Abstract
Groundnut is important oilseed crop grown in India, contributing nearly 40 per cent to the country's total oilseed production. However, the average yield in India is as low as 966 kg per hectare. One of the key factors behind this low productivity is inadequate nutrient management. To meet the growing population's minimum requirement for edible oils and fats, it is required to increase productivity by using current smart fertilizers. In light of these considerations a field experiment was conducted during kharif 2023-24 on groundnut in Vertisol at AICRP on Groundnut, Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka. The experiment was conducted under randomized block design (RBD) design with twelve treatments which includes foliar spray of nano ZnO, nano CaO at different doses and different days after sowing with three replications using groundnut genotype GPBD-4. Among all the nanoparticles treatments, treatment T6: T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS) recorded higher plant height (31.8 cm), higher number of branches per plant (9.2), higher biological yield (5442 kg ha-1), gross returns ( 171998 ha-1) which is on par with treatment T4: T1 + nano zinc oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 25 and 45 DAS). Among all the treatments higher values in growth and yield was observed in with treatment recommended package of practice (RPP) (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1 + 25 kg FeSO4 + 25 kg ZnSO4 + 500 kg Gypsum ha-1 + FYM @ 7.5 t ha-1). Lower values in growth, yield and economics was observed in treatment T1: Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) only NPK (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1).
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Nano calcium treatment T6 produced plant height of 31.8 cm, higher among nanoparticle treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS)e0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 31.8 cme0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“treatment T6: T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS) recorded higher plant height (31.8 cm)”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano calcium treatment T6 produced 9.2 branches per plant, higher among nanoparticle treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS)e1
- Outcome
- number of branches per plante0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 9.2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher number of branches per plant (9.2)”
t0“groundnut”
e1“treatment T6: T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS) recorded higher”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano calcium treatment T6 produced biological yield of 5442 kg ha-1, higher among nanoparticle treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS)e1
- Outcome
- biological yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5442 kg ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher biological yield (5442 kg ha-1)”
t0“groundnut”
e1“treatment T6: T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS) recorded higher”
Claim · model-written summary
Nano calcium treatment T6 produced gross returns of 171998 ha-1, higher among nanoparticle treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS)e1
- Outcome
- gross returnse0
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 171998 ha-1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“gross returns ( 171998 ha-1)”
t0“groundnut”
e1“treatment T6: T1 + nano calcium oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 30 and 60 DAS) recorded higher”
Claim · model-written summary
T6 was on par with nano zinc treatment T4 for the reported growth, yield and returns.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- on pare0
- Comparator
- treatment T4: T1 + nano zinc oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 25 and 45 DAS)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“which is on par with treatment T4: T1 + nano zinc oxide @ 2 g 10 l-1 of water (Foliar spray at 25 and 45 DAS)”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The recommended package of practice gave the highest growth and yield values across treatments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- recommended package of practice (RPP) (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1 + 25 kg FeSO4 + 25 kg ZnSO4 + 500 kg Gypsum ha-1 + FYM @ 7.5 t ha-1)e0
- Outcome
- growth and yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- all the treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among all the treatments higher values in growth and yield was observed in with treatment recommended package of practice (RPP) (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1 + 25 kg FeSO4 + 25 kg ZnSO4 + 500 kg Gypsum ha-1 + FYM @ 7.5 t ha-1)”
t0“groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The RDF-only treatment gave lower growth, yield and economic values.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) only NPK (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1)e0
- Outcome
- growth, yield and economicse0
- Direction
- Lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lower values in growth, yield and economics was observed in treatment T1: Recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) only NPK (18:46:25 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha-1)”
t0“groundnut”
The same questions in other papers
calcium oxide · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
calcium oxide · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
8 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →iron(2+) sulfate (anhydrous) · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
9 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →zinc sulfate · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
27 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →potassium · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
90 papers more in this group
See all 94 papers →phosphorus · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
159 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
174 papers more in this group
See all 178 papers →storage · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →nanoparticle · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
26 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
25 papers more in this group
See all 29 papers →8 of 13 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.