Abstract
Water deficit is considered the most critical environmental factor for peanut production in Brazil, as it constitutes one of the major constraints to the expansion of its cultivation in the suitable crop zones of the country. Determining crop water demand is fundamental to increasing yield with lower water consumption. The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of full and deficit irrigation levels (L1 = 8%, L2 = 27%, L3 = 63%, L4 = 94% and L5 = 100% replenishment of crop evapotranspiration) on the development, growth and yield of peanut crop sown in two times, February and March. Treatments were distributed in a split-plot randomized complete block design, with four replicates, using a line-source sprinkler system. Irrigation depths from 65 to 314 mm were applied with the levels L1 to L5 during the first and second cropping cycles. Full irrigation with sowing in March was more advantageous due to yield increase of up to 30% compared to sowing in February, but crop cycle was 25 days longer. Water stress caused by deficit irrigation reduced plant height, seed mass and pod yield, while full irrigation (L5) led to yields from 4,141 to 5,102 kg ha-1 for February and March, approximately three times higher than those obtained with the lowest irrigation level (L1). Highlights Peanut has great importance in the food and industry of several countries. The results of this research apply to regions that require irrigation, which is of about 70% of the areas of the globe with this legume. This paper contributes with information that emphasizes the possibility of cultivation in the drought season, aiming at the expansion of the crop and the production of quality seeds using irrigation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-sa. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation with March sowing increased yield by up to 30% relative to February sowing.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- Full irrigation with sowing in Marche0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 30%e0
- Comparator
- sowing in Februarye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Full irrigation with sowing in March was more advantageous due to yield increase of up to 30% compared to sowing in February”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
March sowing under full irrigation had a 25-day longer crop cycle than February sowing.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- sowing in Marche1
- Outcome
- crop cyclee0
- Direction
- longere0
- Value
- 25 dayse0
- Comparator
- sowing in Februarye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but crop cycle was 25 days longer”
e1“Full irrigation with sowing in March was more advantageous due to yield increase of up to 30% compared to sowing in February”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced peanut plant height.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress caused by deficit irrigation reduced plant height, seed mass and pod yield”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced peanut seed mass.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- seed masse0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress caused by deficit irrigation reduced plant height, seed mass and pod yield”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Deficit irrigation reduced peanut pod yield.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- deficit irrigatione0
- Outcome
- pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress caused by deficit irrigation reduced plant height, seed mass and pod yield”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
Claim · model-written summary
Full irrigation produced yields of 4,141 to 5,102 kg ha-1, approximately three times the lowest irrigation level.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- full irrigation (L5)e0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 4,141 to 5,102 kg ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- approximately three timese0
- Comparator
- lowest irrigation level (L1)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“full irrigation (L5) led to yields from 4,141 to 5,102 kg ha-1 for February and March, approximately three times higher than those obtained with the lowest irrigation level (L1)”
t0“Peanut yield under irrigation levels in off-season cultivation”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →sowing time · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 19 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →irrigation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
167 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
187 papers more in this group
See all 191 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.