Abstract
Pod rot is one of the most important peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) diseases in the pacific coast region of Cosiguina in Nicaragua. The region receives excessive rainfall during the peanut growing season and fields with high pod rot incidence often have moderate to high infestations of stem rot (Sclerotium rolfsii) and lesion nematode (Pratylenchus spp.). It was hypothesized that soilborne fungi, nematode damage and/or soil calcium deficiency could be involved in peanut pod rot. Flutolanil (1.2 kg a.i./ha, two applications), aldicarb (3.4 kg a.i./ha, one application), and calcium (670 kg/ha, two applications of gypsum) were evaluated on small (Georgia Green) and large (C-99R) seeded, runner cultivars in field experiments from 2005 to 2007 to help determine disease etiology. Experiments were split-split-plot or split-plot designs and treatments were replicated five times. There were no differences in pod rot between the two cultivars. Flutolanil did not decrease pod rot and only increased yield when associated with aldicarb nematicide. Gypsum application did not decrease pod rot, or increase yield or pod calcium content. Aldicarb had no effect on pod rot, but significantly increased yield by 22%, apparently by suppression of pod and/or root damage by lesion nematode. Neither calcium deficiency nor lesion nematode damage increased pod rot. Accepted for publication 19 October 2009. Published 15 February 2010.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Pod rot did not differ between the two peanut cultivars.
- Taxon
- Peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Material
- two cultivarse0
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- no differencese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were no differences in pod rot between the two cultivars.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Flutolanil did not decrease peanut pod rot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Flutolanile0
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flutolanil did not decrease pod rot”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Flutolanil increased peanut yield only when combined with aldicarb.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Flutolanile0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- when associated with aldicarb nematicidee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flutolanil did not decrease pod rot and only increased yield when associated with aldicarb nematicide.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not decrease peanut pod rot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gypsum application did not decrease pod rot”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not increase peanut yield.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gypsum application did not decrease pod rot, or increase yield or pod calcium content.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Gypsum did not increase peanut pod calcium content.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Gypsum applicatione0
- Outcome
- pod calcium contente0
- Direction
- did not decreasee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Gypsum application did not decrease pod rot, or increase yield or pod calcium content.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb had no effect on peanut pod rot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Aldicarbe0
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aldicarb had no effect on pod rot”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Aldicarb significantly increased peanut yield by 22%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Aldicarb had no effect on pod rot, but significantly increased yield by 22%”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Calcium deficiency did not increase peanut pod rot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- calcium deficiencye0
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither calcium deficiency nor lesion nematode damage increased pod rot.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
Claim · model-written summary
Lesion nematode damage did not increase peanut pod rot.
- Taxon
- PeanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Interactor
- lesion nematodee0pest
- Outcome
- pod rote0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Neither calcium deficiency nor lesion nematode damage increased pod rot.”
t0“Peanut Pod Rot”
The same questions in other papers
aldicarb · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →aldicarb · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →flutolanil · disease · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →flutolanil · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
10 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →lime · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 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
- no effect
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →lime · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 133 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- positive
138 papers more in this group
See all 142 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.