Impact of Level of Nitrogen Fertilization and Critical Period for Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Description
2.2. Inocula Used and Preparation
2.3. Data recorded
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Impacts of Mineral Nitrogen (N) Fertilization Levels on Weeds and Peanut Traits
3.2. Impacts of Time (Early and Late) Weed Removal on Weeds and Peanut Traits
3.3. Impacts of the Interaction between Mineral Nitrogen (N) Fertilizer Levels and Time (Early and Late) Weed Removal on Weeds and Peanut Traits
3.4. The Stepwise Regression and Correlation Coefficients Analyses
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| RCBD | Randomized Complete Block Design |
| CTWR | Critical Timing of Weed Removal |
| CWFP | Critical Weed Free Period |
| CPWC | Critical Period of Weed Control |
| WAE | Weeks After Emergence |
| GDDs | Growing Degree Days |
| AYL | Accepted Yield Loss |
| RY | Relative Yield |
| FAO | Food and Agriculture Organization |
| WAS | Week After Sowing |
| DAS | Days After Sowing |
References
- Pande, N.; Saxena, J.; Pandey, H. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins in some cereals. Mycoses 2003, 33, 126–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Pandey, M.K.; Upadhyaya, H.D.; Rathore, A.; Vadez, V.; Sheshshayee, M.S.; Sriswathi, M.; Govil, M.; Kumar, A.; Gowda, M.V.C.; Sharma, S.; et al. Genomewide association studies for 50 agronomic traits in peanut using the reference set comprising 300 genotypes from 48 countries of the semi-arid tropics of the world. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e113326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Canavar, Ö. The influence of storage time on fatty acid, tocopherol and seed quality of peanut. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2015, 7, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Food and Agriculture Organization. Crop production-peanut. In Statistical Yearbook; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Gabasawa, A.I.; Mohammed, H.; Yusuf, A.A. Biological nitrogen fixation and pod yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by a salt-affected alfisol at Kadawa, Nigeria. Int. J. Plant. Soil Sci. 2014, 3, 1479–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Fujisao, K.; Khanthavong, P.; Oudthachit, S.; Matsumoto, N.; Homma, K.; Asai, H.; Shiraiwa, T. Impacts of the continuous maize cultivation on soil properties in Sainyabuli province, Laos. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 11231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Tesfaye, A.; Githiri, M.; Dereraand, J.; Debele, T. Subsistence farmers experiences and perceptions about soil and fertilizer use in western Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2011, 2, 61–74. [Google Scholar]
- Samuel, G. Status of soil resources in Ethiopia and priorities for sustainable management. Ethiopian Agricultural Transformation Agency. In Proceedings of the Launch of the Global Soil Partnership in Eastern and Southern Africa, Nairobi, Kenya, 25–27 March 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Marschner, H. Marschner’s Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants, 3rd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; pp. 178–189. [Google Scholar]
- El-Habbasha, S.F.; Taha, M.H.; Jafar, N.A. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer levels and zinc foliar application on yield, yield attributes and some chemical traits of groundnut. Res. J. Agric. Biolog. Sci. 2013, 9, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Mahrous, N.M.; Safina, S.A.; Abo Taleb, H.H.; El-Behlak, S.M.E. Integrated use of organic, inorganic and bio fertilizers on yield and quality of two peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivars grown in a sandy saline soil. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2015, 15, 1067–1074. [Google Scholar]
- Mekdad, A.A.A. Response of peanut to nitrogen fertilizer levels and foliar zinc spraying rates in newly reclaimed sandy soils. J. Plant. Prod. Mansoura Univ. 2017, 8, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Bekele, G.; Dechassa, N.; Tana, T.; Sharma, J.J. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and vermicompost fertilizers on productivity of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Babile, Eastern Ethiopia. Agron. Res. 2019, 17, 1532–1546. [Google Scholar]
- Burke, I.C.; Schroeder, M.; Thomas, W.E.; Wilcut, J.W. Palmer amaranth interference and seed production in peanut. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Wilcut, J.W.; York, A.C.; Wehtje, G.R. The control and interaction of weeds in peanut. Rev. Weed Sci. 1994, 6, 177–205. [Google Scholar]
- Mia, M.J.; Massetani, F.; Murri, G.; Facchi, J.; Monaci, E.; Amadio, L.; Neri, D. Integrated weed management in high density fruit orchards. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- De Cauwer, B.; Delanote, L.; Devos, M.; De Ryck, S.; Reheul, D. Optimisation of weed control in organic processing spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.): Impacts of cultivar, seeding rate, plant spacing and integrated weed management strategy. Agronomy 2021, 11, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Abouziena, H.F.; Haggag, W.M. Weed control in clean agriculture: A review. Planta Daninha Viçosa MG 2016, 34, 377–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Knezevic, S.Z.; Evans, S.P.; Blankenship, E.E.; Van Acker, R.C.; Lindquist, J.L. Critical period for weed control: The concept and data analysis. Weed Sci. 2002, 50, 773–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Yadav, S.K.; Singh, S.P.; Bhan, V.M. Crop-weed competition in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J. Agric. Sci. 1984, 103, 373–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Agostinho, F.H.; Gravena, R.; Alves, P.L.C.A.; Salgado, T.P.; Mattos, E.D. The effect of cultivar on critical periods of weed control in peanuts. Peanut Sci. 2006, 33, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Everman, W.J.; Burke, I.C.; Clewis, S.B.; Thomas, W.E.; Wilcut, J.W. Critical period of grass versus broadleaf weed interference in peanut. Weed Technol. 2008, 22, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Anwar, M.P.; Juraimi, A.S.; Samedani, B.; Puteh, A.; Man, A. Critical period of weed control in aerobic rice. Sci. World J. 2012, 2012, 603043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Ponce, V.M.; Pandey, R.P.; Ercan, S. Characterization of drought across the climate spectrum. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2000, 5, 222–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Page, A.I.; Miller, R.H.; Keeny, D.R. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part II: Chemical and Microbiological Methods, 2nd ed.; American Society of Agronomy: Madison, WI, USA, 1982; pp. 225–246. [Google Scholar]
- Soil Survey Staff USDA. Soil Taxonomy. A Basic System of Soil Classification for Making Sand Interpreting Soil Surveys. Handbook 436, 2nd ed; Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Atlas, R.M. Handbook of Media for Environmental Microbiology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1995; p. 562. [Google Scholar]
- Vincent, J.M. A Manual for the Practical Study of the Root Nodule Bacteria; IBP HandBook, No. 15; Blackwell Publishers: Oxford, UK, 1970; p. 215. [Google Scholar]
- Mondal, M.; Skalicky, M.; Garai, S.; Hossain, A.; Sarkar, S.; Banerjee, H.; Kundu, R.; Brestic, M.; Barutcular, C.; Erman, M.; et al. Nitrogen in combination with rhizobium inoculation and soil mulch in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Production system: Part, I. effects on productivity, soil moisture, and nutrient dynamics. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Baskaran, R.; Karunakaran, V.; Kamaraj, A. Effect of growing degree days on yield attributes and yield of groundnut. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2020, 39, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Moll, R.H.; Kamprath, E.J.; Jackson, W.A. Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency to nitrogen utilization. Agron. J. 1982, 74, 562–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, 18th ed.; The Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons: Singapore, 1984; p. 680. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, M.R.; Swanton, C.J.; Anderson, G.W. The critical period of weed control in grain corn (Zea mays). Weed Sci. 1992, 40, 441–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mekdad, A.A.A.; Rady, M.M. Response of Beta vulgaris L. to nitrogen and micronutrients in dry environment. Plant. Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 23–29. [Google Scholar]
- Rady, M.M.; Kuşvuran, A.; Alharby, H.F.; Alahrani, Y.; Kuşvuran, S. Pretreatment with proline or an organic bio-stimulant induces salt tolerance in wheat plants by improving antioxidant redox state and enzymatic activities and reducing the oxidative stress. J. Plant. Growth Regul. 2019, 38, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Al-Elwany, O.A.A.I.; Mohamed, G.F.; Abdurrahman, H.A.; Rady, M.M.; Latef, A.A.A. Exogenous glutathione-mediated tolerance to deficit irrigation in salt-affected Capsicum frutescence (L.) plants is connected with higher antioxidant content and ionic homeostasis. Not. Bot. Horti. Agrobot. (Cluj-Napoca) 2020, 48, 1957–1979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- ElSayed, A.I.; Boulila, M.; Rafudeen, M.S.; Mohamed, A.H.; Sengupta, S.; Rady, M.M.; Omar, A.A. Melatonin regulatory mechanisms and phylogenetic analyses of melatonin biosynthesis related genes extracted from peanut under salinity stress. Plants 2020, 9, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Seleiman, M.F.; Semida, W.M.; Rady, M.M.; Mohamed, G.F.; Hemida, K.A.; Alhammad, B.A.; Hassan, M.M.; Shami, A. Sequential application of antioxidants rectifies ion imbalance and strengthens antioxidant systems in salt-stressed cucumber. Plants 2020, 9, 1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Taha, R.S.; Seleiman, M.F.; Alotaibi, M.; Alhammad, B.A.; Rady, M.M.; Mahdi, A.H.A. Exogenous potassium treatments elevate salt tolerance and performances of glycine max L. by boosting antioxidant defense system under actual saline field conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Azzam, C.R.; Al-Taweel, S.K.; Abdel-Aziz, R.M.; Rabea, K.M.; Abou-Sreea, A.I.B.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F. Salinity effects on gene expression, morphological, and physio-biochemical responses of stevia rebaudiana bertoni in vitro. Plants 2021, 10, 820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Mekdad, A.A.A.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F.; Hassan, F.A.S. Early sowing combined with adequate potassium and sulfur fertilization: Promoting Beta vulgaris (L.) yield, yield quality, and K- and S-use efficiency in a dry saline environment. Agronomy 2021, 11, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mekdad, A.A.A.; Shaaban, A.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F.; Hassan, F.A.S. Integrated application of K and Zn as an avenue to promote sugar beet yield, industrial sugar quality, and K-use efficiency in a salty and semi-arid agro-ecosystem. Agronomy 2021, 11, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rady, M.M.; Boriek, S.H.K.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Seif El-Yazal, M.A.; Ali, E.F.; Hassan, F.A.S.; Abdelkhalik, A. Exogenous gibberellic acid or dilute bee honey boosts drought stress tolerance in Vicia faba by rebalancing osmoprotectants, antioxidants, nutrients, and phytohormones. Plants 2021, 10, 748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Alharby, F.H.; Alzahrani, H.S.; Hakeem, K.; Alsamadany, H.; Desoky, E.-S.M.; Rady, M.M. Silymarin-enriched biostimulant foliar application minimizes the toxicity of cadmium in maize by suppressing oxidative stress and elevating antioxidant gene expression. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Semida, W.M.; Abdelkhalik, A.; Mohamed, G.F.; Abd El-Mageed, T.A.; Abd El-Mageed, S.A.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F. Foliar application of zinc oxide nanoparticles promotes drought stress tolerance in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Plants 2021, 10, 421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Desoky, E.S.; Mansour, E.; Ali, M.M.A.; Yasin, M.A.T.; Abdul-Hamid, M.I.E.; Rady, M.M.; Ali, E.F. Exogenously used 24-epibrassinolide promotes drought tolerance in maize hybrids by improving plant and water productivity in an arid environment. Plants 2021, 10, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Rehman, H.; Alharby, H.F.; Bamagoos, A.A.; Abdelhamid, M.T.; Rady, M.M. Sequenced application of glutathione as an antioxidant with organic biostimulant improves physiological and metabolic adaptation to salinity in wheat. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 158, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
- Song, X.; Zhou, G.; Ma, B.-L.; Wu, W.; Ahmad, I.; Zhu, G.; Yan, W.; Jiao, X. Nitrogen application improved photosynthetic productivity, chlorophyll fluorescence, yield and yield components of two oat genotypes under saline conditions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sikder, R.K.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H.; Gui, H.; Dong, Q.; Jin, D.; Song, M. Nitrogen enhances salt tolerance by modulating the antioxidant defense system and osmoregulation substance content in Gossypium hirsutum. Plants 2020, 9, 450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Swanton, C.J.; O’Sullivan, J.; Robinson, D.E. The critical weed-free period in carrot. Weed Sci. 2010, 58, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Willis, J.B.; Murray, D.S.; Murdock, S.W. Validation of weed competitive indices for predicting peanut yield losses in Oklahoma. Weed Technol. 2006, 20, 688–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Grichar, W.J.; Jordan, D.L.; Prostko, E.P. Weed control and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to formulations of imazapic. Crop. Protect. 2012, 36, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Sun, T.; Zhang, Z.; Ning, T.; Mi, Q.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Z. Colored polyethylene film mulches on weed control, soil conditions and peanut yield. Plant. Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Singh, M.; Bhullar, M.S.; Chauhan, B.S. The critical period for weed control in dry-seeded rice. Crop. Protect. 2014, 66, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
- Mekonnen, G.; Woldesenbet, M.; Yegezu, E. Determination of critical period of weed-crop competition in rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Bench Maji and Kaffa zone, South Western Ethiopia. J. Plant. Sci. 2017, 5, 90–98. [Google Scholar]
- Clewis, S.B.; Everman, W.J.; Jordan, D.L.; Wilcut, J.W. Weed management in North Carolina peanuts (Arachis hypogaea) with S-metolachlor, diclosulam, flumioxazin, and sulfentrazone systems. Weed Technol. 2007, 21, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
), increasing dry total annual weeds free period (
), the polynomial equation expresses data for relative yield. The dots and the lines point to relative peanut yield and fitted models, respectively. AYL = accepted yield loss, RPY = relative peanut yield.
), increasing dry total annual weeds free period (
), the polynomial equation expresses data for relative yield. The dots and the lines point to relative peanut yield and fitted models, respectively. AYL = accepted yield loss, RPY = relative peanut yield.

| Property | Unit | Values |
|---|---|---|
| Particle size analysis | ||
| Sand | % | 77.4 |
| Silt | 11.2 | |
| Clay | 11.4 | |
| Soil texture | --- | Sandy loam |
| Soil physical and chemical analysis | ||
| Dry bulk density | g cm−3 | 1.67 ± 0.02 |
| Hydraulic conductivity | cm3 h−1 | 1.96 ± 0.03 |
| Field capacity | % | 22.4 ± 0.16 |
| Wilting point | 12.3 ± 0.04 | |
| pH * | 7.98 ± 0.06 | |
| ECe ** | dS m−1 | 8.99 ± 0.11 |
| CaCO3 | % | 7.98 ± 0.07 |
| Organic matter | 0.92 ± 0.02 | |
| Available nutrients | ||
| N | mg kg−1 soil | 218.4 ± 4.7 |
| P | 23.6 ± 0.23 | |
| K | 119.6 ± 0.92 | |
| Zn | 10.6 ± 0.11 | |
| Mn | 13.0 ± 0.68 | |
| Fe | 15.8 ± 0.04 | |
| B | 3.36 ± 0.05 | |
| No | Type of Weeds | Family | Scientific Name | Common Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Annual narrow-leaved weed | Poaceae | Echinochloa colonum | Jungle rice |
| 2 | Poaceae | Digitaria sanguinalis | Large crabgrass | |
| 1 | Annual broad-leaved weed | Asteraceae | Xanthium brasilicum | Common cocklebur |
| 2 | Portulacaceae | Portulaca oleraceae | common purslane | |
| 3 | Malvaceae | Hibiscus trionum | Venice mallow |
| Thermal Units | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Month | 2018 Season | Month | 2019 Season |
| 1–15 April 2018 | 221.40 | 1–15 April 2019 | 189.0 |
| 15–30 April 2018 | 464.50 | 15–30 April 2019 | 408.5 |
| 1–15 May 2018 | 748.15 | 1–15 May 2019 | 667.25 |
| 1–31 June 2018 | 1104.19 | 1–31 June 2019 | 1059.65 |
| 1–15 June 2018 | 1431.54 | 1–15 June 2019 | 1385.15 |
| 15–30 June 2018 | 1785.75 | 15–30 June 2019 | 1758.05 |
| 1–15 July 2018 | 2069.44 | 1–15 July 2019 | 2043.05 |
| 15–31 July 2018 | 2515.39 | 15–31 July 2019 | 2495.45 |
| 1–15 August 2018 | 2817.19 | 1–15 August 2019 | 2801.85 |
| 15–31 August 2018 | 3238.89 | 15–31 August 2019 | 3230.02 |
| 1–15 September 2018 | 3460.49 | 1–15 September 2019 | 3452.7 |
| Treatment | Dry Narrow-Leaved Weeds | Dry Broad-Leaved Weeds | Dry Total Annual Weeds | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g m−2) | ||||||
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Nitrogen (N) | ||||||
| N1 | 146.7c | 163.2c | 430.4c | 433.2c | 577.1c | 596.4c |
| N2 | 163.2b | 178.0b | 516.6b | 573.0b | 679.8b | 751.0b |
| N3 | 192.1a | 217.1a | 617.3a | 655.1a | 809.3a | 872.1a |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| Weed (W) | ||||||
| W1 | 334.8b | 375.7b | 1121.5b | 1228.1b | 1456.3b | 1603.9b |
| W2 | 274.7c | 300.4c | 894.2c | 892.3d | 1168.9c | 1192.7d |
| W3 | 225.6d | 261.3d | 716.7d | 772.5e | 942.2d | 1033.8e |
| W4 | 135.9f | 155.1f | 368.5e | 395.9f | 504.4e | 551.0f |
| W5 | 54.4h | 48.85h | 127.6g | 129.8h | 182.0g | 178.7h |
| W6 | 14.4i | 5.32i | 34.35h | 36.52i | 48.70h | 41.84i |
| W7 | 14.2i | 11.41i | 38.10h | 39.57i | 52.28h | 50.97i |
| W8 | 29.7i | 30.18hi | 66.94gh | 66.63hi | 96.59h | 96.81i |
| W9 | 99.2g | 117.6g | 113.6g | 117.9h | 212.8g | 235.5h |
| W10 | 178.1e | 206.1e | 229.7f | 245.9g | 407.8f | 452.1g |
| W11 | 266.0c | 296.5c | 952.4c | 1003.9c | 1218.4c | 1300.4c |
| W12 | 380.9a | 424.6a | 1593.6a | 1715.9a | 1974.5a | 2140.5a |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| N × W interaction | ||||||
| p-value N×W | 0.119 ns | 0.301 ns | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| CV% | 12.6 | 18.9 | 13.6 | 14.1 | 11.1 | 11.5 |
| Treatment | Number of Pods plant−1 | Weight of Pods (g plant−1) | Number of Seeds plant−1 | Weight of Seeds (g plant−1) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Nitrogen (N) | ||||||||
| N1 | 15.8c | 16.7c | 21.9c | 22.3c | 28.5c | 31.0c | 18.4c | 19.1c |
| N2 | 18.1b | 18.9b | 24.9b | 25.8b | 32.6b | 35.5b | 21.0b | 22.5b |
| N3 | 21.0a | 21.7a | 29.6a | 30.1a | 37.8a | 40.2a | 25.6a | 27.1a |
| p-value | <0.001** | <0.001** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| Weed (W) | ||||||||
| W1 | 8.56h | 8.89h | 13.89g | 14.01g | 15.40i | 15.80h | 10.69g | 11.09g |
| W2 | 11.67g | 12.33g | 17.68f | 17.15f | 21.58g | 21.60g | 14.41f | 16.30f |
| W3 | 16.11e | 16.78e | 23.34d | 22.77e | 29.00e | 30.34e | 19.92d | 20.67d |
| W4 | 22.44c | 23.22c | 30.16c | 31.09c | 40.40c | 44.22c | 26.06c | 27.08c |
| W5 | 28.44ab | 29.67b | 38.06ab | 39.75ab | 51.20ab | 56.61ab | 33.60ab | 35.49b |
| W6 | 29.56a | 31.56a | 39.20a | 41.30a | 53.20a | 59.40a | 34.57a | 37.61a |
| W7 | 27.56b | 28.44b | 36.96b | 38.26b | 49.60b | 54.28b | 32.30b | 33.80b |
| W8 | 22.56c | 23.44c | 30.36c | 31.95c | 40.60c | 44.97c | 25.81c | 27.40c |
| W9 | 19.67d | 20.44d | 24.18d | 24.68d | 35.40d | 37.39d | 20.45d | 21.13d |
| W10 | 14.56f | 15.00f | 21.04e | 21.57e | 26.20f | 27.42f | 17.38e | 18.37e |
| W11 | 10.44g | 11.44g | 16.56f | 16.71f | 18.86h | 20.06g | 13.81f | 14.63f |
| W12 | 7.78h | 8.11h | 14.04g | 13.95g | 14.00i | 14.9h | 10.60g | 11.05g |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| N × W interaction | ||||||||
| p-value N×W | <0.001 ** | 0.045 * | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | 0.002 * | 0.002 ** | 0.002 ** |
| CV% | 7.3 | 9.8 | 6.7 | 8.8 | 7.2 | 9.0 | 8.2 | 8.9 |
| Treatment | Weight of 100 Pods | Weight of 100 Seeds | N Use Efficiency (kg Seeds kg−1 N) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g) | ||||||
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Nitrogen (N) | ||||||
| N1 | 111.1c | 110.2c | 38.4c | 37.7c | 29.5a | 30.7a |
| N2 | 123.6b | 123.7b | 46.3b | 47.0b | 18.9b | 19.6b |
| N3 | 134.7a | 136.5a | 54.4a | 55.7a | 15.3c | 15.6c |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| Weed (W) | ||||||
| W1 | 66.30f | 64.52h | 15.32g | 15.67i | 11.19ef | 12.07ef |
| W2 | 80.97e | 85.18g | 26.08e | 25.36g | 13.49e | 14.38e |
| W3 | 120.0d | 119.3e | 38.60d | 39.42e | 18.06d | 18.82d |
| W4 | 151.0b | 151.4c | 61.11b | 62.14c | 26.87b | 27.95b |
| W5 | 170.5a | 173.0ab | 78.28a | 78.75b | 31.45a | 32.09a |
| W6 | 174.3a | 177.7a | 80.71a | 83.23a | 32.42a | 33.67a |
| W7 | 169.1a | 170.5b | 78.52a | 78.19c | 30.69a | 31.45a |
| W8 | 149.2b | 149.2c | 62.97b | 64.13c | 28.03b | 28.49b |
| W9 | 137.3c | 137.3d | 48.35c | 49.52d | 21.55c | 21.89c |
| W10 | 112.0d | 112.0f | 29.35e | 29.01f | 16.66d | 17.27d |
| W11 | 83.8e | 79.18g | 21.42f | 20.52h | 13.45e | 14.38e |
| W12 | 63.36f | 62.21h | 15.53g | 15.68i | 10.68f | 11.03f |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| N × W interaction | ||||||
| p-value N × W | 0.135 ns | 0.114 ns | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| CV% | 9.6 | 5.8 | 7.8 | 8.1 | 12.5 | 11.8 |
| Treatment | Seeds Oil Content | Seeds Protein Content | Pods Yield | Seeds Yield | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (%) | (t ha−1) | |||||||
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Nitrogen (N) | ||||||||
| N1 | 48.8a | 49.9a | 23.5c | 23.5c | 2.04c | 2.08c | 1.40c | 1.46c |
| N2 | 48.5b | 49.0b | 24.6b | 24.6b | 2.37b | 2.37b | 1.80b | 1.86b |
| N3 | 48.4b | 48.4c | 25.8a | 25.9a | 3.00a | 3.08a | 2.18a | 2.23a |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| Weed (W) | ||||||||
| W1 | 48.66bcde | 49.44b | 24.18g | 24.22g | 1.11f | 1.18gh | 0.95g | 1.03ef |
| W2 | 48.71bc | 48.85c | 24.26fg | 24.33fg | 1.33f | 1.36fg | 1.16f | 1.21e |
| W3 | 48.43ef | 48.97c | 24.63cd | 24.68cd | 1.77e | 1.80e | 1.47e | 1.53d |
| W4 | 48.43cdef | 48.98c | 24.78cd | 24.81bc | 2.85c | 2.89c | 2.23c | 2.32b |
| W5 | 48.79b | 49.27bc | 24.94ab | 24.99ab | 4.34a | 4.33a | 2.67a | 2.71a |
| W6 | 49.25a | 49.99a | 25.00a | 25.08a | 4.48a | 4.55a | 2.75a | 2.85a |
| W7 | 48.71bcd | 49.19bc | 24.93ab | 24.97ab | 4.35a | 4.35a | 2.61a | 2.68a |
| W8 | 48.51cdef | 48.95c | 24.78bc | 24.82bc | 3.30b | 3.36b | 2.41b | 2.45b |
| W9 | 48.46cdef | 48.93c | 24.66cd | 24.69cd | 2.14d | 2.18d | 1.82d | 1.84c |
| W10 | 48.42def | 48.90c | 24.54de | 24.57de | 1.59e | 1.63ef | 1.40e | 1.45d |
| W11 | 48.38f | 48.87c | 24.42ef | 24.49ef | 1.32f | 1.44fg | 1.12f | 1.20e |
| W12 | 48.36f | 48.86c | 24.33fg | 24.38fg | 1.07f | 1.07h | 0.93g | 0.94f |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| N × W interaction | ||||||||
| p-value N×W | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | 0.732 ns | 0.644 ns | 0.001 ** | 0.007 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| CV% | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 10.4 | 11.1 | 10.0 | 8.8 |
| Treatment | Straw Yield | Oil Yield | Protein Yield | Shelling (%) | Seed Harvest Index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (t ha−1) | ||||||||||
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | |
| Nitrogen (N) | ||||||||||
| N1 | 4.16c | 4.21c | 0.69c | 0.73c | 0.33c | 0.34c | 74.80a | 76.94a | 0.24a | 0.25a |
| N2 | 5.37b | 5.45b | 0.87b | 0.91b | 0.44b | 0.46b | 81.32a | 83.80a | 0.25a | 0.25a |
| N3 | 6.71a | 6.73a | 1.05a | 1.08a | 0.56a | 0.58a | 78.32a | 77.84a | 0.24a | 0.24a |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | 0.343 ns | 0.266 ns | 0.565 ns | 0.439 ns |
| Weed (W) | ||||||||||
| W1 | 2.44h | 2.43h | 0.46gh | 0.51fg | 0.23g | 0.25ef | 85.43a | 87.76a | 0.27a | 0.29a |
| W2 | 3.14g | 3.08g | 0.58f | 0.60f | 0.28f | 0.30e | 86.44a | 88.92a | 0.26ab | 0.28ab |
| W3 | 4.72e | 4.81e | 0.71e | 0.75e | 0.36e | 0.38d | 85.05a | 87.54a | 0.23c | 0.24cde |
| W4 | 6.62c | 6.72c | 1.08c | 1.14c | 0.55c | 0.58b | 80.32ab | 82.66a | 0.24bc | 0.25bcd |
| W5 | 8.53a | 8.64a | 1.30a | 1.33ab | 0.67a | 0.68a | 61.35c | 62.56c | 0.21d | 0.21e |
| W6 | 8.79a | 8.90a | 1.35a | 1.42a | 0.69a | 0.72a | 61.18c | 62.64c | 0.21d | 0.21e |
| W7 | 8.45a | 8.52a | 1.27a | 1.32b | 0.66a | 0.67a | 59.78c | 61.36c | 0.20d | 0.21e |
| W8 | 7.28b | 7.37b | 1.17b | 1.20c | 0.60b | 0.61b | 73.43b | 73.53b | 0.23cd | 0.23de |
| W9 | 6.12d | 6.18d | 0.88d | 0.90d | 0.45d | 0.46c | 84.93a | 84.71a | 0.22cd | 0.22de |
| W10 | 3.74f | 3.79f | 0.68e | 0.71e | 0.35e | 0.36d | 88.13a | 88.86a | 0.27a | 0.27abc |
| W11 | 2.84g | 2.91g | 0.54fg | 0.59f | 0.28f | 0.30e | 85.71a | 85.61a | 0.27a | 0.28ab |
| W12 | 2.28h | 2.25h | 0.45h | 0.46g | 0.23g | 0.23f | 86.02a | 88.15a | 0.27a | 0.28a |
| p-value | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** |
| N × W interaction | ||||||||||
| p-value N×W | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | 0.002 ** | 0.004 ** | <0.001 ** | <0.001 ** | 0.785 ns | 0.992 ns | 0.015 * | 0.662 ns |
| CV% | 6.8 | 8.4 | 10.2 | 9.0 | 9.9 | 8.9 | 9.9 | 11.3 | 9.9 | 13.2 |
| Character | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | 2018 | 2019 | ||
| 1 | Weight of pods (g plant−1) | 1 | 1 | 0.994 ** | 0.977 ** | 0.139 ns | 0.064 ns | 0.954 ** | 0.953 ** | 0.943 ** | 0.944 ** | −0.725 ** | −0.729 ** | 0.944 ** | 0.948 ** |
| 2 | Weight of seeds (g plant−1) | 1 | 1 | 0.148 ns | 0.063 ns | 0.950 ** | 0.945 ** | 0.940 ** | 0.938 ** | −0.723 ** | −0.711 ** | 0.941 ** | 0.941 ** | ||
| 3 | Seeds oil content | 1 | 1 | 0.189 * | 0.018 ns | 0.083 ns | 0.141 ns | −0.255 ** | −0.225 * | 0.107 ns | 0.101 ns | ||||
| 4 | Pods yield (t ha−1) | 1 | 1 | 0.950 ** | 0.946 ** | −0.710 ** | −0.701 ** | 0.953 ** | 0.951 ** | ||||||
| 5 | Seeds yield (t ha−1) | 1 | 1 | −0.707 ** | −0.703 ** | 0.999 ** | 0.999 ** | ||||||||
| 6 | Dry total annual weeds (g m−2) | 1 | 1 | −0.712 ** | −0.716 ** | ||||||||||
| 7 | Oil yield (t ha−1) | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Season | r | R2 | SEE | Seg. | Fitted Equation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 0.999 | 0.998 | 0.015 | *** | Oil yield = −0.982 + 0.484 seeds yield + 0.020 seeds oil content |
| 2019 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.008 | *** | Oil yield = −0.841 + 0.482 seeds yield + 0.017 seeds oil content + 0.001 weight of seed plant−1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Mekdad, A.A.A.; El-Enin, M.M.A.; Rady, M.M.; Hassan, F.A.S.; Ali, E.F.; Shaaban, A. Impact of Level of Nitrogen Fertilization and Critical Period for Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy 2021, 11, 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050909
Mekdad AAA, El-Enin MMA, Rady MM, Hassan FAS, Ali EF, Shaaban A. Impact of Level of Nitrogen Fertilization and Critical Period for Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy. 2021; 11(5):909. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050909
Chicago/Turabian StyleMekdad, Ali A. A., Moamen M. Abou El-Enin, Mostafa M. Rady, Fahmy A. S. Hassan, Esmat F. Ali, and Ahmed Shaaban. 2021. "Impact of Level of Nitrogen Fertilization and Critical Period for Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.)" Agronomy 11, no. 5: 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050909
APA StyleMekdad, A. A. A., El-Enin, M. M. A., Rady, M. M., Hassan, F. A. S., Ali, E. F., & Shaaban, A. (2021). Impact of Level of Nitrogen Fertilization and Critical Period for Weed Control in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Agronomy, 11(5), 909. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11050909

