Abstract
Zambia is one of the African countries failing to export groundnuts to restricted markets because of high aflatoxin concentrations. Currently, the volume of groundnuts being exported has significantly reduced compared to the period between 1960 and 1970. Since aflatoxin formation starts in the field, aflatoxin mitigation measures must also begin at field-level. A greenhouse experiment was conducted to determine the interactive effects of water stress and exchangeable calcium on pre-harvest aflatoxin content in kernels. Four water moisture levels combined with four levels of gypsum application were applied from flowering to full maturity. The groundnuts were harvested at full maturity and the total biomass and aflatoxin content in kernels were determined. Treatment effects were determined by Analysis of Variance and the non-parametric Kruskal Wallis test at 95% Confidence Interval. Water stress resulted in about 10 folds’ increase in aflatoxin content at the least level of water supply (p = 0.032). There were no significant differences in the distribution of mean pre-harvest total aflatoxin concentrations due to gypsum application (p = 0.274). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the distribution of mean total biomass attributed to both water stress and gypsum application. These results suggest that adequate water supply can help to minimize pre-harvest aflatoxin incidences, while the time and the rates of gypsum applied as a source of calcium may also influence the aflatoxin response to the treatment.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Lowest water supply increased kernel aflatoxin content about tenfold.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- Water stresse0
- Outcome
- aflatoxin contente0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- about 10 foldse0
- Qualifier
- least level of water supplye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Water stress resulted in about 10 folds’ increase in aflatoxin content at the least level of water supply (p = 0.032).”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum application did not significantly differ in mean pre-harvest aflatoxin concentrations.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- mean pre-harvest total aflatoxin concentrationse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no significant differences in the distribution of mean pre-harvest total aflatoxin concentrations due to gypsum application (p = 0.274).”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress did not produce significant differences in total biomass.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- water stresse0
- Outcome
- mean total biomasse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, there were no significant differences in the distribution of mean total biomass attributed to both water stress and gypsum application.”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum application did not produce significant differences in total biomass.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- mean total biomasse0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Similarly, there were no significant differences in the distribution of mean total biomass attributed to both water stress and gypsum application.”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest adequate water supply could minimize pre-harvest aflatoxin incidence.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- adequate water supplye0
- Qualifier
- minimize pre-harvest aflatoxin incidencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These results suggest that adequate water supply can help to minimize pre-harvest aflatoxin incidences, while the time and the rates of gypsum applied as a source of calcium may also influence the aflatoxin response to the treatment.”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest gypsum timing and rate may influence the aflatoxin response.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- gypsume0
- Outcome
- aflatoxin responsee0
- Qualifier
- time and the ratese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the time and the rates of gypsum applied as a source of calcium may also influence the aflatoxin response to the treatment.”
t0“Groundnut Kernels”
The same questions in other papers
lime · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 30 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →drought · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →drought · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →lime · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.