Number of Infested Leaves Before and After the Application of Treatment

Days After Planting Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

p-value Interpretation p-value Interpretation p-value Interpretation

10 0.746 Not Significant 0.869 Not Significant 0.167 Not Significant

20 0.025 Significant 0.050 Significant 0.396 Not Significant

30 0.414 Not Significant 0.007 Significant 0.119 Not Significant

40 0.049 Significant 0.010 Significant 0.560 Not Significant

50 0.226 Not Significant 0.679 Not Significant 0.089 Not Significant

The table above shows the ANOVA results of the number of infested leaves before and after the application. Based on the
results, in the 10th day, all the treatments resulted to not significant, and in 20th day, treatment 1 resulted to significant while treatment
2 and 3 was resulted to not significant. In 30th day, Treatment 1 and 3 resulted to not significant, while treatment 2 resulted to
significant. In 40th day, treatment 1 and 2 resulted to significant while treatment 3 resulted to not significant. In 50 th day, all treatments
resulted to not significant. Based on the results above, this suggest that treatment 2 is the best treatment in reducing infested leaves of
corn since the number of infested leaves before and after resulted to a significant difference in 20 th, 30th, and 40th day of planting.
 Number of Infested Plants Before and After the Application of Treatment

Days After Planting Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3

p-value Interpretation p-value Interpretation p-value Interpretation

10 0.606 Not Significant 0.422 Not Significant 0.173 Not Significant

20 0.028 Significant 0.011 Significant 0.331 Not Significant

30 0.247 Not Significant 0.413 Not Significant 0.190 Not Significant

40 0.036 Significant 0.002 Significant 0.620 Not Significant

50 0.821 Not Significant 0.679 Not Significant 0.097 Not Significant

The table above shows the ANOVA results of the number of infested plants before and after the application. Based on the
results, in the 10th day, all the treatments resulted to not significant, and in 20th day, treatment 1 and 2 resulted to significant while
treatment 3 was resulted to not significant. In 30th day, all treatment resulted to not significant. In 40th day, treatment 1 and 2 resulted
to significant while treatment 3 resulted to not significant. In 50th day, all treatments resulted to not significant. Based on the results
above, this suggest that treatment 1 and 2 is the best treatment in reducing infested corn since the number of infested leaves before and
after resulted to a significant difference in 20th and 40th day of planting.
Principal Component Analysis: Growth and Yield Parameters of Corn (Sigue-Sigue)

Eigenanalysis of the Correlation Matrix

Eigenvalue 10.460 3.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000 -0.000
Proportion 0.747 0.253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Loading
0.000 0.000Plot of Growth
0.000 and-0.000
-0.000 Yield Parameters of Corn (Sigue-Sigue)
Cumulative 0.747 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
0.6
Percentage of marketable Ears
Eigenvalue -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 0.5
Proportion -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 Weight per ear
Cumulative 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.4
Ear yield (Kg/ha)

Second Component
weight of ears per plot Ear Diameter (cm)
0.3
Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8
Plant Height (cm) 0.288 -0.192 -0.377 0.1610.2 -0.384 -0.320 -0.015 0.004
Ear Height (cm) 0.285 -0.207 0.080 -0.001 0.349 -0.204 0.093 -0.103 Number of kernels per Ear
No. of ears per plot -0.309 -0.034 -0.265 -0.1760.1 0.311 -0.253 0.132 -0.066
Ear Length (cm)
weight of ears per plot -0.240 0.335 0.192 0.382No. of 0.334
ears per plot
0.030 0.048 0.364
Weight per ear 0.193 0.415 0.039 0.2490.0days0.020
of silking 0.283 -0.291 -0.676
Ear Diameter (cm) 0.258 0.293 0.036 -0.068 0.410 -0.029 0.249 0.149
Ear Length (cm) 0.298 0.144 0.232 0.281-0.1 0.039 -0.518 -0.122 -0.031 Ear Height (cm)
N0. of kernels per Rows 0.282 -0.217 0.108 -0.214 Days of tasseling 0.574
0.104 -0.157 0.197 Plant Height (cm)
N0. of kernels per Rows
Number of kernels per Ear 0.299 0.138 -0.377 -0.195 0.327
-0.2 Final -0.118
Stand Count -0.469 0.153
Ear yield (Kg/ha) -0.241 0.334 0.344 -0.511 -0.192 -0.244 -0.042 -0.170
Days of tasseling -0.293 -0.171 0.165 -0.001
-0.3 0.042 -0.137 -0.749 0.179
days of silking -0.308 -0.037 -0.205 0.526 -0.008 -0.3 -0.2
0.107 -0.1
-0.038 0.0200.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Percentage of marketable Ears -0.079 0.514 -0.526 -0.151 -0.182 0.088 -0.027 First
0.191
Component
Final Stand Count -0.277 -0.236 -0.263 -0.085 0.403 -0.004 0.003 -0.461

Using the Kaiser criterion, through looking at the PC that contains an eigenvalue which is greater than 1; gave a result of 10.460 and
3.540 eigenvalue results for PC1 and PC2. These components explain a total of 100% of the variation of the data, which suggest that there were
two kinds of dependence of the tested parameters. The correlation table above showed in PC1 the dependence of Plant Height (0.288), Ear
Height (0.285), Ear Length (0.298), Number of kernels per rows (0.282), and Number of Kernels per ear (0.299) which were dependent and have
a positive correlation with each other but have a negative correlation to the number of ears per plot (-0.309), days of tasseling (-0.293), days of
silking (-0.308), and final stand count (-277) which have an negative loading and dependent with each other. While in PC 2, the dependence of
Weight of ears per plot (0.335), Weight per Ear (0.415), Ear Diameter (0.293), Ear yield (0.334), and percentage of marketable ears (0.514) which
have a positive correlation with each other.
One-way ANOVA: Days of tasseling

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05
Interval Plot of Days of tasseling
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
95% CI for the Mean

125
Factor Information

Factor Levels Values 120

Factor 3 Treatment 1, Treatment 2, Treatment 3
115

Analysis of Variance 110

Data
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 105
Factor 2 400.2 200.08 2.51 0.136
Error 9 716.5 79.61
100
Total 11 1116.7

95
Model Summary
90
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3
8.92251 35.84% 21.58% 0.00%
The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1 4 100.75 10.53 ( 90.66, 110.84)
Treatment 2 4 114.75 5.12 (104.66, 124.84)
Treatment 3 4 109.50 10.08 ( 99.41, 119.59)

Pooled StDev = 8.92251

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.136 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
 Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Days of tasseling

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Treatment 2 - Treatment 1
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 2 4 114.75 A
Treatment 3 4 109.50 A Treatment 3 - Treatment 1
Treatment 1 4 100.75 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3 - Treatment 2

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.
One-way ANOVA: Days of silking

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal

Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Interval Plot of Days of silking
Significance level α = 0.05 95% CI for the Mean
120
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.
110

Factor Information 100

Factor Levels Values 90

Factor 3 Treatment 1_1, Treatment 2_1, Treatment 3_1
80

Data
Analysis of Variance 70

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 60

Factor 2 712.5 356.2 0.60 0.567
Error 9 5303.7 589.3 50
Total 11 6016.2
40

Model Summary 30
Treatment 1_1 Treatment 2_1 Treatment 3_1
S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
24.2756 11.84% 0.00% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_1 4 64.50 19.74 (37.04, 91.96)
Treatment 2_1 4 83.3 34.0 ( 55.8, 110.7)
Treatment 3_1 4 72.00 14.88 (44.54, 99.46)

Pooled StDev = 24.2756

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.567 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
 Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Days of silking

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_

Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 2_1 4 83.3 A Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_
Treatment 3_1 4 72.00 A
Treatment 1_1 4 64.50 A

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-50 -25 0 25 50 75

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.
One-way ANOVA: Percentage of marketable Ears
Interval Plot of Percentage of marketable Ears
Method
95% CI for the Mean
100
Null hypothesis All means are equal
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05
95

Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Data
90
Factor Information

Factor Levels Values 85

Factor 3 Treatment 1_2, Treatment 2_2, Treatment 3_2

80
Analysis of Variance Treatment 1_2 Treatment 2_2 Treatment 3_2

The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Factor 2 31.46 15.73 0.51 0.619
Error 9 279.44 31.05
Total 11 310.91

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

5.57220 10.12% 0.00% 0.00%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_2 4 91.53 6.46 ( 85.22, 97.83)
Treatment 2_2 4 91.825 1.964 (85.522, 98.128)
Treatment 3_2 4 88.25 6.90 ( 81.95, 94.55)

Pooled StDev = 5.57220

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.619 which is greater than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we accept the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
 Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Percentage of marketable Ears

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons

Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping

Treatment 2_2 4 91.825 A
Treatment 1_2 4 91.53 A
Treatment 3_2 4 88.25 A Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-15 -10 -5 0 5 10

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a no significant difference on all comparisons.

One-way ANOVA: Final Stand Count

Method

Null hypothesis All means are equal Interval Plot of Final Stand Count
Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different
Significance level α = 0.05 95% CI for the Mean
150
Equal variances were assumed for the analysis.

Factor Information 140

Factor Levels Values 130

Factor 3 Treatment 1_3, Treatment 2_3, Treatment 3_3

Data
120
Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value 110

Factor 2 2880.5 1440.25 21.19 0.000
Error 9 611.8 67.97
100
Total 11 3492.3

90
Model Summary Treatment 1_3 Treatment 2_3 Treatment 3_3

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) The pooled standard deviation was used to calculate the intervals.
8.24453 82.48% 78.59% 68.86%

Means

Factor N Mean StDev 95% CI

Treatment 1_3 4 100.50 10.47 ( 91.17, 109.83)
Treatment 2_3 4 137.00 6.58 (127.67, 146.33)
Treatment 3_3 4 127.75 7.14 (118.42, 137.08)

Pooled StDev = 8.24453

Based on the Anova results above, it resulted a p-value of 0.000 which is lesser than the alpha
value of 0.05. This suggests that we rejectt the null hypothesis that all means were equal under the
different treatments of the study.
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Tukey Simultaneous 95% CIs
Difference of Means for Final Stand Count
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Factor N Mean Grouping Treatment 2_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 2_3 4 137.00 A
Treatment 3_3 4 127.75 A
Treatment 1_3 4 100.50 B

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 1_

Treatment 3_ - Treatment 2_

-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

If an interval does not contain zero, the corresponding means are significantly different.

The Tukey’s test above shows a validation of our Anova test, in which it shows that all the experimental treatments when compared with
each other; as shown on the figure above resulted to a significant difference on two comparisons which were: Treatment 2 and 1, and Treatment
3 and 1.