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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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
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. 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. 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. STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE
STRATEGIES FOR BRIDGING THE
YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT
YIELD GAP IN GROUNDNUT
18
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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. Effect of tillage and balanced
nutrition to bridge yield gap in
groundnut
31
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
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. 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. Effect of moisture stress and
nutrient management practices
to bridge yield gap in groundnut
37
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. Effect of water management and micro
nutrient management practices to bridge
yield gap in groundnut
39
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. 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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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
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. 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. 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. 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
