Abstract
To determine the need for and potential benefits of rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in the southeastern region of Vietnam, surveys of 40 farmers’ fields and 6 inoculation experiments were conducted during winter-spring (1999–2000), summer (2000) and winter-spring (2000–2001) in the Tay Ninh province and Ho Chi Minh City area. All 40 farmer crops in the survey were nodulated, although none had been inoculated. As well, all crops were fertilised with N, at an average rate of 50 kg/ha (range of 10–120 kg/ha). The percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation (%Ndfa) varied in the range 24–72%, with an overall average of 46%. Cop N fixed ranged 49–205 kg/ha (average 106 kg/ha). Factors enhancing crop N fixed were plant population, soil organic fertility and fertiliser P applied. Plant population was also highly correlated with pod yield. The six inoculation experiments indicated both inoculation and fertiliser N application to be unnecessary because they did not enhance nodulation (in the case of inoculation) or pod yield (inoculation and fertiliser N). Both surveys and inoculation experiments were conducted in established groundnut areas. In new groundnut land, we would expect a response to inoculation and inoculation would be required. In the absence of inoculation, the farmer would have to supply the crop with substantial amounts of fertiliser N or suffer a yield decline because of N deficiency. Surveys of farmers indicated an almost total lack of knowledge of inoculants but a willingness to use them if they were shown to provide a yield benefit. They also saw that information about inoculants would need to be provided to them and to the extension officers. THE EASTERN region of the South of Vietnam (ERS) comprises 2.3 million ha. The region is located in the tropical monsoon climatic zone, with high solar radiation (>130 Kcal/cm/year), high mean temperatures (26–27°C), and high precipitation (1800–2000 mm/year). The ERS is dominated by 744,650 ha (32% of total) of grey soils (Acrisols), which are characterised as acidic, eroded, light texture and low fertility (Lieu 1992). Paddy rice is the main crop of the region with 542,800 ha yielding an average of 3.1 tonnes/ha. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) is grown on 50,500 ha with an average yield of 1.6 tonnes/ha and soybean (Glycine max) grown on 13,700 ha with an average yield of 0.8 tonnes/ha (General Statistical Office 2000). Paddy is either grown as a monoculture or rotated with legumes (groundnut, soybean, mungbean (Vigna radiata)), vegetables and other annual crops. In the ERS, farmers commonly apply N-fertiliser to groundnut, at rates of about 50 kg N/ha, a practice that represents an unnecessary expense because of the capacity of groundnut to fix its own N. We report a 2-season survey of N2 fixation of groundnut in farmers’ fields and multi-locational inoculation experiments in ERS. These surveys and experiments were part of a coordinated project, funded by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) in Vietnam. The objectives of the survey were to determine current levels of N2 fixation in farmers’ fields and the cultural practices that either enhance (e.g. inoculation, effective weed and insect management) or suppress N2 fixation (e.g. fertiliser N, poor agronomy). The inoculation experiments built on the outcomes of the survey to determine the need for and assess the biological and economic benefits of inoculation. 1 Oil Plant Institute of Vietnam, 171–175 Ham Nghi St., District 1, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam 2 NSW Agriculture, TCCI, Tamworth, NSW 2340, Australia
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
All 40 surveyed farmer groundnut crops were nodulated although none had been inoculated.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeae2 - Outcome
- nodulatede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“All 40 farmer crops in the survey were nodulated, although none had been inoculated”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
The percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation varied from 24% to 72% in farmer groundnut crops.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation (%Ndfa)e1
- Value
- 24–72%e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation (%Ndfa) varied in the range 24–72%, with an overall average of 46%”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
The overall average percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation in farmer groundnut crops was 46%.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation (%Ndfa)e1
- Value
- 46%e1
- Qualifier
- overall averagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The percentage of crop N derived from N2 fixation (%Ndfa) varied in the range 24–72%, with an overall average of 46%”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop N fixed in farmer groundnut crops ranged from 49 to 205 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- Cop N fixede1
- Value
- 49–205 kg/hae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cop N fixed ranged 49–205 kg/ha (average 106 kg/ha)”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Average crop N fixed in farmer groundnut crops was 106 kg/ha.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- Cop N fixede1
- Value
- 106 kg/hae1
- Qualifier
- averagee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Cop N fixed ranged 49–205 kg/ha (average 106 kg/ha)”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant population, soil organic fertility and fertiliser P applied enhance crop N fixed in groundnut.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- plant population, soil organic fertility and fertiliser P appliede1
- Outcome
- crop N fixede1
- Direction
- enhancinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Factors enhancing crop N fixed were plant population, soil organic fertility and fertiliser P applied”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Plant population is highly correlated with pod yield in groundnut, with the direction of the correlation not stated.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- Plant populatione1
- Outcome
- pod yielde1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Plant population was also highly correlated with pod yield”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial inoculation did not enhance nodulation of groundnut in the inoculation experiments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- inoculatione1
- Outcome
- nodulatione1
- Direction
- did not enhancee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The six inoculation experiments indicated both inoculation and fertiliser N application to be unnecessary because they did not enhance nodulation (in the case of inoculation) or pod yield (inoculation and fertiliser N)”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizobial inoculation did not enhance pod yield of groundnut in the inoculation experiments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- inoculatione1
- Outcome
- pod yielde1
- Direction
- did not enhancee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The six inoculation experiments indicated both inoculation and fertiliser N application to be unnecessary because they did not enhance nodulation (in the case of inoculation) or pod yield (inoculation and fertiliser N)”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Fertiliser N application did not enhance pod yield of groundnut in the inoculation experiments.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Treatment
- fertiliser N applicatione1
- Outcome
- pod yielde1
- Direction
- did not enhancee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The six inoculation experiments indicated both inoculation and fertiliser N application to be unnecessary because they did not enhance nodulation (in the case of inoculation) or pod yield (inoculation and fertiliser N)”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
In new groundnut land, inoculation would be required to obtain a response.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
- Outcome
- inoculation would be requirede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In new groundnut land, we would expect a response to inoculation and inoculation would be required”
Claim · model-written summary
Surveyed farmers had an almost total lack of knowledge of inoculants.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- knowledge of inoculantse3
- Qualifier
- almost total lacke3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Surveys of farmers indicated an almost total lack of knowledge of inoculants”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Surveyed farmers were willing to use inoculants if shown to provide a yield benefit.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- willingness to use theme4
- Qualifier
- if they were shown to provide a yield benefite4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“but a willingness to use them if they were shown to provide a yield benefit”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
Claim · model-written summary
Information about inoculants needs to be provided to farmers and extension officers.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae2
- Outcome
- information about inoculantse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“They also saw that information about inoculants would need to be provided to them and to the extension officers”
e2“rhizobial inoculation of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea)”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 125 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
141 papers more in this group
See all 145 papers →inoculation · symbiosis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 66 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
68 papers more in this group
See all 72 papers →inoculation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 198 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
217 papers more in this group
See all 221 papers →fertilization · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 635 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
679 papers more in this group
See all 683 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.