Abstract
Abstract Adequate availability of calcium (Ca) in the upper 7–10 cm of soil is extremely important for pod development and therefore for production of quality peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Supplemental Ca is usually applied as gypsum, however, availability of Ca may depend on the type of gypsum. The objective of a laboratory study was to evaluate recovery of Ca in Mehlich I, 0.01 M NaNO3 and deionized water extractants from seven gypsum materials which varied physically from fine and coarse powders to crystals, granules and pellets. Overall, recovery of Ca was much greater in Mehlich I (89.5–99.6% of total Ca) than in either 0.01 M NaNO3 (81.0–98.4%) or deionized water (78.7–97.5%). However, for 3 sources, recovery of Ca was very similar in NaNO3 solution and deionized water. Field experiments were conducted on Lakeland sand (Mehlich I Ca = 127 kg/ha, 0–15 cm) and Tifton loamy sand (Mehlich I Ca = 665 kg/ha) soils to study the effects of the gypsum materials on Florunner peanut grade and yield. Effects of gypsum treatments on Mehlich I‐ and 0.01 M NaNO3‐extractable soil Ca were also evaluated during peanut pod development. On the Lakeland soil, Mehlich I Ca increased from 127 to a range of 420–737 kg/ha following application of gypsum depending on the type of gypsum material. Percent sound mature kernels were significantly greater where gypsum was applied than in the control treatment, regardless of source. Total sound mature kernel yield and gross return were greatest for the more soluble sources. The yield vs. soil test Ca relationship 90 d after planting revealed that yield response was very minimal if soil Ca was greater than 290 and 85 kg/ha of Mehlich I and 0,01 M NaNO3‐extractable Ca, respectively. Application of gypsum to the Tifton soil, regardless of type of material, had no significant effect on yield, grade or gross return because Mehlich I extractable Ca in the control treatment was well over 560 kg/ha; the critical soil test Ca for runner peanut according to the current Georgia soil test recommendation.
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
Mehlich I recovered more calcium than sodium nitrate or water extractants.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Outcome
- recovery of Cae0
- Direction
- much greatere0
- Value
- 89.5–99.6% of total Cae0
- Comparator
- 0.01 M NaNO3e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“recovery of Ca was much greater in Mehlich I (89.5–99.6% of total Ca) than in either 0.01 M NaNO3 (81.0–98.4%) or deionized water (78.7–97.5%)”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Three gypsum sources had similar calcium recovery in sodium nitrate and water.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- recovery of Cae0
- Direction
- very similare0
- Qualifier
- 3 sourcese0
- Comparator
- deionized watere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for 3 sources, recovery of Ca was very similar in NaNO3 solution and deionized water”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum raised Mehlich I soil calcium on Lakeland soil.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- application of gypsume0
- Outcome
- Mehlich I Cae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 420–737 kg/hae0
- Setting
- Lakeland soile0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On the Lakeland soil, Mehlich I Ca increased from 127 to a range of 420–737 kg/ha following application of gypsum depending on the type of gypsum material”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum increased sound mature kernel percentage over control regardless of source.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- gypsume0
- Outcome
- Percent sound mature kernelse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- regardless of sourcee0
- Comparator
- control treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Percent sound mature kernels were significantly greater where gypsum was applied than in the control treatment, regardless of source”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
More soluble gypsum sources produced the greatest sound mature kernel yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- more soluble sourcese0
- Outcome
- Total sound mature kernel yielde0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total sound mature kernel yield and gross return were greatest for the more soluble sources”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
More soluble gypsum sources produced the greatest gross return.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- more soluble sourcese0
- Outcome
- gross returne0
- Direction
- greateste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Total sound mature kernel yield and gross return were greatest for the more soluble sources”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut yield response was minimal above the reported soil calcium thresholds.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Compound
- Cae0
- Outcome
- yield responsee0
- Direction
- very minimale0
- Value
- 290 and 85 kg/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield response was very minimal if soil Ca was greater than 290 and 85 kg/ha of Mehlich I and 0,01 M NaNO3‐extractable Ca, respectively”
t0“peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum had no significant effect on yield, grade or gross return on Tifton soil.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Application of gypsume0
- Outcome
- yield, grade or gross returne0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Setting
- Tifton soile0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of gypsum to the Tifton soil, regardless of type of material, had no significant effect on yield, grade or gross return”
t0“peanut”
The same questions in other papers
lime · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →lime · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 133 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 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.