application · Molecular: metabolites · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)
27 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 17
HERBICIDE MIXTURES FOR WEED CONTROL IN PEANUTS (ARACHIS HYPOGAEA L.), 1961–63* · 1964
- positive
- positive
Foliar application of phosphorus and residual effect of gypsum on peanuts · 1992
- positive
- no effect
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL EFFECTS OF MEPIQUAT CHLORIDE ON GROUNDNUT (Arachis hypogaea) · 1998
- positive
- positive
Effect of foliar fertilization of potassium on yield, quality, and nutrient uptake of groundnut · 1999
- positive
Effect of Foliage Spraying on Photosynthetic Indexes and Plant Hormones of Peanut at Blossom Stage · 2011
- positive
Effect of Brassinolide and Salicylic Acid on Biochemical Parameters and Yield of Groundnut · 2012
- positive
Technique and Effect of Applying Boron Fertilizer on Peanut · 2012
- positive
Zinc Biofortification in Sixty Groundnut Cultivars Through Foliar Application of Zinc Sulphate · 2015
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Study of Inducing Factors on Resveratrol and Antioxidant Content in Germinated Peanuts · 2022
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2
- no effect
- no effect
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.