Abstract
The experiment consisted of 12 treatments (weed interference until 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75 days after emergence (DAE), weedy until crop maturity, and weed-free until 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, and a weed-free until crop maturity) and the treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. This study indicated increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%, and haulm yield by 6.4 – 34 and 6.5 – 34% during rainy and winter season respectively. Further, reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively. However, weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons. This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons. As a result, farmers should keep their groundnut crop weed-free between 15 and 66 DAE during the rainy and winter seasons.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Longer weed interference reduced rainy-season pod yield by 6.5–36%.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.5–36e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer weed interference reduced winter-season pod yield by 0.7–32%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- pod yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0.7–32%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer weed interference reduced rainy-season haulm yield by 6.4–34%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- haulm yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.4 – 34e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%, and haulm yield by 6.4 – 34 and 6.5 – 34%”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer weed interference reduced winter-season haulm yield by 6.5–34%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- haulm yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.5 – 34%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased weed interference period reduced the pod yield by 6.5–36 and 0.7–32%, and haulm yield by 6.4 – 34 and 6.5 – 34%”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced rainy-season crop nitrogen uptake by 7.8–52.1.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 7.8–52.1e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced winter-season crop nitrogen uptake by 9.6–54.5%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 9.6–54.5%e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced rainy-season crop phosphorus uptake by 4.8–45.4.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 4.8–45.4e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced winter-season crop phosphorus uptake by 6–47.5%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 6–47.5%e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced rainy-season crop potassium uptake by 6.9–43.7.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 6.9–43.7e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced winter-season crop potassium uptake by 6.3–44.4%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 6.3–44.4%e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced rainy-season crop sulphur uptake by 18.4–53.3.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 18.4–53.3e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed interference reduced winter-season crop sulphur uptake by 18.8–53.9%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed interferencee0
- Outcome
- total nutrient uptake by crope0
- Direction
- declinede0
- Value
- 18.8–53.9%e0
- Qualifier
- weed interferencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduction in total biomass production by crop due to weed interference declined the total nutrient uptake by crop, i.e. nitrogen by 7.8–52.1 and 9.6–54.5%, phosphorus by 4.8–45.4 and 6–47.5%, potassium by 6.9–43.7 and 6.3–44.4%, sulphur by 18.4–53.3 and 18.8–53.9%, during rainy and winter season respectively.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-free management until harvest increased rainy-season RUE by 293%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed-free until crop harveste0
- Outcome
- RUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 293%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-free management until harvest increased winter-season RUE by 314%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed-free until crop harveste0
- Outcome
- RUEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 314%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-free management until harvest increased rainy-season chlorophyll content by 8.7.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed-free until crop harveste0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 8.7e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-free management until harvest increased winter-season chlorophyll content by 10.7%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- weed-free until crop harveste0
- Outcome
- chlorophyll contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 10.7%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“weed-free until crop harvest increased RUE by 293% and 314%, chlorophyll content by 8.7 and 10.7%, respectively, during rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical weed-interference period at 5% relative yield loss in the rainy season was 16 to 66 DAE.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- critical duration for crop-weed interferencee0
- Value
- 16 to 66 DAEe0
- Qualifier
- 5%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical weed-interference period at 5% relative yield loss in the winter season was 15 to 63 DAE.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- critical duration for crop-weed interferencee0
- Value
- 15 to 63 DAEe0
- Qualifier
- 5%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical weed-interference period at 10% relative yield loss in the rainy season was 23 to 62.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- critical duration for crop-weed interferencee0
- Value
- 23 to 62e0
- Qualifier
- 10%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The critical weed-interference period at 10% relative yield loss in the winter season was 21 to 61 DAE.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- critical duration for crop-weed interferencee0
- Value
- 21 to 61 DAEe0
- Qualifier
- 10%e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study indicated critical duration for crop-weed interference under 5% relative yield loss (RYL) was 16 to 66 DAE in rainy and 15 to 63 DAE in winter. Similarly, at 10%, RYL were 23 to 62 and 21 to 61 DAE, respectively, during the rainy and winter seasons.”
t0“groundnut”
The same questions in other papers
herbicide · physiology: pigments · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →competition · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →herbicide · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 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.