glyphosate · Yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)
14 claims from these papers; 6 citations between them.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Physiological Effects of Late Season Glyphosate Applications on Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) Seed Development and Germination (2010)
no changePod yield at 80 or 160 g/ha glyphosate was similar to untreated controls.
Weed characteristics, yield attributes and crop yield as influenced by integrated weed management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)-based intercropping system (2001)increasePre-sowing glyphosate at 1.0% increased groundnut pod-equivalent yield by 21.8% over the control.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
6 citations between these papers: 6 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 3
- positive
- positive
Assessing Herbicide Use and Hand Weeding Efficacy in Groundnut Production Intensification · 2025
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 6
- negative
Yield and Physiological Response of Peanut to Glyphosate Drift · 2007
- negative
Replanting Decisions Following Glyphosate Application to Peanut · 2008
- negative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
- negative
- negative
- negative
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.