Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:55:44.686Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of Gypsum and Drought on Pod Initiation and Crop Yield in Early Maturing Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) Genotypes†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. Rajendrudu  and
J. H. Williams
G. Rajendrudu
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
J. H. Williams
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Gypsum application and irrigation increased yield in early maturing groundnut genotypes in experiments using line source and conventional irrigation. Response to gypsum varied with genotype; with some gypsum increased yields at all water application rates, in some genotypes there was no response, while with others gypsum increased yield in drought conditions.

In a separate study of the effect of gypsum and drought on pod initiation and development in three groundnut genotypes, gypsum did not greatly influence pod initiation when adequate irrigation was applied, but was beneficial when water was withheld during pod set and again during pod filling. Crops where the combination of gypsum and genotype were most advantageous in the first drought period subsequently grew more slowly so that there were no final differences in response to gypsum. Cultivar EC 76446(292) had a higher requirement for gypsum and was more susceptible to drought than the other two genotypes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 1987 , pp. 259 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Balasubramanian, V. & Yayock, J. V. (1981). Effect of gypsum and moisture stress on growth and podfill of groundnuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant and Soil 62:209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beringer, H. & Taha, M. A. (1976). 45Calcium absorption by two cultivars of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Experimental Agriculture 12:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beringer, H. & Tekete, A. (1979). Influence of mineral nutrition on seed development of two groundnut cultivars. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 10:491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J., Varnell, R J. & Duncan, W. G. (1976). Relationships of size, osmotic concentration, and sugar concentration of peanut pods to soil water. Proceedings, Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 35:47–50.Google Scholar
Bunting, A. H. & Anderson, B. (1960). Growth and nutrient uptake of Natal Common groundnuts. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 55:35–46.Google Scholar
Chahal, R. S. & Virmani, S. M. (1973). Uptake and translocation of nutrients in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) I. Calcium. Oleagineux 28:181–184.Google Scholar
Gillier, P. (1969). Secondary effects of drought on groundnut. Oleagineux 24:79–81.Google Scholar
Gilman, D. F. & Smith, O. D. (1979). Internal pericarp color as a subjective maturity index for peanut breeding. Peanut Science 4:67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallock, D. L. & Allison, A. H. (1980). Effect of three calcium sources applied on peanuts in Virginia. I. Productivity and seed quality. Peanut Science 7:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallock, D. L. & Garren, K. H. (1968). Pod break down, yield and grade of Virginia type peanuts as affected by Ca, Mg and K sulphates. Agronomy Journal 60:253–257.Google Scholar
Hanks, R. J., Keller, J., Rasmussen, V. P. & Wilson, G. D. (1976). Line source sprinkler for continuous variable irrigation – crop production studies. Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings 40:426–429.Google Scholar
Harris, H. C. (1949). The effect on the growth of peanuts of nutrient deficiencies in the root and the pegging zone. Plant Physiology 24:150–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartzog, D. & Adams, F. (1973). Fertilizer, gypsum and lime experiments with peanuts in Alabama. Alabama Agricultural Experimental Station, Bulletin No. 448.Google Scholar
Ono, Y., Nakayama, K. & Kubota, M. (1974). The effects of soil temperature and soil moisture in podding zone on pod development of peanut plants. Crop Science Society of Japan, Proceedings 43:247–251.Google Scholar
Pallas, J. E. Jr, Stansell, J. R. & Koske, T. J. (1979). Effect of drought on Florunner peanuts. Agronomy Journal 71:853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, G. D. & Biradar, B. M. (1973). Effect of gypsum application and topping of main shoot on pod development and yield of groundnuts. Oilseeds Journal 3(4): 11–13.Google Scholar
Skelton, B. J. & Shear, G. M. (1971). Calcium translocation in the peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy Journal 63:409–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack, T. E. & Morrill, L. G. (1972). A comparison of a large seeded (NC2) and small seeded (Starr) peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar as affected by levels of calcium added to the fruit zone. Soil Science Society of America, Proceedings 36:87–90.Google Scholar
Walker, W. E. & Csinos, A. S. (1980). Effect of gypsum on yield, grade and incidence of pod rot in five peanut cultivars. Peanut Science 7:109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, W. E. & Keisling, T. C. (1978). Responses of five peanut cultivars to gypsum fertilization on soils varying in calcium. Peanut Science 5:57–60.Google Scholar
Walker, W. E., Keisling, T. C. & Drexler, J. S. (1976). Responses of three peanut cultivars to gypsum. Agronomy Journal 68:527–528.Google Scholar