Intervention effectmodel-written summary

The two named treatments had highest number of matured pods/plant versus non-mulched groundnut plots, with reported values 17.6 and 18.0.

A claim from Weed control in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) with polyethylene film mulching · 2002

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two named treatments had highest number of matured pods/plant versus non-mulched groundnut plots, with reported values 17.6 and 18.0.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
Treatment
crop grown under polyethylene film mulching and (2) pre-planting incorporation of fluchloralin in the flat-bed system of sowinge0
Outcome
number of matured pods/plante0
Direction
higheste0
Value
17.6 and 18.0e0
Comparator
non-mulched plotse0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

t0

“groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–47
e0

“two (1) crop grown under polyethylene film mulching and (2) pre-planting incorporation of fluchloralin in the flat-bed system of sowing registered the lowest weed numbers at harvest (106.7 and 113.7/plot of 27 m 2 in 1997 - 98 and 1998 - 99 respectively), the lowest weed dry-matter production (51.2 and 54.5 g/plot of 27 m 2 ), maximum weed control efficiency (62.1 and 57.4%) and weed control index (83.0 and 81.1%), the highest number of matured pods/plant (17.6 and 18.0), 100 kernel weight (48.6 and 48.7 g), percentage shelling (72.6 and 72.8) and a dry pod yield of 2451 and 2468 kg ha -1 when compared with non-mulched plots”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 322–954

Title

Weed control in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) with polyethylene film mulching

K. Subrahmaniyan; P. Kalaiselvan; N. Arulmozhi International Journal of Pest Management 2002. doi:10.1080/09670870210133698

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-a2a2c84c8983ec7c76928dd513dc3d66877e9868aa96a09ea48b0d39aaa86bd7 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer