Inclusive Technology Performance Evaluation in the Production of Teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter)

Table 6

The correlation between measured agronomic traits rank and farmers’ preference ranks among treatments across districts.

Districts

Treatments

Grain (ton ha^−1)

Ranks

Biomass (ton ha^−1)

Ranks

Days to maturity

Earliness rank

A

F

d ^2

A

F

d^2

A

F

d ^2

Sekota

IKIM

17.5

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

34.0

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

95

1st

1st

(1 − 1)^2

IBIM

14.8

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

30.0

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

95

2nd

2nd

(2 − 2)^2

LBIM

10.3

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

25.5

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

95

3rd

3rd

(3 − 3)^2

LBFM

7.0

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

12.0

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

95

4th

4th

(4 − 4)^2

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

Dehana

IKIM

14.5

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

31.0

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

95

1st

1st

(1 − 1)^2

IBIM

10.5

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

27.0

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

95

2nd

2nd

(2 − 2)^2

LBIM

8.5

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

20.0

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

95

3rd

3rd

(3 − 3)^2

LBFM

5.8

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

13.0

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

95

4th

4th

(4 − 4)^2

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

Lasta

IKIM

16.25

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

28.4

1^st

1^st

(1 − 1)^2

94

1st

1st

(1 − 1)^2

IBIM

14.0

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

26.8

2^nd

2^nd

(2 − 2)^2

94

2nd

2nd

(2 − 2)^2

LBIM

10.8

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

19.0

3^rd

3^rd

(3 − 3)^2

98

3rd

3rd

(3 − 3)^2

LBFM

6.3

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

11.8

4^th

4^th

(4 − 4)^2

98

4th

4th

(4 − 4)^2

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

r s = 1 (100%)

Note. A (actual), F (farmers’), r_s (correlation coefficient), and d (difference in ranks assigned to the same phenomenon); IKIM (Improved “Korra” teff variety + improved management practices), IBIM (Improved “Bosset” teff variety + improved management practices), LBIM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + improved management practices), LBFM (Local “Burssa” teff variety + farmers’ existing management practices).