Abstract
Thirteen introduced and one local varieties of groundnuts (Arachis hypo- gaea) were evaluated comparatively and individually in the Sand Sheet and Pediplain soils in 1963-1965. The effect of added N and P fertilizer on each variety was also studied. All varieties did better on the Pediplain than on the Sand Sheet soils due to the better moisture retention properties of the former. The amount of seasonal rainfall affected greatly the yields and the magnitude of the response to fertilizers. The very low yields at Umm Higlig in 1965 suggested that fertilizer application could hardly be economical in seasons of poorly distributed rainfall. Although fertilizers increased markedly vegetative growth this was not always reflected in the yield of pods due probably to the lack of sufficient soil moisture at the reproductive stage. The upright bunch varieties seemed more adaptable to the area's short rainy season than the spreading bunch and runner varieties due to the earliness of the former. The runner varieties showed a greater resistance, long period of seed dormancy and high oil content appeared very important objectives for future breeding in the area under study.
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.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
All varieties performed better on Pediplain than Sand Sheet soils because of moisture retention.
- Taxon
- Groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Outcome
- did bettere0
- Direction
- did bettere0
- Comparator
- Sand Sheet soilse0
- Setting
- Pediplaine0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All varieties did better on the Pediplain than on the Sand Sheet soils due to the better moisture retention properties of the former”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal rainfall strongly affected groundnut yields.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- seasonal rainfalle0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amount of seasonal rainfall affected greatly the yields”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Seasonal rainfall strongly affected groundnut fertilizer response.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- seasonal rainfalle0
- Outcome
- magnitude of the response to fertilizerse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The amount of seasonal rainfall affected greatly the yields and the magnitude of the response to fertilizers”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Very low yields at Umm Higlig in 1965 suggested fertilizer application would hardly be economical with poorly distributed rainfall.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- fertilizer application could hardly be economicale0
- Qualifier
- seasons of poorly distributed rainfalle0
- Setting
- Umm Higlige0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The very low yields at Umm Higlig in 1965 suggested that fertilizer application could hardly be economical in seasons of poorly distributed rainfall”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizers markedly increased groundnut vegetative growth.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- fertilizerse0
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe0
- Direction
- increased markedlye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“fertilizers increased markedly vegetative growth”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertilizer induced vegetative growth was not always reflected in pod yield, probably because of insufficient moisture at reproduction.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- yield of podse0
- Direction
- not always reflectede0
- Qualifier
- lack of sufficient soil moisture at the reproductive stagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this was not always reflected in the yield of pods due probably to the lack of sufficient soil moisture at the reproductive stage”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
Upright bunch varieties seemed better adapted to the short rainy season than spreading bunch and runner varieties because of earliness.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Material
- upright bunch varietiese0
- Outcome
- more adaptablee0
- Direction
- more adaptablee0
- Qualifier
- earliness of the formere0
- Comparator
- spreading bunch and runner varietiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The upright bunch varieties seemed more adaptable to the area's short rainy season than the spreading bunch and runner varieties due to the earliness of the former”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors identified long seed dormancy and high oil content as important breeding objectives.
- Taxon
- GroundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- long period of seed dormancy and high oil contente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“long period of seed dormancy and high oil content appeared very important objectives for future breeding”
t0“Groundnut variety introductions”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
181 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
200 papers more in this group
See all 204 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.