some morphological character.

 21

TABLE 4: Results of phytochemical screening of A. hybridus, A. spinosus

and A. dubius.

S/NO Chemical Amaranthus Amaranthus Amarathus

constituent hybridus spinosus dubius
1 Alkaloids + ++ +
2 Glycosides + ++ +
3 Saponins - - -
4 Tannins + ++ ++
5 Flavonoids - - -
6 Steroids + + ++

Keys

[+] = present

[++] = present in excess

[ -] = Absent
 22

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

5.1 Conclusion

The results of the phytochemical and morphological study has

thrown more light on the phylogeny and taxonomy of the three species. It

shows why same genus but different species.

Data collected on morphological attributes of plants studied were

subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and where necessary, the mean

were separated suing the least significant differences (LSD) test.

Furthermore, leaves of the Amaranthus vegetables under study were

found to contain compounds like alkaloids, glycosides, tannins and steroid.

It is hoped that the data collected on morphological variation in

Amaranthus plant studies in the three Species will be invaluable in the

breeding.
 23

5.2 Recommendation

It is recommended that the scope of the future studies should be

widened to accommodate more floral feature in the plant and this should be

targeted at reviewing and reanalyzing the morphological and phytochemical

studies in complementing the information here.

 24

REFERENCES

Ayethan,W. M., Sein, M. M., Maybwin, M. (1996). The Effects of Some

Medicinal Plants on Smooth Muscle. Barrner Publishers,Hampshire.
Page 515-519.

Baltensperger (1995). Studies and Performance of Amaranthus. South Indian

Hort Science 29. Page (104-109).

Carton W. M. (1961). Laboratory studies in general botany. Ronald press

Limited. New York. Page (22-28).

Dutta, (1988). Botany for degree students 3 rd edition, oxford university Press
Limited. Page (70-75).

Harborne, J. B (1973). Phytochemical Methods: A guide to Modern

techniques of Plant Analysis: London Chapman and Hall. Page (10-12).

Hessen, N. (2000). Biology second edition. McGraw Hill Limited. London.

Page (60-70).

Ivens G. W. Moodr and Egun job (1978). West African weeds. Oxford
university press Ibadan. Page (40-45).

Johansson (1989), Medical Botany. John Wiley and sons New York. Page
(172-197).

Kiel, D. and Pinkara, J. D. (1976) American Journal of Botany. 63.

Mankeen (1973). Introduction to Genetics. John Murray, Albemale London.

Page (18-19).

Okwu, D. E., (2001). Evaluation of the chemical composition of indigenous

species and flavouring agents. Global Journal pure applied Sc. 7 (3):
45-4549.

Pla M and Khoshoo J. N. (1991). Evaluation and improvement of cultivated

Amarathus. Genetics 43. Page (117-129).

Sofowora E. A. (1984). Phytochemical screening of Nigerian Medical Plant II

llogdia limited. Page (1-25).
 25

APPENDIX I

List of abbreviation formula for calculation

Mean =x = Σx
n

Standard error (SE) = SD

√n
n-1

Standard error (SE) – SD

√n
Statistical analysis
Correction factor (CF) = (Σx)2
N

Total SS Σx2 – (Σx)2

n

Block SS = 1/r (ΣB2 – CF)

Variety SS = 1/r (ΣV2 – CF)

Error SS = total SS – Block –Location SS Degree of freedom (df), n-1

N= number of variable

R=number of replication

MS = SS
df

VR= Ms/Error
LSD= (+ error df) X √ 2 ve
r

VE= variance error

LSD- Least significant difference

Σ = summation

X = mean
 26

Ns = not significant

% = Percentage

f- Cal = calculated variance ratio

F- Tab= tabulated variance ratio

Sov = sources of variance

SS = sum of square
 27

APPENDIX II

Morphological characteristics of the three Amaranthus species showing their mean standard deviation and standard error value in one

month

Number of leaves Leaf Area Number of branches Plant height

hybridus spinosus dubius hybridus spinosus dubius hybridus spinosus dubius hybridus spinosus dubius
53 74 41 30.0 40.00 51.00 16 12 13 21.9 26.1 21.5
46 67 50 20.00 31.00 46.00 13 11 12 29.5 28.2 23.7
58 76 47 28.00 32.00 41.00 14 14 13 21.2 23.7 25.7
50 74 45 35.00 36.00 40.00 11 16 17 26.1 29.1 28.2
62 61 54 32.00 28.00 33.00 12 11 15 23.1 20.0 20.3
X 53.8 70.4 47.4 29.0 32.4 42.2 13.2 12.8 14.0 25.42 24.36 23.88

SD 6.3 6.2 9.8 5.6 4.5 6.7 1.9 2.1 2.0 3.4 3.7 3.1

SE 2.8 2.8 3.1 2.5 2.0 3.0 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.4
 28

APPENDIX III

Analysis of variance for number of leaves per plant

hybridus spinosus dubius Variety total

A B C
53 74 41 168

46 67 50 163

58 76 47 181

50 74 45 169

62 61 54 177

Block total 269 352 237 858

X 53.8 70.4 47.4

Total SS= ΣX2 – (Σx)2 – cf

n

50902.0 – (858)2
15

50902.0 - 736164
15

50902.0 - 49077.6

= 1824.4

Block SS= 1/r (ΣB2- CF)

= 1/5 (2692 + 3522 + 2372) – CF

1/5 (25-24.34 )- 49077.6

50486.8 – 49077.6

=1409.2
 29

Variety SS = 1/r (ΣV2 – CF)

1/3 (1682 + 1632 + 1812 + 1692 + 1772)

-49077.6

1/3 (147444)- 49077.6

49148 – 49077.6

= 70.4

Error SS = Total SS- Block SS- variety SS

= 1824.4-1409.2 – 70.4

= 344.8
 30

ANOVA TABLE

Sources of Df SS MS Vr F-Tab
variation 5% 1%
Total SS 14 1824.4 - -

**
Block SS 4 1409.2 352.3 8.17 3.84 7.01

NS
Variety SS 2 70.4 35.2 0.81 4.46 8.65

Error SS 8 344.8 43.1

LSD = (T error df) X

√ 2 XVe
r

t (8) = 2. 31
√ X 2 X 43.1
5

2.31 X √ 17.24

2.31 X 4.15

LSD = 9.58

A spinosus (c) A. hybridus (a) A. dubius (b)

70.4 53.8 47.4

9.58 9.58 9.58

79.98 63.38 56.98

From the above we can easily conclude that A. spinosus, A. hybridus

and A. dubius shows that they are significantly different from each other.
 31

APPENDIX IV

Analysis of variance for leaf area

hybridus spinosus dubius Variety total

A B C
30.00 40.00 51.00 121.0
20.00 31.00 46.00 97.0
28.00 32.00 41.00 101.0
35.00 31.00 40.00 106.0
32.00 28.00 33.00 93.00
145 162 211

X 29.0 32.4 42.2

Total SS

18750 – (518)2
15

18750 – 17888.2

= 861.8

Block SS = 1/r (ΣB2 – CF)

1/5 (1452 + 1622 + 2112) – CF
1/5 (91790) - 17888.2
18358 - 17888.2
= 469.8
Variety SS = 1/r (ΣV2 – CF)
1/3 (121.02 + 101.02 + 106.02 + 93.02) – CF
1/3 (14641 + 9409 + 10201 + 1123 + 8646) – CF
1/3 (54133 ) – 17888.2
18044.3 – 17888.2
= 156.13
Error SS = Total SS – block SS – variety SS
= 861.8 – 469.8 – 156.13
= 235.87
 32

ANOVA TABLE

Sources of Df Ss MS Vr F-Tab
variation 5% 1%
Total SS 14 861.8 - -

Block SS 4 469.8 1117.5 3.983* 3.84 7.01

Variety SS 2 156.13 78.065 2.647 NS 4.46 8.65

Error 8 235.87 29.483

LSD = (T error df) X

√2 XVe
r

t (8) = 2. 31
√2 X 29. 483
5

2.31 X √ 1.7932

2.31 X 3.43

= 7.92

Hybribus (a) spinosus (a) dubius (b)

29.0 32.4 42.2

7.92 7.92 7.92

36.92 40.32 50.12

From the above we can easily conclude that A. spinosus, and A. hybridus

are statistically the same i.e no significant different but differ from A.dudius.
 33

APPENDIX V

Analysis of variance for number 2of branches

hybridus spinosus dubius (C) Variety total

(A) (B)
16 12 13 41
13 11 12 36
14 14 13 41
11 16 17 44
12 11 15 38
Block total= 66 64 70 200
X 13.2 12.8 14.0

Total SS = ΣX2 – (ΣX)2 – CF

n

2720 – (200)2
15

2720 – 2666.6

= 52.4

Block SS = 1/r (ΣB2-CF)

1/5 (662+642+702) – 2666.6

1/5 (13352) – 2666.6

2670.4 – 2666.6

= 3.8

Variety SS = 1/r (Σv2-CF)

1/3 (8038) – 2666.6

2679.3 – 2666.6

= 12.7

Error SS = (Total SS – Block SS – Variety SS)

= 53.4 – 3.8 – 12.7
= 36.9
 34

ANOVA TABLE

Sources of variation Df SS MS Vr F- tab

5% 1%

Total SS 14 53.4 - -

Block SS 4 3.8 0.95 0.2 NS 3.84 7.01

Variety SS 2 12.7 6.35 1.37 4.46 8.65

Error SS 8 36.9 4.61

LSD (t error df) = √2xve

r

t (8) = 2.31 x √2x4.61

5

2.31 x √2x22
5

2.31 x √1.84

2.31 x 1.35

LSD = 3.11

A. dubius(a) A. hybridus(b) A. Spinosus(c)

14.0 13.2 12.8

3.11 3.11 3.11

17.11 16.31 15.91

There was no significant difference in A. dudius, A. hybridus and A.

spinosus i.e. they are statistically the same.

 35

APPENDIX VI

Analysis of variance for plant height

hybridus (A) spinosus (B) dubius (C) Variety total

21.9 26.1 21.5 69.5
29.5 28.2 23.7 81.4
21.2 23.7 25.7 70.6
26.1 29.1 28.2 83.4
23.1 20.0 20.3 63.4
Block total= 121.8 127.1 119.4 368.3
x 25.42 24.36 23.88

Total SS = ΣX2 – (ΣX)2 - CF

n

9190.83 – (368.3)2
15

9190.83– 9042.99

= 147.84

Block SS = 1/r (ΣB2-CF)

1/5 (121.82+127.12+119.42) – CF

1/5 (45246.01) – 9042.99

9049.20 – 9042.99

= 6.21

Variety SS = 1/r (Σv2-CF)

1/3 (69.52+81.42+70.62+63.42) – 9042.99
1/3 (27415.69) – 9042.99
9138.5 – 9042.99
= 95.51
Error SS = (Total SS – Block SS – Variety SS)
 36

= 147.84 – 6.21 – 95.51

= 46.12
 37

ANNOVA TABLE

Sources of variation Df SS MS Vr F- tab

5% 1%

Total SS 14 147.84 - -

Block SS 4 6.21 1.55 0.2 NS 3.84 7.01

Variety SS 2 95.51 47.7 1.37 4.46 8.65

Error SS 8 46.12 5.76

LSD (t error df) = √2xve

r

t8 = 2.31 x √2x4.61
5

2.31 x √2x22
5

2.31 x √1.84

2.31 x 1.35

LSD = 3.11

A. dubius(a) A. hybridus(b) A. spinosus(c)

14.0 13.2 12.8

3.11 3.11 3.11

17.11 16.31 15.91

There was no significant difference in Amaranthus dubius, Amaranthus

hybridus and Amaranthus spinosus i.e. they are statistically the same.