1
2
3
Introduction
Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual unpredictable legume cum oilseed crop which
Groundnut (Arachis h...
Conti….
Cultivated groundnut originates from South America (Wiess 2000).
It is one of the most popular and universal crops...
Among oilseeds crops in India, groundnut accounts for about 50% of area and
45% of oil production.
In India, about 75% of ...
Conti….
Although the crop can be grown in all the seasons, it is grown mainly in rainy
season (Kharif; June-September).
Th...
What is yield gap and how to estimate it ?
Estimation of yield gap : The methodology developed by International Rice Resea...
Table 1 : Estimated yield and yield gap in groundnut (kg/ha)
Particulars of yield
Experiment station yield
On –Experiment ...
TABLE. 2: YIELD GAP IN KARNATAKA
Area (lakh ha) in Karnataka

8.50

Production (lakh t) Karnataka

5.10

National avg. (kg...
Production constraints in
groundnut production

11
Production constraints in groundnut
 lack of varities for late sowing with drought tolerance.
 Lack of alternate crops
...
Cont….
 Severe weed infestation
 Moisture stress at more than one growth stage ( critical period)
 Incidences of pest a...
14
TABLE 3 ::Estimated production losses and value losses
TABLE 3 Estimated production losses and value losses
due to major c...
TABLE 4 ::Socio-economic constraints of groundnut
TABLE 4 Socio-economic constraints of groundnut
Constraints

Rank

Inade...
Table 55: :Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on
Table Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on
the b...
STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE
STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE
YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT
YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT

18
Some of the short term strategies to bridge yield gap in groundnut
Balanced fertilization
Balanced fertilization
Seed tre...
Some of the long term strategies to bridge yield gaps in groundnut
1. Development of /evaluation of varities from existing...
Table7 ::Effect of packaging material for storage of groundnut produced during rabi or
Table7 Effect of packaging material...
Effect Seed size to bridge yield
gaps in groundnut

22
Table 88::Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of groundnut
Table
Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of grou...
Table 99::Yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut as influenced by
Table
Yield attributes, pod yield and ec...
Effect of plant population,
date of sowing and varities to
bridge yield gap in groundnut

25
Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006).
Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006).
ICGV 8...
Table 10 ::Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen management on
Table 10 Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen manage...
Table 11: Yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut varieties as influenced by sowing dates
Table 11: Yield attributes, pod...
Table 12 ::Yield and yield attributes of groundnut varities as affected by different
Table 12 Yield and yield attributes o...
Table 13 ::Pod yield and net realization as influenced by row spacing and plant population
Table 13 Pod yield and net real...
Effect of tillage and balanced
nutrition to bridge yield gap in
groundnut

31
Table 14 ::Effect of tillage and nutrient treatments on yield and economics of
Table 14 Effect of tillage and nutrient tre...
Table 15 ::Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, yield and
Table 15 Effect of integrated nutrient ...
Table16 ::Influence of nutrient management practices on yield
Table16 Influence of nutrient management practices on yield
...
Table 17:Yield attributes, pod yield and BCR as influenced by different land configurations
Table 17:Yield attributes, pod...
Table18 ::Effect of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers on
Table18 Effect of chemical fertilizers, or...
Effect of moisture stress and
nutrient management practices
to bridge yield gap in groundnut

37
Table 19 ::Effect of moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and
Table 19 Effect of moisture stress, organic m...
Effect of water management and micro
nutrient management practices to bridge
yield gap in groundnut

39
Table 20 ::Growth, yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut as affected by irrigation
Table 20 Growth, yield attributes, p...
Table 21 ::Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur on weight of
Table 21 Interaction effect of ir...
Table 22 : :Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha) on pod and
Table 22 Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha...
Table 23 : :Influence of irrigation schedules and sand application on various
Table 23 Influence of irrigation schedules a...
Table 24 : :Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and sand application on various
Table 24 Interaction effect of irri...
Effect Weed control
treatments to bridge yield gap
in groundnut

45
Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed
Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on wee...
Table 26: Effect of plant densities and weed management practices on weed population,
Table 26: Effect of plant densities ...
Table 27 ::1Influence of weed control treatments on weed density, weed dry matter, pod
Table 27 1Influence of weed control...
Table 28: Effect of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency, yield
Table 28: Effect of different weed...
Effect cropping system to
bridge yield gap in groundnut

50
Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of groundnut +
Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of gr...
Table 30 ::Mean grain and pod yield, LER, Crop equivalent yield and B:C ratio as
Table 30 Mean grain and pod yield, LER, C...
Table 31 ::pod yield, haulm yield, castor seed and groundnut pod equivalent yields as
Table 31 pod yield, haulm yield, cas...
Effect of mechanization to
bridge yield gap in groundnut

54
Table 32 ::cost of cultivation for groundnut, activity wise (Rs /ha) in a
Table 32 cost of cultivation for groundnut, acti...
Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut
Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut
Pests

Management
...
 Use of medium sized seed material for sowing is highly profitable.
Sowing of groundnut in 1st fort night of June increa...
 Need to develop varities suitable for drought, pests, disease
resistance.
 INM, IWM, IPM modules to be prepared.
 Need...
59
Table ::Interaction effect of row spacing and plant
Table Interaction effect of row spacing and plant
population in summer...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Groundnut seminar

1,470

Published on

Published in: Technology
1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,470
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
59
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Groundnut seminar

  1. 1. 1
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. 3
  4. 4. Introduction Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual unpredictable legume cum oilseed crop which Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual unpredictable legume cum oilseed crop which is also known as peanut, earthnut, monkeynut. is also known as peanut, earthnut, monkeynut. It has the 13th most important food crop and 4th most important oilseed crop of the world. It has the 13th most important food crop and 4th most important oilseed crop of the world. Groundnut seeds (kernels) contain 40-50% oil, 20-50 % protein and 10-20 % carbohydrate. Groundnut seeds (kernels) contain 40-50% oil, 20-50 % protein and 10-20 % carbohydrate. Groundnut seeds are aa nutritional source of vitamin E, niacin, calcium, phosphorus, Groundnut seeds are nutritional source of vitamin E, niacin, calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, zinc, iron, riboflavin, thiamine and potassium. magnesium, zinc, iron, riboflavin, thiamine and potassium. Groundnut kernels are consumed directly as raw, roasted or boiled kernels or oil extracted Groundnut kernels are consumed directly as raw, roasted or boiled kernels or oil extracted from the kernel is used as culinary oil. from the kernel is used as culinary oil. It is also used as animal feed (oil pressings, seeds, green material and straw) and industrial It is also used as animal feed (oil pressings, seeds, green material and straw) and industrial raw material (oil cakes and fertilizer). raw material (oil cakes and fertilizer). These multiple uses of groundnut plant makes it an excellent cash crop for domestic These multiple uses of groundnut plant makes it an excellent cash crop for domestic markets as well as for foreign trade in several developing and developed countries. markets as well as for foreign trade in several developing and developed countries. 4
  5. 5. Conti…. Cultivated groundnut originates from South America (Wiess 2000). It is one of the most popular and universal crops cultivated in more than 100 countries in six continents . Major groundnut growing countries are India (26%), China (19%) and Nigeria (11%). Its cultivation is mostly confined to the tropical countries ranging from 40º N to 40º S. Major groundnut producing countries are: China (40.1%), India (16.4%), Nigeria (8.2%), U.S.A (5.9%) and Indonesia (4.1%). 5
  6. 6. Among oilseeds crops in India, groundnut accounts for about 50% of area and 45% of oil production. In India, about 75% of the groundnut area lies in a low to moderate rainfall zone (parts of peninsular region and western and central regions) with a short period of distribution (90-120 days). Based on rainfall pattern, soil factors, diseases and pest situations, groundnutgrowing area in India has been divided into five zones. In India, most of the groundnut production is concentrated in five states viz. Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Maharashtra. These five states account for about 86% of the total area under peanut cultivation. The remaining peanut producing area is scattered in the states of Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, and Orissa. 6
  7. 7. Conti…. Although the crop can be grown in all the seasons, it is grown mainly in rainy season (Kharif; June-September). The kharif season accounts for about 80% of the total groundnut production. In the Southern and Southeastern regions, groundnut is grown in rice fallows during post-rainy season (Rabi; October to March). If irrigation facilities are available, groundnut can be grown during January to May as a spring or summer crop. Monsoon variations cause major fluctuations in groundnut production in India. Groundnut is grown in different cropping systems like sequential, multiple, and intercropping (Basu and Ghosh 1995). 7
  8. 8. What is yield gap and how to estimate it ? Estimation of yield gap : The methodology developed by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) have been followed to estimate the magnitudes of yield gap, wherein potential yield, potential farm yield and farmers’ yield are defined as yield obtained on research stations, demonstration plots and farmers’ fields, respectively (Gaddi et al., 2002). Yield gap is the difference between potential yield and actual yield. The difference is explained by a number of constraints - biological, physical and socioeconomic. All these constraints together account for the total yield gaps. It can be diveded into two parts viz., yield gap I and yield gap II. Yield gap I = Potential yield - Potential farm yield This yield gap arises from differences in environment that cannot be managed in the farmers’ fields. Yield gap II: Potential farm yield - farmers’ yield This gap reflects the effects of biological, soil and water, physiological, genetic and socio-economic constraints. 8
  9. 9. Table 1 : Estimated yield and yield gap in groundnut (kg/ha) Particulars of yield Experiment station yield On –Experiment yield Actual farm yield Yield gaps Yield Gap I Yield Gap II Total Yield Gap (I+II) Total Yield Gap (I+II) (percent *) Yield Gap II (percent *) Groundnut (Kharif ) Bunch Spreading Overall 3358 3390 3377 2375 2613 2533 1530 1941 1823 983 845 1828 119 777 672 1449 75 844 710 1554 85 55 35 39 Dhandhalya and Shiyani, Junagadh 2009 *based on actual yield 9
  10. 10. TABLE. 2: YIELD GAP IN KARNATAKA Area (lakh ha) in Karnataka 8.50 Production (lakh t) Karnataka 5.10 National avg. (kg./ha) 1000 State avg. (kg/ha) 451 Potential yield (kg./ha) 2000 Experimental yield (kg./ha) 2300 GAP (kg./ha) 1839 SOURCE:- DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE . GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, 2009 10
  11. 11. Production constraints in groundnut production 11
  12. 12. Production constraints in groundnut  lack of varities for late sowing with drought tolerance.  Lack of alternate crops  Non availability efficient drills and harvesters  Imbalanced nutrition (poor soil fertility, non availability of organic manures, acid soils with low organic matter content, low N and P and widespread Ca, Sulphur deficiency , very low fertilizer use.)  Delayed planting  Use of low seed rate and poor plant population  Use of poor quality seed and non-availability of quality seed  Poor water management 12
  13. 13. Cont….  Severe weed infestation  Moisture stress at more than one growth stage ( critical period)  Incidences of pest and diseases & non adoption of proper pest and disease management  Tikka and bud necrosis diseases.  Pests like Red hairy caterpillar, thrips, aphids etc  Due to terminal drought and harvesting of groundnut under low moisture condition causes yield losses.  Lack of exposure to productive technology packages  Widespread poverty 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 15. TABLE 3 ::Estimated production losses and value losses TABLE 3 Estimated production losses and value losses due to major constraints in groundnut production due to major constraints in groundnut production Constraints Average losses (kg/ha) Total losses Value losses (00’ tonnes) (Rs. Crores) Technical Constraints a) Pest 76 1363.52 190.89 b) Disease 57 1022.64 143.17 c) Weeds 118 2117.04 296.39 d) Adverse soils 119 2134 298.90 e) Water (scarcity/drought) 202 3624.08 507.37 f) Others 54 968.81 135.63 626 11231.07 1572.35 84 1507.04 210.99 710 12738.11 1783.34 Total Socio-economic Total Junagadh Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009 15
  16. 16. TABLE 4 ::Socio-economic constraints of groundnut TABLE 4 Socio-economic constraints of groundnut Constraints Rank Inadequate and irregular power supply I High cost of irrigation and shortage of water II Fear of glut in the market /price risk III Poor irrigation facilities IV High cost of inputs V Fear of crop failure VI Poor transfer of technology VII Poor storage facilities VIII Poor marketing facilities IX Lack of awareness about improved technology X Junagadh Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009 16
  17. 17. Table 55: :Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on Table Ranking of production constraints in groundnut on the basis of average production losses the basis of average production losses Rank Constraints I Drought at anthesis II Drought at vegetative stage III Weeds (other than Digera) IV Poor organic matter V Delayed sowing VI Tikka VII Digera VIII Thrips IX Potash deficiency X Jassids Junagadh Dhandhalya and Shiyani, 2009 17
  18. 18. STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT 18
  19. 19. Some of the short term strategies to bridge yield gap in groundnut Balanced fertilization Balanced fertilization Seed treatment with rhizobium Seed treatment with rhizobium Production of organic manures, production structure for residue Production of organic manures, production structure for residue recycling. recycling. RDF RDF Adoption of crop rotation and intercropping with redgram based Adoption of crop rotation and intercropping with redgram based intercropping. intercropping. Awarenes Awarenes Maintenance of optimum plant population Maintenance of optimum plant population Use of improved seed-cum-fertilizer drill with recommended Use of improved seed-cum-fertilizer drill with recommended seed rate. seed rate. Use of quality seed. Use of quality seed. Supply of seed-cum-fertilizer drill on custom hire basis. Supply of seed-cum-fertilizer drill on custom hire basis. Effective plant protection measures Effective plant protection measures Creating awareness about use of right PP chemical at right time Creating awareness about use of right PP chemical at right time Conducting demonstration and training regarding pest management Conducting demonstration and training regarding pest management Groundnut harvester and pod plucker Groundnut harvester and pod plucker Popularization of existing digger and pod pluckers Popularization of existing digger and pod pluckers Modification and development of groundnut digger and plucker. Modification and development of groundnut digger and plucker. 19
  20. 20. Some of the long term strategies to bridge yield gaps in groundnut 1. Development of /evaluation of varities from existing lines through 1. Development of /evaluation of varities from existing lines through farmers participatory approach. farmers participatory approach. 2. Adoption of effective moisture conservation practices to mitigate 2. Adoption of effective moisture conservation practices to mitigate terminal drought. terminal drought. 3. Modification and 3. Modification and plucker . . plucker development of groundnut digger and pod development of groundnut digger and pod 20
  21. 21. Table7 ::Effect of packaging material for storage of groundnut produced during rabi or Table7 Effect of packaging material for storage of groundnut produced during rabi or summer season on field emergence. summer season on field emergence. Treatments C1 : Gunny bag 2 82 (64.7) Field emergence (%) Month after storage 5 8 74 (59.0) 58 (49.5) C2 : PLGB 85 (67.5) 78 (62.0) 68 (55.3) 77 C3 : HDPE 82 (64.8) 73 (58.8) 53 (46.6) 69 C4 : PLGB + Silica gel 86 (67.7) 82 (64.8) 70 (56.9) 79 C5: PLGB + Ca CL2 85 (67.5) 80 (63.3) 68 (55.6) 78 C6 : HDPE + Silica gel 84 (67.6) 61.3 (77) 65 (53.9) 75 C7 : HDPE + Ca CL2 85 (66.9) 77 (61.4) 62 (51.8) 74 1.36 4.33 2.66 8.42 S.Em ± CD (@ 5%) Raichur Mean 71 1.14 3.31 Bsavegowda and Nanjareddy, 2008 PLGB: poly lined gunny bag, HDPE: High density polyvinyl bag. Silica gel: 30g.kg-1 pod, Ca CL2 : 10g.kg-1 pod 21
  22. 22. Effect Seed size to bridge yield gaps in groundnut 22
  23. 23. Table 88::Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of groundnut Table Effect of seed size on pod and haulm yield of groundnut Category of seed Assorted Bold Medium Small Shrivellrd S.Em.± C.D. 5% Andrapradesh Pod yield (kg /ha) 2001 1097 1180 1169 1001 987 105 NS Haulm yield (kg /ha ) 2002 626 552 568 594 626 39 NS 2001 2135 2302 2229 1801 1958 89 267 2002 698 802 698 687 740 111 NS Sulochanamma and Yellamandareddy , 2007 NS- non significant 23
  24. 24. Table 99::Yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut as influenced by Table Yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut as influenced by different size of seed in groundnut different size of seed in groundnut Treatments No. of filled 100 kernel Pod yield pods /plant weight (g) (kg /ha ) TMV2- Bold 11.1 27.7 1205 2.71 TMV2- Medium 9.2 29.5 1161 2.97 TMV2- Slender 10.6 29.3 1268 3.42 K6 - Bold 9.5 39.7 1446 2.52 K6 - Medium 8.9 34.7 1353 3.30 K6 - Slender 9.1 36.8 1255 3.24 Narayani- Bold 8.7 38.0 1425 2.83 Narayani- Medium 7.2 37.2 1557 3.89 Narayani- Slender 7.1 38.0 1411 3.76 ICGV9114- Bold 9.3 30.8 1444 2.97 ICGV9114-- Medium 7.0 30.7 1265 3.23 ICGV9114- Slender 7.7 29.2 1237 3.30 CD (P=0.05) NS 4.0 249 - ARS: Anantapur B:C ratio Sahadevareddy et al.,2009 Note : Cost of different categories of seed (Rs/kg) Bold:35, Medium:28, Slender:25. NS- non significant 24
  25. 25. Effect of plant population, date of sowing and varities to bridge yield gap in groundnut 25
  26. 26. Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006). Recommended groundnut Varities for Karnataka (ICAR 2006). ICGV 86590 ICGV 86590 ICGV 86325 ICGV 86325 DRG 12 DRG 12 GPBD 44 GPBD DSG 11 DSG 26
  27. 27. Table 10 ::Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen management on Table 10 Effect of planting geometry and nitrogen management on growth development, yield and yield-attributes in groundnut growth development, yield and yield-attributes in groundnut Treatments Plant stand (lac/ha) Dry matter Pods/ accumulation plant (g/plant) Kernels/ pod Test weight (g) Pod yield (kg/ ha) Harvest index (%) Planting geometry 30 cm x 10 cm 22.5 cm x 10 cm 22.5 cm x 8 cm SEm± CD (P=0.05) 3.1 4.2 4.6 0.0 0.1 23.2 20.9 18.1 0.1 0.3 25.2 24.1 21.2 0.5 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.1 0.0 0.1 344.5 343.9 340. 0.9 3.2 2100.0 2424.0 2199.0 54.2 187.7 35.1 33.4 29.6 0.9 3.0 Control (no nitrogen) 20 kg N/ha (as a basal dose application) 3.9 4.0 19.9 20.6 19.1 22.9 1.9 2.0 324.4 336.6 1952.0 2211.0 32.6 33.3 40 kg N/ha (as a basal dose application) 4.0 20.8 25.0 2.1 346.0 2376.0 32.6 40 kg N/ha (as a basal dose and ½ as top dressing at 30DAS) 4.0 21.1 25.2 2.2 352.1 2361.0 32.4 60 kg N/ha (1/3 as a basal dose AND 2/3 as top dressing in two equal splits at 30 and 60 DAS) 4.1 21.1 23.4 2.2 354.7 2306.0 32.5 SEm± CD (P=0.05) 0.0 NS 0.2 0.4 0.8 2.3 0.0 0.1 2.2 6.2 79.9 229.0 1.1 NS Nitrogen management Bikaner Meena et al., (2011) 27
  28. 28. Table 11: Yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut varieties as influenced by sowing dates Table 11: Yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut varieties as influenced by sowing dates Treatments No. of pods/ plant Test weight (g) Shelling (%) Pod yield (q/ha) Oil content (%) 21 April 20.9 64.0 66.6 25.6 51.7 18 may 21.4 62.8 62.9 25.7 51.6 8 June 17.3 56.9 70.3 16.8 51.4 28 June 18.0 51.6 66.2 15.0 48.7 CD (P=0.05) NS 5.3 NS 3.3 0.76 SG 99 15.8 60.8 67.5 24.4 51.1 SG 84 20.0 49.2 69.4 19.9 51.2 M 522 22.4 66.5 62.6 18.0 50.2 CD (P=0.05) 4.9 3.6 4.6 2.1 NS Sowing dates Varieties PAU, Ludhiana Virender saradana and kandahola, 2009 28
  29. 29. Table 12 ::Yield and yield attributes of groundnut varities as affected by different Table 12 Yield and yield attributes of groundnut varities as affected by different dates of sowing during Kharif, 2005 dates of sowing during Kharif, 2005 Date of Yield kg/ha No. of filled 100 pod 100 kernel plant sowing Total pods/ pod/plant weight (g) weight (g) 30-06-05 625 12.1 8.4 74.1 30.7 15-07-05 571 10.8 7.5 70.2 27.7 28-07-05 374 6.6 5.6 64.2 26.5 CD 5% 174.3 1.1 0.7 6.8 2.6 TPT- 4 511 8.2 6.2 74.0 29.3 K-134 536 11.0 8.4 65.1 27.7 CD 5% NS 1.63 0.68 NS NS NS NS NS NS Varities Interaction RARS, Tirupati Chandrika et al., 2008 NS- non significant 29
  30. 30. Table 13 ::Pod yield and net realization as influenced by row spacing and plant population Table 13 Pod yield and net realization as influenced by row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut (pooled data of 22years) in summer groundnut (pooled data of years) Yield kg/ha Treatments Row spacing (cm) 22.5 30.0 37.5 45.0 CD. at 5% C.V. % Plant population (lakhs/ha) 3.0 3.5 4.0 CD. at 5% C.V. % Interaction Junagadh Net return (Rs/ha) Pod Haulm 2077 1917 1863 1891 162.3 9.6 4008 3611 3579 3436 225.8 6.25 17769 15692 15158 15579 1855 1982 1974 NS 8.9 NS 3608 3639 3626 NS 6.1 NS 15308 16565 16098 Chaniyara et al., 2001 NS- non significant 30
  31. 31. Effect of tillage and balanced nutrition to bridge yield gap in groundnut 31
  32. 32. Table 14 ::Effect of tillage and nutrient treatments on yield and economics of Table 14 Effect of tillage and nutrient treatments on yield and economics of groundnut groundnut Treatments Pod Yield (kg/ha) Haulm Yield (kg/ha) Net returns Tillage practices T1 – Traditional method 1426 2133 17425 T2 – Shallow tillage 1480 1989 17591 T3 – Deep tillage 1456 2000 S.Em.± C.D. 5% Fertilizer (F) F0 32 NS 35 100 14852 - 1371 2000 16757 F1 1457 2073 17677 F2 1522 2028 18767 F3 1466 2063 17382 S.Em.± C.D. 5% Interaction (T X F) S.Em.± C.D. 5% 31 96 Junagadh 0.05 NS 33 NS - 0.006 NS Sutaria et al., 2010 F0 – control, F1 - Recommended dose (12.5:25 NP kg/ha), F2 -50 % N through urea + 50 % N through FYM (cattle dung), F3 - 50 % N through urea + 50 % N through compost (farm residue) NS- non significant 32
  33. 33. Table 15 ::Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, yield and Table 15 Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, yield and economics of groundnut (pooled data) economics of groundnut (pooled data) Treatment Pods/ plant 100 pod 100 kernel weight (g) weight (g) Pod yield (t/ha) Haulm Benefit yield cost ratio (t/ha) N20 P 17.4 K 33.3 (RDF) 9.8 81.2 40.2 1.61 3.64 0.53 RDF + Rhizobium RDF + gypsum (250kg/ha) RDF + lime (1/4 LR ) RDF + boron (1 kg/ha) RDF + Rhizobium + gypsum + B RDF + Rhizobium + lime +B FYM 5 + 75% RDF 10.4 12.9 14.7 10.6 14.0 15.7 15.1 81.4 98.3 103.8 85.9 99.9 104.8 104.1 40.3 48.7 51.1 42.1 44.5 51.8 51.6 1.6 1.89 2.04 1.75 2.01 2.14 2.06 3.76 3.99 4.14 3.87 4.05 4.21 4.11 0.59 0.75 0.83 0.56 0.75 0.80 0.75 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium 15.9 105.7 51.9 2.16 4.22 0.85 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + gypsum 20.4 109.9 54.0 2.45 4.66 1.08 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + lime 17.4 107.3 53.6 2.26 4.35 0.88 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + B 16.1 106.6 52.6 2.17 4.22 0.77 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium + gypsum + B 23.4 120.4 58.2 2.66 4.83 1.13 FYM 5 + 75% RDF + Rhizobium + lime + B 19.9 108.9 53.9 2.33 4.56 0.87 0.4 1.2 1.1 3.5 1.4 3.9 0.05 0.09 0.13 Mohapatra0.25 Dixit , 2010 and Orissa S.Em ± CD (P=0.05) RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer, LR: land requirement, B: Boron @ 1kg/ha, RDF: 20-17.4-33.3 kg N-P-K/ha, Gypsum (250kg/ha), 33
  34. 34. Table16 ::Influence of nutrient management practices on yield Table16 Influence of nutrient management practices on yield attributes , ,pod yield, haulm yield of groundnut attributes pod yield, haulm yield of groundnut Treatments 75% RDF RDF 125% RDF 75% RDF + FYM 75% RDF + FYM 125% RDF + FYM 75% RDF + NDCP RDF + NDCP 125% RDF + NDCP 75% RDF + EC RDF + EC 125% RDF + EC Control S.Em ± CD (P=0.05) TNAU Pods/ plant Kernels /plant Test weight (g) Pod yield (t/ha) 17.5 24.3 21.2 19.5 22.2 24.7 19.5 22.0 23.7 23.5 24.7 27.8 15.8 0.4 1.5 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 0.03 NS 265 296 272 253 263 284 266 273 284 276 297 307 250 15 NS 1.745 2.03 1.9 1.85 1.94 2.07 1.84 1.83 1.95 1.94 11.305 2.255 0.955 0.055 0.155 Haulm yield (t/ha) B:C ratio 4.47 0.76 4.61 1.02 4.74 0.85 4.70 0.59 4.79 0.65 4.91 0.74 4.62 0.52 4.72 0.51 4.85 0.59 4.72 0.33 4.87 0.40 5.01 0.55 3.97 0.02 0.04 0.14 Karunakaran et al., 2010 RDF: Recommended dose of fertilizer (17-34-54 kg N-P-K/ha ), FYM: Farm yard manure (12.5 t/ha), NDCP: Naturally decomposed coir pith (12.5 t/ha), EC: Enriched compost (5t/ha). NS: Non significant 34
  35. 35. Table 17:Yield attributes, pod yield and BCR as influenced by different land configurations Table 17:Yield attributes, pod yield and BCR as influenced by different land configurations and nutrient management treatments during Kharif 2000 and nutrient management treatments during Kharif 2000 Treatments Land configurations Flat bed Broad bed and forrow CD (P=0.05) No. of 100Shellin Pod yield BCR matured kernel g (%) (kg/ha) Pods/plant weight (g) 21.8 12.2 2.32 55.0 53.2 NS 66.9 66.7 NS 3067 2397 173.0 3.08 2.34 Nutrient management RDF N and P RDF NPK RDF NPK + Gypsum @500 kg/ha RDF NPK + Gypsum @500 kg/ha + ZnSO4 @ 25 kg/ha 13.4 15.9 18.2 20.2 51.5 53.5 54.9 56.4 64.6 66.6 67.4 68.7 2505 2633 2847 2928 2.61 2.67 2.79 2.78 CD (P=0.05) 3.28 2.86 3.26 244.6 0.10 RRS, TNAU Subramanlyan and Kalaiselvan, 2006 35
  36. 36. Table18 ::Effect of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers on Table18 Effect of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of groundnut growth and yield of groundnut Treatments Plant height (cm) No. of No of root No. of branches nodules/ pods/ /plant plant plant Test weight (g) Pod yield Haulm (kg/ha) yield (kg/ha) Chemical fertilizers (F) F1: 25% RDF 38 6 82.1 17 37.6 1935 3796 F2: 50% RDF 38 6 84.1 20 38.3 2014 3971 F3: 75% RDF 41 7 89.7 20 41.4 2130 4227 F4: 100% RDF 42 6 92.8 22 43.2 2199 4383 SEm± CD (P=0.05) 0.7 2.0 0.3 0.7 1.4 4.1 0.5 1.3 0.7 2.0 46 134 58 168 Organic manures (M) M1 : Castor cake @ 1 t/ha 38 6 85.4 19.3 39.4 2021 4029 M2 : Castor cake @ 2 t/ha 41 7 88.9 20.2 40.9 2118 4158 SEm± 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 1.4 33 95 41 119 Biofertilizers (C) C1: Control 38.9 6 84.6 18.9 36.6 2003 4007 C2: Biofertilizers 40.5 7 89.6 20.5 43.6 2136 4180 0.5 1.4 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.9 0.3 0.9 0.5 1.4 CD (P=0.05) SEm± CD (P=0.05) Gujarat 33 41 95 119 Chudhari et al., 2009 36
  37. 37. Effect of moisture stress and nutrient management practices to bridge yield gap in groundnut 37
  38. 38. Table 19 ::Effect of moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and Table 19 Effect of moisture stress, organic manure and fertilizer with and without gypsum on yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut without gypsum on yield attributes, pod yield and economics of groundnut Treatments Pods/plant Kernels/ Shelling pod (%) 100-kernel weight (g) Pod yield (q/ha) Haulm yield (q/ha) B:C ratio Moisture stress M1-No moisture stress 18.97 1.72 66.12 38.09 23.53 45.95 1.71 M2- Moisture stress at vegetative stage 18.27 1.70 65.62 37.27 22.38 44.56 1.80 M3- Moisture stress at flowering stage 15.11 1.59 61.16 34.17 16.76 42.93 1.21 CD (P=0.05) Organic manures O1 – No FYM 0.94 0.03 1.66 1.28 1.28 1.43 16.48 1.63 62.77 35.57 19.27 43.31 1.55 O2 –7.5 t FYM/ha 18.42 1.71 65.83 37.45 22.51 45.65 1.63 CD (P=0.05) Fertilizers F1-100% RDF 0.68 0.01 1.30 0.97 0.83 1.16 16.29 1.63 62.49 35.26 18.96 42.98 1.42 F2-125% RDF 16.91 1.65 63.35 36.01 19.92 43.11 1.43 F3-100% RDF + 500 kg gypsum /ha 18.09 1.69 65.48 37.21 22.22 45.91 1.73 F1-125% RDF + 500 kg gypsum /ha 18.51 1.71 65.88 37.56 22.46 45.92 1.70 CD (P=0.05) 0.88 0.02 1.42 1.14 1.06 1.29 West Bengal RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer; 100% RDF, N30P60K40 (kg/ha) Dutta and Mondal, 2006 38
  39. 39. Effect of water management and micro nutrient management practices to bridge yield gap in groundnut 39
  40. 40. Table 20 ::Growth, yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut as affected by irrigation Table 20 Growth, yield attributes, pod yield of groundnut as affected by irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur schedules and levels of sulphur Treatments Irrigation schedules 40 mm CPE 50 mm CPE 60 mm CPE SEm± CD (P=0.05) Levels (kg/ha) Control 20 40 60 SEm± CD (P=0.05) Gujarat Plant height (cm) No. of Filled branches pods/ /plant plant Filled pod weight /plant (g) Test weight (g) Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha) 47 45 44 0.3 1.0 6 6 5 0.05 0.16 30 28 27 0.2 0.6 23 20 18 0.2 0.5 38 36 35 0.2 0.5 3784 3475 3156 76.3 234.3 6040 5546 5187 94.5 290.0 43 45 47 47 0.6 NS 5 6 6 6 0.04 NS 24 28 31 30 1.0 4.3 16 20 23 23 0.3 1.5 33 36 38 38 0.1 0.5 3085 3414 3699 3688 25.8 89.1 5161 5502 5857 5843 33.8 117.1 Patel et al., 2008 40
  41. 41. Table 21 ::Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur on weight of Table 21 Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and levels of sulphur on weight of filled pods/plant and pod yield of groundnut filled pods/plant and pod yield of groundnut Irrigation 0 weight of filled pods/plant (g) 40 mm CPE 18.2 50 mm CPE 16.1 60 mm CPE 14.9 SEm± 0.3 CD (P=0.05) 0.9 Levels of sulphur (kg/ha) 20 40 60 23.3 20.3 17.3 25.4 22.4 20.1 25.2 22.4 20.4 3697 3386 3159 4073 3717 3308 4026 3716 3323 pod yield (kg/ha) 40 mm CPE 50 mm CPE 60 mm CPE SEm± CD (P=0.05) Gujarat 3339 3082 2834 44.6 124.9 Patel et al., 2008 41
  42. 42. Table 22 : :Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha) on pod and Table 22 Effect of total water application (ha. mm/ha) on pod and fodder yield obtained under micro sprinkler irrigation (pooled data) fodder yield obtained under micro sprinkler irrigation (pooled data) IW/CPE Total water applied (mm) Pod yield (kg/ha) Fodder yield (kg/ha) 0.6 523 1471 2984 0.7 617 1859 3588 0.8 700 2384 4463 0.9 789 2550 4959 1.0 868 2446 5222 1.2 1047 2205 5319 SEM - 83.10 105.7 CD - 261.8 333.2 Cv - 10.22 7.35 Junagadh Rank, 2007 42
  43. 43. Table 23 : :Influence of irrigation schedules and sand application on various Table 23 Influence of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut parameters on rabi groundnut Irrigation schedule Pod yield /plant (g) Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha) Harvest index I1 6.33 1818 2851 0.39 I2 5.17 1478 2888 0.33 I3 5.42 1674 3221 0.33 S.EM± 0.13 45 43 0.007 CD (0.05) 0.42 147 139 0.02 S1 4.97 1391 2741 0.33 S2 5.50 1675 3042 0.35 S3 6.55 1853 3210 0.36 S4 5.12 1446 2849 0.34 S5 5.53 1694 3003 0.36 S6 6.31 1963 3395 0.36 S7 5.48 1513 2658 0.36 S.EM± 0.13 40 63 0.007 CD (0.05) Dharwad 0.36 111 Sand application 175 NS Hosamani and Janwade, 2007 I1 : Five irrigations at pre-flowering, flowering, pegging, pod formation and pod filling stage, I 2 : Three irrigations at flowering, pod formation and pod filling stage, I3 : Control. S1 : Sand incorporation @ 15 t/ha, S2 : Sand incorporation @30 t/ha, S3 : Sand incorporation @45 t/ha, S4 : Sand mulching @ 15t/ha, S5 : Sand mulching @ 30 t/ha, S6 : Sand mulching @ 45t/ha, S7 : No sand application . NS: Non significant 43
  44. 44. Table 24 : :Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and sand application on various Table 24 Interaction effect of irrigation schedules and sand application on various parameters on rabi groundnut parameters on rabi groundnut Interaction I1 S1 Pod yield /plant (g) 5.44 Pod yield (kg/ha) 1462 Haulm yield (kg/ha) 2601 Harvest index 0.36 I1 S2 6.11 1864 2736 0.41 I1 S3 7.25 2140 2942 0.42 I1 S4 5.10 1530 2771 0.35 I1 S5 6.53 1835 2924 0.39 I1 S6 7.73 2230 3258 0.40 I1 S7 6.14 1665 2724 0.38 I2 S1 4.30 1356 2601 0.34 I2 S2 4.70 1517 3281 0.31 I2 S3 5.84 1626 3244 0.33 I2 S4 5.05 1334 2689 0.33 I2 S5 5.34 1491 2751 0.35 I2 S6 5.76 1690 3233 0.34 I2 S7 5.18 1334 2416 0.35 I3 S1 5.19 1354 3046 0.31 I3 S2 5.70 1643 3108 0.34 I3 S3 6.57 1793 3444 0.33 I3 S4 5.22 1473 3085 0.32 I3 S5 4.71 1756 334 0.34 I3 S6 5.43 1968 3694 0.34 I3 S7 5.13 1541 3834 0.34 Dharwad Hosamani and Janwade, 2007 S.Em ± 0.22 70 108 0.013 I1 : Five irrigations (0.05) CD at pre-flowering, flowering, pegging, pod formation and pod filling stage, I 2 : Three irrigations at flowering, 0.67 216 333 0.04 pod formation and pod filling stage, I3 : Control. S1 : Sand incorporation @ 15 t/ha, S2 : Sand incorporation @30 t/ha, S3 : Sand incorporation @45 t/ha, S4 : Sand mulching @ 15t/ha, S5 : Sand mulching @ 30 t/ha, S6 : Sand mulching @ 45t/ha, S7 : No 44 sand application . NS: Non significant
  45. 45. Effect Weed control treatments to bridge yield gap in groundnut 45
  46. 46. Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed Table 25: Effect of pre and post-emergence herbicides on weed control efficiency, yield and net return of groundnut control efficiency, yield and net return of groundnut Treatments No weeding IC with star weeder at 20 DAS IC with star weeder at 20 DAS fb HW at 40DAS HW at 20 and 40 II PPI of Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha PE application of Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha POE application of imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PPI fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS I Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE fb fb imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS Fluchloralin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PPI fb HW at 40DAS Pendimethalin @ 1.5 kg/ha as PE fb HW at 40DAS Imazethapyr @ 75 g/ha at 20 DAS fb HW at 40DAS S.Em ± CD (P=0.05) Tirupati PPI-pre –plant incorporation, WCE (%) 47 76 87 60 64 48 85 POD YIELD (kg/ha) 846 1269 1644 2128 1420 1420 1274 2152 Net returns (Rs./ha) 6717 14267 20819 29814 16500 16500 14684 30578 87 2162 29808 81 84 84 79.32 - 1840 1850 1885 1096 232 23992 23156 25926 3215 - Sasikala et al., 2004 PE-pre – emergence, POE: Post emergence f b- followed by. 46
  47. 47. Table 26: Effect of plant densities and weed management practices on weed population, Table 26: Effect of plant densities and weed management practices on weed population, weed biomass, pod yield and kernel yield of irrigated groundnut. weed biomass, pod yield and kernel yield of irrigated groundnut. Treatments Weed population Weed biomass at 60 DAS (No.m2) Pod yield (t/ha) Kernel yield (t/ha) (kg/ha) 1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999 1998 1999 3.3 76 79 398.6 387.6 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 4.0 74 77 337.0 333.3 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.2 5.5 72 75 273.0 279.1 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 LSD (P=0.05) 01 01 37.7 38.1 0.1 0.06 0.11 0.1 Un weeded control 88 92 470.3 464.2 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.9 Hand weeding at 20 & 40 DAS 75 79 328.2 323.6 2.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 Pre-emergence Oxadiazon at 1.0 kg/ha 84 88 402.5 397.5 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.0 Pre-emergence 87 70 276.9 264.3 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.4 1.0 80 84 353.6 353.4 1.8 1.7 1.5 1.1 at.75 68 71 279.8 274.7 2.2 2.1 1.6 1.3 81 85 356.4 359.4 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 46 48 221.7 231.2 2.5 2.3 1.7 1.5 01 02 37.7 22.3 0.1 0.08 0.05 0.07 Plant density (lakhs/ha) Weed management practices Oxadiazon at 0.75 kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40 DAS Pre-emergence metalachlor at kg/ha Pre-emergence metalachlor kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40 DAS Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin at 1.5 kg/ha Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin at 1.5 kg/ha + one hand weeding at 40 DAS LSD (P=0.05) Madurai Senthilkumar et al., 2004 47
  48. 48. Table 27 ::1Influence of weed control treatments on weed density, weed dry matter, pod Table 27 1Influence of weed control treatments on weed density, weed dry matter, pod yield and economics of groundnut yield and economics of groundnut Herbicide Dose Weed density (No./m2) Weed dry Pod yield B:C ratio (l a.i./ha) 30 DAS 60DAS matter (g./m2) (kg/ha) Oxyflurofen (PE) 0.25 13.00 (3.8) 23.30 (4.9) 95.70 1722 1.58 Oxyflurofen (PE) 0.50 16.70 (4.2) 23.30 (4.9) 57.70 2119 1.88 Trifluralin (PPI) 1.00 21.50 (4.8) 21.30 (4.7) 67.70 2167 1.95 Trifluralin (PPI) + HW (30DAS) 1.00 20.20 (4.6) 18.00 (4.3) 67.00 2021 1.68 Pendimethalin (PE) 0.75 23.00 (4.8) 10.70 (3.4) 62.70 2119 1.88 Pendimethalin (PE) + HW (30DAS) 0.75 24.30 (5.0) 13.30 (3.8) 58.30 2206 1.82 Metalachlor (PE) 1.00 22.30 (4.8) 16.70 (4.2) 55.30 1778 1.60 Metalachlor (PE) 1.50 26.50 (5.2) 20.70 (4.6) 49.70 2627 2.311 Metalachlor (PE) + HW (30DAS) 1.00 22.70 (4.8) 22.70 (4.8) 58.30 1436 1.20 Fluchloralin (PPI) 0.675 15.00 (4.0) 11.30 (3.5) 62.30 1795 1.63 Fluchloralin (PPI) 0.75 25.50 (5.10) 12.30 (3.6) 52.30 2198 1.98 Alachlor (PE) 2.50 19.00 (4.5) 13.30 (3.8) 74.00 1412 1.22 Pendimethalin (PE) + Alachlor (PE) 0.5 + 1.25 12.70 (3.6) 20.70 (4.6) 93.00 1374 1.20 Hand weedings 21 and 42 6.30 (2.8) 20.70 (4.6) 51.30 1980 1.53 33.30 (5.69) 28.70 (5.4) 182.70 1214 1.15 7.30 (0.8) 6.00 (0.7) 20.90 483 0.42 DAS Un weeded control CD (P= 0.05) - Virender Sardana and Parvender Sheoran, (2009) PPI= pre-plant incorporation; PE=pre-emergence; figures in paranthesis are the root x+1transformed values. DAS – Days after sowing 48
  49. 49. Table 28: Effect of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency, yield Table 28: Effect of different weed control treatments on weed control efficiency, yield attributing characters, pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut. attributing characters, pod yield and haulm yield in groundnut. Treatments Dose WCE (%) Flucholarin, ppi Kernels/ 100- kernel Pod yield Haulm yield plant (kg/ha) Pods/ pod weight (g) (kg/ha) (kg/ha) 0.675 35.7 15.0 1.40 56.3 1950 7250 2.5 53.9 15.3 1.46 56.8 2016 7210 - 56.3 15.6 1.47 58.6 2187 7430 Flucholarin, ppi, fb HW 40das 0.675 54.9 17.4 1.48 57.8 2296 7340 Trifluralin, ppi, fb HW 40das 0.75 62.0 20.5 1.43 58.5 2319 7530 Trifluralin, ppi 1.0 48.3 16.0 1.44 57.8 2267 7460 Trifluralin, ppi 1.25 54.8 18.0 1.48 58.0 2307 7420 Pendimethalin, pre-em. fb HW 0.75 59.6 17.3 1.42 57.2 2298 7450 Pendimethalin, pre-em. 1.0 50.1 16.2 1.44 56.9 1856 6930 Oxyflurofen, pre-em. fb HW 40DAS 0.25 57.4 20.6 147 59.1 2412 7980 Oxyflurofen, pre-em. 0.375 39.3 16.0 1.45 57.1 2029 7450 Oxyflurofen, pre-em. 0.50 49.8 17.1 1.46 58.2 2303 7520 Alachlor, Pre-em. fb HW 40DAS 1.25 61.8 20.6 1.41 58.7 2349 7620 - - 13.0 NS 53.9 1526 6380 - 1.9 2.2 293 542 Alachlor, Pre-em. Two hand weedings, 20 and 40 DAS 40DAS Unweeded control LSD (P=0.05) Ludhiana PPI-pre –plant incorporation, Harpeet Singh and Surjit Singh, 2009 pre-em-pre – emergence, fb- folloed by, NS- non significant. 49
  50. 50. Effect cropping system to bridge yield gap in groundnut 50
  51. 51. Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of groundnut + Table 29: Groundnut-equivalent yield and economics of groundnut + pigeonpea and groundnut ++maize intercropping system (pooled data of 22 pigeonpea and groundnut maize intercropping system (pooled data of years) years) Treatments Sole cropping Groundnut Pigeonpea Maize Intercropping Groundnut : Pigeonpea 3:1 4:1 5:1 3:2 4:2 5:2 Groundnut : Maize 3:1 4:1 5:1 3:2 4:2 5:2 CD (P=0.05) West Bengal Groundnut-equivalent yield (q/ha) Net returns (kg/ha) B:C ratio 12.87 9.47 7.95 15200 10824 8612 1.44 1.33 1.18 12.56 13.62 13.10 12.51 13.32 14.42 14762 16557 15183 14980 16186 17986 1.42 1.54 1.38 1.49 1.55 1.66 12.65 13.34 13.28 12.01 13.56 13.52 1.05 15335 16289 15896 14400 17075 16572 -- 1.54 1.57 1.49 1.50 1.70 1.58 -- Dutta and Bandyopadhyay, 2006 Note: Prevailing market prices of groundnut, pigeonpea and maize @ Rs. 20.00, 18.00 and 6.50/kg respectively 51
  52. 52. Table 30 ::Mean grain and pod yield, LER, Crop equivalent yield and B:C ratio as Table 30 Mean grain and pod yield, LER, Crop equivalent yield and B:C ratio as influenced by different intercropping ratios. influenced by different intercropping ratios. Treatments Grain yield (q/ha) Pod yield (q/ha) Crop equivalent yield LER Sesame equivalent yield Groundnut pod B:C equivalent ratio yield Intercropping ratio T1 : sole sesame 4.77 -- 1.00 4.77 15.91 1.19 T2 : Sole groundnut -- 21.60 1.00 6.48 21.60 1.50 T3 :S + G (1:1) 3.89 12.55 1.45 7.66 38.07 1.70 T4 : S + G (2:1) 4.34 8.09 1.32 6.77 30.65 1.55 T5 : S + G (3:1) 5.34 5.42 1.43 6.97 28.65 1.60 T6 : S + G (1:2) 3.52 15.02 1.46 8.03 41.77 1.75 T7 : S + G (1:3) 2.47 15.78 1.29 7.20 39.79 1.63 S.Em ± CD (P=0.05) 0.25 0.79 0.451 1.42 0.17 0.52 0.89 2.75 3.94 12.13 0.14 0.43 Dapoli Mahale et al.,2008 Price for sesame Rs.50/kg, Price for groundnut dry pod Rs.15/kg 52
  53. 53. Table 31 ::pod yield, haulm yield, castor seed and groundnut pod equivalent yields as Table 31 pod yield, haulm yield, castor seed and groundnut pod equivalent yields as influenced by row ratio in groundnut + castor intercropping system (pooled data) influenced by row ratio in groundnut + castor intercropping system (pooled data) Treatments Row ratio R1 – 2:1 R2 – 3:1 S.Em ± CD (P=0.05) Junagadh Pod yield (kg/ha) Haulm yield (kg/ha) Castor seed yield (kg/ha) Groundnut pod equivalent yield (kg/ha) 1472 1612 29.3 83.6 1892 2021 29.1 83.1 1219 1105 34.4 NS 2840 2854 56.5 NS Solanki et al., 2006 NS – Non significant 53
  54. 54. Effect of mechanization to bridge yield gap in groundnut 54
  55. 55. Table 32 ::cost of cultivation for groundnut, activity wise (Rs /ha) in a Table 32 cost of cultivation for groundnut, activity wise (Rs /ha) in a rainfed location of Anantapur district, A.P. rainfed location of Anantapur district, A.P. Field operation Field preparation Sowing Weeding and Intercultivation Spraying Harvesting Stripping/ Threshing Seed cost @ Rs.25 /kg Fertilizer and pesticide cost (Rs.) Total cost per ha Anantapur Mechanization 350.00 350.00 450.00 125.00 500.00 350.00 2250.00 1000.00 5375.00 Farmers practices 500.00 500.00 1000.00 125.00 625.00 700.00 3125.00 1000.00 7575.00 John wisely et al.,2004 55
  56. 56. Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut Table 33: Pests and disease management in groundnut Pests Management Red hairy caterpillar Set up light traps and bonfire immediately after receipt of rains to attract and kill the moth. Deep ploughing in summer. Dig a deep, straight end trench and dust Carbonyl or Methyl parathion. Poison baits (5 kg rice bran + 1.0 kg jaggery + 500 ml Chloropyriphos) in the form of pellets around the field during evening hours Aphids, Thrips Spray Monocrotophos (2 ml l-1 of water) Leaf miner Quinalphos (2 ml l-1 of water) Bud necrosis  Early planting of kharif crop in June. Intercropping with millets Timely chemical control of thrips Tikka Spray Mancozeb (2.0 g l-1) + Caebendazim (1.0 g l-1) Source : Agronomy of Field Crops by S.R. Reddy 56
  57. 57.  Use of medium sized seed material for sowing is highly profitable. Sowing of groundnut in 1st fort night of June increases the pod yield. FYM in combination with chemical fertilizers and micronutrients (like gypsum, lime, boron etc.) enhances the pod yield.  Pre plant incorporation of Fluchloralin fb Imazethapyr was found most economical. Irrigating the crop at critical stages is economical. Application of sand to deep black soil increases the pod yield. 57
  58. 58.  Need to develop varities suitable for drought, pests, disease resistance.  INM, IWM, IPM modules to be prepared.  Need to develop suitable groundnut genotypes with fresh seed dormancy.  Improved agronomic practices. 58
  59. 59. 59
  60. 60. Table ::Interaction effect of row spacing and plant Table Interaction effect of row spacing and plant population in summer groundnut population in summer groundnut Row spacing (cm) Plant population (lakhs/ha) 3.0 3.5 4.0 22.5 2283 2250 2467 30.0 1905 1983 1955 37.5 2117 2250 2028 45.0 2150 1955 2117 C.D. at 5% -- 125.8 -- Junagadh Chaniyara et al., 2001 60
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×