# Combined Application of Filter Cake and Macadamia Husk
## 3 Results and Discussions
### Effect of Soil Amendment on Soil Fertility
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Calitour** & **Treatment** & **Root Mass (g)** & **Shoot Mass (g)** & **Total Biomass (g)** & **Leaf Area (cm\({}^{2}\))** & **Number of Leaves** & **Shoot/Root Ratio** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Beaugord} & CONT & 46.2 \(\pm\) 2.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 16.8 \(\pm\) 0.7\({}^{\circ}\) & 63 \(\pm\) 3\({}^{\circ}\) & 220 \(\pm\) 134\({}^{\circ}\) & 32 \(\pm\) 2\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & FC & 90.5 \(\pm\) 0.9\({}^{\circ}\) & 24.6 \(\pm\) 1.1\({}^{\circ}\) & 115 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 396 \(\pm\) 42\({}^{\circ}\) & 55 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.01\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & MHC & 53.6 \(\pm\) 2.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 22.1 \(\pm\) 14\({}^{\circ}\) & 74 \(\pm\) 3\({}^{\circ}\) & 2928 \(\pm\) 8\({}^{\circ}\) & 41 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & IF & 84.1 \(\pm\) 1.0\({}^{\circ}\) & 25.6 \(\pm\) 2.5\({}^{\circ}\) & 107 \(\pm\) 2\({}^{\circ}\) & 386 \(\pm\) 42\({}^{\circ}\) & 53 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.03\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & FC-IF & 103.5 \(\pm\) 2.1\({}^{\circ}\) & 24.3 \(\pm\) 11\({}^{\circ}\) & 128 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 4176 \(\pm\) 2\({}^{\circ}\) & 58 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.01\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & MIC-IF & 89.5 \(\pm\) 2.7\({}^{\circ}\) & 26.6 \(\pm\) 0.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 116 \(\pm\) 3\({}^{\circ}\) & 2928 \(\pm\) 8\({}^{\circ}\) & 41 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.30 \(\pm\) 0.04\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & FC-AMRR & 212.5 \(\pm\) 2.7\({}^{\circ}\) & 28.9 \(\pm\) 0.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 150 \(\pm\) 3\({}^{\circ}\) & 4472 \(\pm\) 63\({}^{\circ}\) & 68 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.00\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1990G2.1} & CONT & 88.0 \(\pm\) 6.2\({}^{\circ}\) & 26.8 \(\pm\) 1.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 115 \(\pm\) 6\({}^{\circ}\) & 1852 \(\pm\) 89\({}^{\circ}\) & 18 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.03\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & FC & 189.4 \(\pm\) 10\({}^{\circ}\) & 4.9 \(\pm\) 5.3\({}^{\circ}\) & 225 \(\pm\) 14\({}^{\circ}\) & 448 \(\pm\) 89\({}^{\circ}\) & 44.1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.04\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & MIC & 92.1 \(\pm\) 5.0\({}^{\circ}\) & 26.8 \(\pm\) 0.1\({}^{\circ}\) & 119 \(\pm\) 5\({}^{\circ}\) & 2155 \(\pm\) 89\({}^{\circ}\) & 211 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.29 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & IF & 158.1 \(\pm\) 5.5\({}^{\circ}\) & 39.6 \(\pm\) 1.8\({}^{\circ}\) & 198 \(\pm\) 6\({}^{\circ}\) & 4107 \(\pm\) 121\({}^{\circ}\) & 41 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.04\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & FC-IF & 243.3 \(\pm\) 12.5\({}^{\circ}\) & 44.4 \(\pm\) 2\({}^{\circ}\) & 297 \(\pm\) 10\({}^{\circ}\) & 498 \(\pm\) 11\({}^{\circ}\) & 48 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & MIC-IF & 155.4 \(\pm\) 6.5\({}^{\circ}\) & 37.5 \(\pm\) 3.4\({}^{\circ}\) & 193 \(\pm\) 9\({}^{\circ}\) & 4414 \(\pm\) 58\({}^{\circ}\) & 41 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.02\({}^{\circ}\) \\  & IC-MIRC & 246.0 \(\pm\) 4.6\({}^{\circ}\) & **42.6 \(\pm\) 1.7\({}^{\circ}\)** & 2289 \(\pm\) 4\({}^{\circ}\) & 6403 \(\pm\) 89\({}^{\circ}\) & 64 \(\pm\) 1\({}^{\circ}\) & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.01\({}^{\circ}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} The means of the treatments (along some columns) for same cultivar with different letters were significantly (\(<0.09\)) different  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Effect of combined application of filter cake, macadamia husk compost, and other treatments on the biomass, leaf area, number of leaves, and shoot/root ratio of Beauregard and 19900621 cultivars of orange-flesed sweet potato.