Abstract
The greater use of crop fields by increasing plant population is an alternative to minimize losses to the farmers who use crop intercropped provides other benefits such as lower incidence of diseases and pests, and better exploitation and enrichment agroecosystem. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of the population of peanuts with and without inoculation and intercropping with forage palm on growth, productivity and biomass peanut. The treatments consisted of different populations of peanut (one, two and three rows of peanut row spacing of two meters of cactus pear), with and without inoculant, analyzed in subdivided plot scheme (3 × 2), totalizing six treatments in a randomized block design with four replications. The variables evaluated were plant height, number of branches, shoot dry mass and root nodule number, nodule dry weight, biomass productivity and legumes. The largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactus promotes greater total biomass production and yield of beans and does not alter the height, branch number, dry mass of aerial part roots and nodules. The inoculant application did not result in to increased productivity biomass and growth of peanut plants, their use is not indicated. The planting of a row of peanuts between the rows of palm is not economically recommended.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
The largest peanut row population with forage cactus increased total biomass production.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactuse0
- Outcome
- total biomass productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Peanut Intercropped with Forage Palm”
e0“The largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactus promotes greater total biomass production and yield of beans”
Claim · model-written summary
The largest peanut row population with forage cactus increased bean yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactuse0
- Outcome
- yield of beanse0
- Direction
- greatere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactus promotes greater total biomass production and yield of beans”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing peanut rows did not alter height, branch number or shoot dry mass.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactuse0
- Outcome
- height, branch number, dry mass of aerial parte0
- Direction
- does not altere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactus promotes greater total biomass production and yield of beans and does not alter the height, branch number, dry mass of aerial part roots and nodules.”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing peanut rows did not alter roots and nodules.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactuse0
- Outcome
- roots and nodulese0
- Direction
- does not altere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The largest population of plants in number of lines of peanut intercropped with forage cactus promotes greater total biomass production and yield of beans and does not alter the height, branch number, dry mass of aerial part roots and nodules.”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant application did not increase peanut biomass productivity.
- Taxon
- peanut plantsArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- inoculant applicatione0
- Outcome
- productivity biomasse0
- Direction
- did not result in to increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The inoculant application did not result in to increased productivity biomass and growth of peanut plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculant application did not increase peanut growth.
- Taxon
- peanut plantsArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- inoculant applicatione0
- Outcome
- growth of peanut plantse0
- Direction
- did not result in to increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The inoculant application did not result in to increased productivity biomass and growth of peanut plants”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors do not recommend using the inoculant.
- Taxon
- peanut plantsArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- their use is not indicatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The inoculant application did not result in to increased productivity biomass and growth of peanut plants, their use is not indicated.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors do not economically recommend one peanut row between palm rows.
- Taxon
- peanutsArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- planting of a row of peanuts between the rows of palm is not economically recommendede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The planting of a row of peanuts between the rows of palm is not economically recommended.”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 papers →intercropping · symbiosis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →intercropping · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →inoculation · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 102 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 papers →inoculation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 198 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
217 papers more in this group
See all 221 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.