REFERENCE
1. ANONYME, 1991, Mémento de l'Agronome, techniques
rural Afrique,
4 ème édition, Paris, p 1635
2. ARTHAUD, M, 1981, Guide sur la fertilisation
phosphatée, Belgique, pp2- 20
3. BODET, J.M, RAYMOND, L. DONAHUE and MILLER, R.W,
2001,
Fertiliser avec les engrais de la ferme,
Paris, France, pp15-20
4. BERTRAND, P, 2000, Fertiliser avec les engrais de la
ferme, Paris, France, pp15-20
5. CLEMENT, J .M, 1981, Larousse agricole, 1ere
Edition ,Washington, USA
6. DONAHUE, R, 1990, Soil, 7 Prentice -Hall, New
Jersey, England.pp 122-254
7. DAHLGREN, R.A., SAIGUSA, M. and UGOLINI, F.C., 2004. The
Nature and Properties of volcanic ash soil. Newdheli ,India.
8. F.A.O, 1982, Recyclage des résidus agricoles
organique en Afrique, Rome, Italie, p 82
9. GRABBET,G,J and DANTO,O.A, 2004, Vegetables, PROTA
Foundation /Backhuys public ICTA, Wageningen, Netherland ,p 48ation,
10. GRUBBEN.G.J.H., DENTO, O.A, 2004, Ressources
végétales de l'Afrique tropicale, 2eme édition,
Wangeningen, Pays bas. 736p
11. GUPTA, I.C, 1995, Alkali Westland environment and
reclamation, Jodhpur, India, p 102
12. HAVLIN ,J,L et all, 2005,Soil fertility and
fertilizers, an introduction to nutrient management,7
th edition, New jersey ,England, p 58
13. IITA, 1981, Analyse des prélèvements
pédagogiques et végétaux, Manuel no 11,
Ibadan, Nigeria, pp 10-12
14. JUO, ASR, (1978).
Selected methods for soil land plant analysis.2eme edition
.Ibadan, p52.
15. KHASAWNEH F.E, SAMPLE, E.C, and KAMPRATH, E.J (1986). The
role of phosphorus in agriculture,p910
16. LAURA, V.S, 1998, Soil fertility management,
Wageningen, Netherlands, pp 123-142
17. . MATHIEU, C et PIELATAIN, F,
(2003). Analyse chimique des sols.
Méthodes choisis. Edition Tec et Doc, Paris, Lavoisier, Nouvelle
edition, P, 387.
18. MILLAR, C.E, 2004, Soil fertility, New Delhi, India,
pp 125 -245
19. MINAGRI, 1985, National seminar on fertilization of
Rwanda soil, Kigali, Rwanda, 15-18
20. MOHSIN and CÓRDOVA and
VALVERDE, , 1995, Acidic soils management, New
Delhi, India, pp 185-204
21. MOUGHALIB, 2005, Notes de Cours, Institut
Agronomique et Veternaire, Hassan II. Rabat.
22. MUTWAWINGABO .B et RUTUNGA.V, 1987, Etude des sols de
l'essai d'intensification de l'agriculture de Gikongoro, Rwanda, p 87
23. NKUSI, A, 1984, Contribution à l'étude du
phosphore dans le sol, évaluation de cinq méthodes de
détermination du phosphore assimilable dans le sol par essai en vase de
végétation, Mémoire, Faculté d'Agronomie,
Butare, p 123
24. NTAHOMPAGAZE, 2000, Agriculture au Rwanda.
Kigali.
25. NYLE and BRADY, 2002, The nature and property of
soil,30 th edition, New York 959
26. PANSU, T.L, PRASAD, R. and J. F.
POWER, 2003, Analyse du sol, des minéralogiques,
organiques et minéral, IRAD, Springer verlan, France,p 993
27. PIELTAIN, F, 2003, Analyse chimique des sols, Paris,
France, p1-30
28. PIETERS, A.J, 2004, Methods of soil fertilization,
Newdheli, India, 158-200
29. PIETROWICH, 1985, Calibration of soil test RUBONA.
30. QUANTIN, P, 1992, Les sols d'Archipel volcanique des
nouvelles hybrides, ORSTOM, Paris, France, p 12-15
31. RAYAR A.J, 2000, Sustainable agriculture in sub-Saharan
Africa, the role of soil productivity, 1 st edition, Chennai,
India. P 35.
32. RAYMOND, W, 1990, Soils, an introduction to soil and
plant growth, sixth edition, prince hall, England, p 46
33. RAYMOND, L. DONAHUE and MILLER, R.W. (1990). An
introduction to soils and plant growth. Prentice Hall of India, New
Delhi.
34. RUSCH, H.P, 1982, La fécondité du sol,
Paris, France, pp 123-140
35. RUSSEL, J.E, 1980, Soil conditions and plant growth,
London, England,
36. RUTUNGA, V, 1981, Les sols du Rwanda pour un non
pédologue, Bulletin agricole, p 17
37. SYERS J, K, RUSSEL J.E, 1994, Soil science and
sustainable land management in tropics, Wallingford, p 24
38. TANDON, H.L.S (2002), Dictionary of soil fertility,
fertilizers and integrated nutrient management, fertilization
development and consultation organisation, Newdheli, India, pp 45
39. VAN DER ZAGG, 1981, La fertilité des sols du
RWANDA, Notes techniques de l'ISAR no 9, BUTARE, p 42
40. WILD, A, 1993, Soil and environment, an introduction,
Cambridge University, Cambridge, pp 166-178
41. WILLEN, F and LETEINTURIER, J, 1992, La carotte,
Tome II, Paris, France Pp 225-227
Appendix : Results of
soil analysis
Before experiment
|
Treatments
Parameters
|
T0
|
T1
|
T2
|
T3
|
T4
|
T5
|
T6
|
|
pH water
|
5.7
|
5.6
|
5.7
|
5.9
|
5.8
|
5.6
|
5.8
|
|
pH KCl
|
4.6
|
4.5
|
4.5
|
4.7
|
4.7
|
4.6
|
4.7
|
|
O.C (%)
|
3.25
|
3.26
|
3.29
|
3.27
|
3.28
|
3.24
|
3.26
|
|
O.M (%)
|
5.603
|
5.62
|
5.672
|
5.637
|
5.654
|
5.585
|
5.62
|
|
Available P(ppm)
|
60
|
60.5
|
60
|
60
|
60.5
|
60
|
60
|
|
Total exchangeable acidity (Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
1.9
|
19.2
|
1.89
|
1.91
|
1.90
|
1.88
|
1.89
|
|
Exchangeable Calcium (Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
0.62
|
0.63
|
0.63
|
0.62
|
0.64
|
0.63
|
0.64
|
|
Exchangeable Magnesium(Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
0.26
|
0.27
|
0.25
|
0.27
|
0.28
|
0.27
|
0.26
|
|
Nitrogen (%)
|
0.278
|
0.279
|
0.2836
|
0.278
|
0.280
|
0.270
|
0.275
|
Appendix : Height of
plants at 30days (cm)
|
Replications
Treatments
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
9.9
|
8.1
|
7.2
|
8.1
|
33.3
|
8.3
|
|
T1
|
9
|
9.9
|
9
|
9.9
|
37.8
|
9.5
|
|
T2
|
16.2
|
14.4
|
17.1
|
15.3
|
63
|
15.7
|
|
T3
|
19.8
|
18
|
16.2
|
18
|
72
|
18
|
|
T4
|
10.8
|
9
|
8.9
|
9
|
37.7
|
9.4
|
|
T5
|
10.8
|
11.7
|
9
|
10.8
|
42.3
|
10.6
|
|
T6
|
12.6
|
9.9
|
10.8
|
11.7
|
45
|
11.2
|
|
SUM
|
89.1
|
81
|
78.2
|
82.8
|
331.1
|
|
|
AVERAGE
|
12.7
|
11.6
|
11.2
|
11.8
|
47.3
|
11.8
|
Appendix : Height of
plants at 60 days (cm)
|
Replication
Treatments
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
17.1
|
22.5
|
20.7
|
19.8
|
80.1
|
20
|
|
T1
|
24.3
|
19.8
|
22.5
|
21.6
|
88.2
|
22
|
|
T2
|
29.7
|
28.8
|
27.9
|
27.9
|
114.3
|
28.5
|
|
T3
|
32.4
|
31.5
|
30.6
|
31.5
|
126
|
31.5
|
|
T4
|
21.6
|
20.7
|
20.7
|
19.8
|
82.8
|
20.7
|
|
T5
|
30.6
|
27
|
28.8
|
27.9
|
114.3
|
28.6
|
|
T6
|
28.8
|
30.6
|
27
|
29.7
|
116.1
|
29
|
|
SUM
|
184.5
|
180.9
|
178.2
|
178.2
|
721.8
|
|
Appendix : Height of plants at 90 days
(cm)
|
Replication
Treatments
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
38.7
|
41.4
|
45
|
42.3
|
167.4
|
41.8
|
|
T1
|
44
|
43.2
|
45
|
43.2
|
175.4
|
43.8
|
|
T2
|
44.1
|
47.7
|
52.2
|
48.6
|
192.6
|
48.1
|
|
T3
|
45
|
50.4
|
54
|
51.3
|
200.7
|
50.2
|
|
T4
|
42.5
|
40.5
|
43.2
|
41.4
|
167.6
|
41.9
|
|
T5
|
44.1
|
46.8
|
45
|
45.9
|
181.8
|
45.5
|
|
T6
|
43.2
|
42.3
|
48.6
|
45.9
|
180
|
45
|
|
SUM
|
301.6
|
312.3
|
333
|
318.6
|
1265.5
|
|
|
AVERAGE
|
43.1
|
44.6
|
47.6
|
45.5
|
180.8
|
45.2
|
Appendix : Root length at
harvesting time (cm)
|
Replications
Treatments
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
12.7
|
10.8
|
11.7
|
10.8
|
46
|
11.5
|
|
T1
|
14.4
|
13.5
|
14.4
|
13.5
|
55.8
|
13.9
|
|
T2
|
17.1
|
16.2
|
18
|
16.2
|
67.5
|
16.9
|
|
T3
|
17.1
|
17.1
|
17.1
|
17.1
|
68.4
|
17.1
|
|
T4
|
13.5
|
12.6
|
13.5
|
12.6
|
52.2
|
13
|
|
T5
|
15.3
|
16.2
|
15.3
|
16.2
|
63
|
15.7
|
|
T6
|
16.2
|
17.1
|
18
|
17.1
|
68.4
|
17.1
|
|
SUM
|
106.3
|
103.5
|
108
|
103.5
|
421.3
|
|
|
AVERAGE
|
15.2
|
14.8
|
15.4
|
14.8
|
60.2
|
15
|
Appendix : Taproot
diameter at harvesting time (cm)
|
Replication
Treatments
|
II
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
2.7
|
2.6
|
2.7
|
2.7
|
10.7
|
2.7
|
|
T1
|
3
|
3.1
|
3.6
|
3.3
|
13
|
3.2
|
|
T2
|
4.3
|
4.2
|
4.1
|
4.2
|
16.8
|
4.2
|
|
T3
|
4.3
|
4.4
|
4.5
|
4.3
|
17.5
|
4.4
|
|
T4
|
2.8
|
2.8
|
2.5
|
2.8
|
10.9
|
2.7
|
|
T5
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
3.7
|
3.7
|
14.5
|
3.6
|
|
T6
|
3.9
|
3.8
|
4
|
3.9
|
15.6
|
3.9
|
|
SUM
|
24.6
|
24.4
|
25.1
|
24.9
|
99
|
|
|
AVERAGE
|
3.5
|
3.5
|
3.6
|
3.5
|
14.1
|
3.5
|
Appendix : Yield of Tap
root carrots at harvesting time (t/ha)
|
Replications
Treatments
|
I
|
II
|
III
|
IV
|
SUM
|
AVERAGE
|
|
T0
|
13.5
|
11.7
|
10.8
|
12.6
|
48.6
|
12.1
|
|
T1
|
17.1
|
13.5
|
16.2
|
15.3
|
62.1
|
15.5
|
|
T2
|
25.2
|
26.1
|
26.1
|
25.2
|
102.6
|
25.6
|
|
T3
|
27.9
|
27
|
25.2
|
26.1
|
106.2
|
26.5
|
|
T4
|
15.3
|
14.4
|
13.5
|
14.4
|
57.6
|
14.4
|
|
T5
|
20.7
|
19.8
|
18
|
18.9
|
77.4
|
19.3
|
|
T6
|
23.4
|
21.6
|
22.5
|
22.5
|
90
|
22.5
|
|
SUM
|
143.1
|
134.1
|
132.3
|
135.1
|
544.5
|
|
|
AVERAGE
|
20.4
|
19.1
|
18.9
|
19.2
|
77.6
|
19.4
|
Appendix : Norms of
interpretation of results of p H analysis
|
p H
|
Highly
acidic
|
Very acidic
|
Moderately acidic
|
Slightly acidic
|
Neutral
|
Slightly basic
|
|
pH water
|
3.5-4.2
|
4.2-5.2
|
5.2-6.2
|
6.2-6.9
|
6.9-7.6
|
7.6-8.5
|
|
p H kcl
|
3.0-4.0
|
4.0-5.0
|
5.0-6.0
|
6.0-6.8
|
6.8-7.2
|
7.2-8.0
|
Source: Mutwewingabo and Rutunga (1987)
Appendix : Norms of
interpretation for analysis O M, available P, exchangeable and C/N
Ratio
|
Organic matter
|
Appreciation
|
|
<0.5
0.5-1
1-2
2-5
5-8
8-14
>14
|
Excessively less humic
Very less humic
Less humic
Moderately humic
Humic
Very humic
Excessively humic
|
|
Rapport C/N
|
Mineralization
|
|
<9
6-12
12-17
17-25
>14
|
Very quick
Quick
Normal
Slow
Very slow
|
|
Available P
|
Appreciation
|
|
<3
3-20
20-50
50-80
>80
|
Very low
Low
Moderate
High
Very high
|
Source: Mutwewingabo and Rutunga (1987)
Appendix : Norms of
interpretation for analysis CEC and exchangeable cations.
|
Appreciation
|
Excessively weak
|
Very weak
|
Weak
|
Moderate
|
High
|
Very high
|
|
Exchangeable Ca(Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
-
|
2
|
2-4
|
4-10
|
1O-20
|
>20
|
|
Exchangeable Mg(Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
<0.2
|
0.2-0.5
|
0.51.5
|
1.5-3.0
|
3.0-8.0
|
>8.O
|
|
Exchangeable K(Cmole(+) kg -1 of soil)
|
-
|
<0.1
|
0.1-0.2
|
0.2-06
|
0.6-1.2
|
>1.2
|
|
Total Nitrogen
|
-
|
-
|
0.08-0.13
|
<0.13
|
>17
|
-
|
Source: Pietrowich, 1985
Appendix : Empirical scale
of fertility in function of N content and p H
N% 0.2 0.3 0.45
|
Low
|
Medium
|
Good
|
Very Good
|
Exceptional
|
p H 7
|
|
Very low
|
Low
|
Moderate
|
Good
|
Very good
|
Exceptional
|
p H 6.5
|
|
Very low
|
Low
|
moderate
|
Good
|
Very good
|
Exceptional
|
p H 6
|
|
Very low
|
Very low
|
Moderate
|
Good
|
Very good
|
p H 5
|
|
Very low
|
Very low
|
moderate
|
Good
|
p H4.5
|
Source: Anonym: 1991
|
|
