pruning · Yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)

Results differ19 papers: 7 positive, 12 negative or no effect · 5 pairs of papers confirmed to differ

35 claims from these papers; 7 citations between them.

Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 5

5 pairs 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.

Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight in Peanut: Utilizing Canopy Morphology, Mechanical Pruning, and Fungicide Timing (1998)
decreaseExcessive pruning, particularly late in the season, lowered yields.
Effect of Crop Pruning on Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut (1997)
no changeWithout fungicide in 1991, pruning did not significantly change yield.
What separates themSituation: toxic level · not statedCompare the two papers →
Effect of Artificial Defoliation on Pod Yield in Groundnut (1986)
decreaseDefoliation at 60 and 30 days after germination reduced pod yield by 8.64%.
Establishing Defoliation Thresholds for Insect Pest of Peanut in Mississippi (2019)
no changeDefoliation at 40 DAE did not affect pod yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
Effects of defoliation on growth and yield in groundnut (Arachis hypogea), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata), soyabean (Glycine max) and green gram (Vigna aurens) (1975)
decreaseComplete early-podding defoliation reduced groundnut grain yield by 59.7%.
Effect of defoliation on Virginia Bunch peanuts at Camden, N.S.W (1982)
no changeDefoliation through early pod formation did not reduce kernel yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
Effect of defoliation on reproductive development of the peanut (1983)
decreaseDefoliation after pod formation reduced pod yield.
Establishing Defoliation Thresholds for Insect Pest of Peanut in Mississippi (2019)
no changeDefoliation at 40 DAE did not affect pod yield.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →
Establishing Defoliation Thresholds for Insect Pest of Peanut in Mississippi (2019)
no changeDefoliation at 40 DAE did not affect pod yield.
Effect of defoliation on source-sink relationship in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) (2018)
decreaseDefoliation during the early pod stage caused the greatest yield reduction in groundnut.
The records name no dose, test system or situation that separates the two claims.Compare the two papers →

How these papers cite each other

7 citations between these papers: 3 on the same side, 4 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 7

Effect of Artificial Defoliation on Pod Yield in Groundnut · 1986
Effect of Crop Pruning on Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut · 1997
- positive
  In 1990 pruned plots yielded more than iprodione-sprayed plots.
  compared with iprodione-sprayed plots
- negative
  Pruning tops and sides in August reduced yields versus July.
  compared with pruning tops and sides in July
- no effect
  With fungicide, pruned and nonpruned plots did not differ in yield.
  compared with nonpruned plots treated with these fungicides
- no effect
  Without fungicide in 1991, pruning did not significantly change yield.
  compared with nonpruned plots
cites 1 paper here
Integrated Management of Sclerotinia Blight in Peanut: Utilizing Canopy Morphology, Mechanical Pruning, and Fungicide Timing · 1998
- positive
  In some tests pruning increased yields by reducing disease pressure.
- negative
  Excessive pruning, particularly late in the season, lowered yields.
cites 2 papers herecited by 1 paper here
Mowing as a Weed Control Supplement to Herbicides and Cultivation in Peanut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) · 1999
- positive
  In peanut without other weed control inputs, mowing was beneficial to yield in years with near-normal growing conditions.
  compared with In the absence of any other weed control inputs
- positive
  Mowing consistently increased yield and net return in peanut when the only other weed control inputs were paraquat and 2,4-DB plus cultivation.
  compared with paraquat and 2,4-DB
- no effect
  Mowing was of no value in peanut where the highest level of herbicide and cultivation inputs was used.
  compared with highest level of herbicide/cultivation inputsNo difference from an alternative treatment
- negative
  In peanut without other weed control inputs, mowing was detrimental to yield in a drought stress year.
  compared with In the absence of any other weed control inputs
Integrated Agricultural System Study on Crops: Intercropping of Corn - Peanut and Beef Cattle Fattening · 2018
- positive
  Defoliation of 50% of leaves under the cob and its interaction increased peanut production.
Response of Yield and Some Physiological Traits of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to Topping Height and Application Methods of Zn and Ca Nano-Chelates · 2019
Management of Major Insect Pests and Diseases in Groundnut through IPDM Modules · 2025
- positive
  The module had highest haulm yield at 4303 kg/ha.
  compared with rest of the modules

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 12

Response of rice, maize, sorghum, groundnut and soybean to foliage losses · 1974
- negative
  Daily defoliation significantly reduced groundnut pod and seed weight and number.
Effects of defoliation on growth and yield in groundnut (Arachis hypogea), cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata), soyabean (Glycine max) and green gram (Vigna aurens) · 1975
- negative
  Half early-podding defoliation reduced groundnut grain yield by 43.3%.
- negative
  Complete early-podding defoliation reduced groundnut grain yield by 59.7%.
cited by 1 paper here
Effect of defoliation on Virginia Bunch peanuts at Camden, N.S.W · 1982
- no effect
  Defoliation through early pod formation did not reduce kernel yield.
Effect of defoliation on reproductive development of the peanut · 1983
- negative
  Defoliation reduced final pod number through inhibited fruit formation.
- negative
  Defoliation after pod formation reduced pod yield.
cited by 1 paper here
Effect of Defoliation on Peanut Plant Growth¹ · 1984
- negative
  Defoliation lowered pod numbers and weights of peanut plants.
cited by 1 paper here
Effects of Modification of the Plant Canopy Environment on Sclerotinia Blight of Peanut · 1988
- negative
  Thinning reduced pod yield.
cited by 2 papers here
Regulation of Correlative Senescence in Arachis hypogaea L. by Source‐Sink Alteration through Physical and Hormonal Means · 1995
- negative
  Defoliation up to 25% reduced seed yield by only 2%.
Physiological response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to thinning time and intensity after anthesis · 1999
- negative
  Thinning above 66% reduced groundnut production.
- negative
  Thinning by 50% at 91 DAP significantly reduced groundnut production.
Effect of Hand Defoliation on Peanut Growth · 2006
- negative
  Defoliated peanut plants had lighter pods at harvest.
cites 2 papers herecited by 1 paper here
Cutleaf Groundcherry (Physalis angulata) Density, Biomass and Seed Production in Peanut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) Following Regrowth Due to Inadequate Control · 2013
- no effect
  Hand pruning gave groundcherry biomass and seed production similar to untreated controls.
  compared with non-treated control
Effect of defoliation on source-sink relationship in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) · 2018
- negative
  Defoliation during the early pod stage caused the greatest yield reduction in groundnut.
Establishing Defoliation Thresholds for Insect Pest of Peanut in Mississippi · 2019
- no effect
  Defoliation at 40 DAE did not affect pod yield.
cites 2 papers here

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.

pruning · Yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)

Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 5

How these papers cite each other

Papers reporting a positive result 7

Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 12

pruning on Arachis hypogaea (peanut) against other targets

pruning · yield on other organisms