2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.flora.2011.05.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Peg viability and pod set in peanut: Response to impaired pegging and water deficit

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The FI calculated in current work underlined the high levels of flower abortion and low efficiency of pod set in peanut crops (FI ≤ 0.29), as documented in previous studies that used shading during the pegging and podding phases (Hang et al, 1984), high temperatures during flowering (Vara Prasad et al, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, water stress (Harris et al, 1988;Nageswara Rao et al, 1985;Pallas et al, 1979) and impaired pegging (Collino et al, 2001;Haro et al, 2008Haro et al, , 2010Haro et al, , 2011. Coffelt et al (1989) estimated the FI in 14 cultivars with contrasting growth habits using different computations methods, and one of them (described as REM2) matched our computation system (i.e., quotient between final pod number and total number of flowers).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The FI calculated in current work underlined the high levels of flower abortion and low efficiency of pod set in peanut crops (FI ≤ 0.29), as documented in previous studies that used shading during the pegging and podding phases (Hang et al, 1984), high temperatures during flowering (Vara Prasad et al, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, water stress (Harris et al, 1988;Nageswara Rao et al, 1985;Pallas et al, 1979) and impaired pegging (Collino et al, 2001;Haro et al, 2008Haro et al, , 2010Haro et al, , 2011. Coffelt et al (1989) estimated the FI in 14 cultivars with contrasting growth habits using different computations methods, and one of them (described as REM2) matched our computation system (i.e., quotient between final pod number and total number of flowers).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 78%
“…The drought mediated losses in the peanut production is due to several reasons. Peanut plants bear aerial flowers and, after pollination, the fertilized ovaries develop into gynophores or pegs (Haro, Mantese, & Otegui, ). The peg is a positively geotropic stalk‐like structure containing embryos in which basal cells of the fertilized ovary elongate (Jacobs, ).…”
Section: Peanut Responses To Abiotic Stressesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Drought mediated increase in top soil hardness can restrict or delay peg penetration into the soil and therefore restrict the pegging stage resulting in limited pod set and subsequent seed numbers (Haro, Dardanelli, Otegui, & Collino, , ). However, in contrast, if the drought affected pegs are re‐watered, viable pegs starts penetrating the soil again (Haro et al., ).…”
Section: Peanut Responses To Abiotic Stressesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The cultivated peanut is an allotetraploid (amphidiploid with 2n = 4x = 40) and is relatively drought-tolerant to a certain extent. However, water deficit stress in pod formation stage would seriously affect the yield and productivity of peanuts (Haro et al, 2011;Koolachart et al, 2013). Therefore, improving drought tolerance of peanuts is very important and more research is needed to explore and understand drought stress.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%