POD YIELD AND KERNEL SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF PEANUT PRODUCED USING SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION

Abstract

Longterm yield data are essential to determine the economic feasibility of installing a subsurface drip irrigation(SDI) system for crop production. However, first year yields and associated economic returns are vital for system paymentthe first year. Vegetable and row crop production has been successful with SDI, but pod yield and kernel size distribution dataon peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) are limited especially during the installation year. Site 1 was established in 1997 on aFaceville sandy loam soil (fine, kaolinitic, thermic Typic Kandiudults) converted from native grass pasture. Site 2 wasestablished in 1998 on a Tifton sandy loam soil (fineloamy, kaolinitic, thermic Plinthic Kandiudults) following two yearsof cotton. These SDI systems include two lateral spacings (0.91 and 1.83 m) buried at 0.3 m soil depth. Site 1 had two emitterspacings (46 and 61 cm) and two irrigation levels. Site 2 had one emitter spacing (46 cm) and three irrigation levels. Anonirrigated (NI) control was included at each site. Irrigation water was applied daily based on estimated ETo whereirrigation level one (IL1) was ETo *Kc, and IL2 and IL3 were 75 and 50% of IL1, respectively. Pod yield increased 38% withSDI (5433 kg ha 1 ) compared to NI peanut (3937 kg ha 1 ). When compared to the state average (3012 kg ha 1 ), SDI showeda 81% pod yield increase. The percentage of jumbo kernels increased 39% at Site 1 and 81% at Site 2 compared with NI. SDIpeanut had lower quantity (75% less) of number one sized peanut kernels than NI. Overall, during the installation year, SDIhad higher pod yields and larger kernel size than NI treatments. These yield data can be useful when projecting the economicfeasibility of installing a SDI system and making the first year payment.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.