Abstract
ABSTRACT Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is a legume and requires nodulation by Bradyrhizobia to convert atmospheric N into a plant usable form. Peanut inoculants place large volumes of viable Bradyrhizobia near the emerging root of the plant to infect it ensuring N-fixation. Peanut seedlings are susceptible to feeding by thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), which transmit Tospovirus leading to tomato spotted wilt (TSW) and can result in yield decline. Phorate is a common in-furrow insecticide used to reduce thrips feeding on the plants, and hence reduce the risk of TSW infection. However, placing phorate in the same furrow with living Bradyrhizobia has raised concerns about phorate potentially reducing efficacy of inoculants. Experiments were designed to test liquid and sterile peat formulations of Bradyrhizobia inoculant with two peanut cultivars in-furrow at planting, both with and without phorate insecticide to determine yield, grade, and growth parameters on peanut. Research was conducted on a non-irrigated loamy sand with no prior history of growing peanut in Tifton, GA in 2013 and 2014. There were no negative effects on peanut yield or grade, or other measured parameters when phorate was included in-furrow with inoculants. Yields with inoculants were equal or greater (up to 32% more) than non-inoculated peanut, and grade was improved (+1.2 to 1.4%) when using the liquid formulation instead of the sterile peat formulation or non-inoculated peanut. Other indicators of improved plant performance using inoculants over non-inoculated plants included the abundance and activity of nodules on the roots and time to row closure (vegetation overlap of bare soil). These data indicate there are no detrimental effects to peanut inoculant when also including phorate insecticide in-furrow.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nd. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Adding phorate with inoculants caused no negative effects on peanut yield, grade, or other measured parameters.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- phoratee0
- Outcome
- peanut yield or grade, or other measured parameterse0
- Direction
- no negative effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no negative effects on peanut yield or grade, or other measured parameters when phorate was included in-furrow with inoculants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculants produced equal or greater peanut yields, up to 32% more, than non-inoculated peanut.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- inoculantse0
- Interactor
- inoculantse0
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- equal or greatere0
- Value
- up to 32% moree0
- Comparator
- non-inoculated peanute0
Not reportedInteractor role
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields with inoculants were equal or greater (up to 32% more) than non-inoculated peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Liquid inoculant improved peanut grade by 1.2 to 1.4% relative to sterile peat formulation or no inoculation.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- liquid formulatione0
- Outcome
- gradee0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- +1.2 to 1.4%e0
- Comparator
- sterile peat formulation or non-inoculated peanute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grade was improved (+1.2 to 1.4%) when using the liquid formulation instead of the sterile peat formulation or non-inoculated peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation improved root nodule abundance and activity relative to no inoculation.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- inoculantse0
- Outcome
- abundance and activity of nodulese0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- non-inoculated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Other indicators of improved plant performance using inoculants over non-inoculated plants included the abundance and activity of nodules on the roots and time to row closure (vegetation overlap of bare soil).”
t0“Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Inoculation improved time to row closure relative to no inoculation.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- inoculantse0
- Outcome
- time to row closuree0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- non-inoculated plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Other indicators of improved plant performance using inoculants over non-inoculated plants included the abundance and activity of nodules on the roots and time to row closure (vegetation overlap of bare soil).”
t0“Peanut”
The same questions in other papers
phorate · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →inoculation · pest · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →inoculation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
197 papers in the same direction as this paper · 23 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- 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.