Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37514213›Full record

ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Response of Diverse Peanut Cultivars to Nano and Conventional Calcium Forms under Alkaline Sandy Soil.

Mohamed E El-Temsah, Yasser M Abd-Elkrem, Yasser A El-Gabry, Mohamed A Abdelkader, Nahid A A Morsi, Noura M Taha, Shaimaa H Abd-Elrahman, Fadl A E Hashem, Mostafa G Shahin, Gomaa A Abd El-Samad and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Mohamed E El-TemsahAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.
Yasser M Abd-ElkremAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.
Yasser A El-GabryAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-5014-6778
Mohamed A AbdelkaderAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.
Nahid A A MorsiCell Research Department (CRD), Field Crops Research Institute (FCRI), Agricultural Research Center (ARC), Giza 12619, Egypt.
Noura M TahaHorticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-8760-8470
Shaimaa H Abd-ElrahmanSoil and Water Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-8211-417X
Fadl A E HashemCentral Laboratory for Agricultural Climate, Agricultural Research Center, Giza 12411, Egypt.
Mostafa G ShahinAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0001-7082-1507
Gomaa A Abd El-SamadAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.
Ridha BoudiarBiotechnology Research Center-C.R.Bt Constantine, UV 03, Nouvelle Ville Ali Mendjeli, P.O. Box E73, Constantine 25016, Algeria.ORCID 0000-0002-7094-7035
Cristina SilvarGrupo de Investigación en Bioloxía Evolutiva, CICA-Centro Interdisciplinar de Química e Bioloxía, Universidade da Coruña, 15071 A Coruña, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1782-8045
Salah El-HendawyDepartment of Plant Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-8104-3410
Elsayed MansourDepartment of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0003-2987-4441
Mohamed A Abd El-HadyAgronomy Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11241, Egypt.ORCID 0000-0002-0681-7367
Ain Shams University · EGAgricultural Research Center · EGCentral Laboratory for Agricultural Climate · EGKing Saud University · SAUniversidade da Coruña · ESZagazig University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calcium is one of the most limiting factors for the growth and reproduction of peanut, which ultimately affects pod and seed yields. A two-year field experiment was carried out to assess the impact of five calcium applications, including nano-calcium and conventional forms, on growth, leaf nutrient content, yield traits, and quality parameters of three diverse peanut cultivars (Ismailia-1, Giza-5, and Giza-6). The applied calcium applications were calcium sulfate, which is recommended for commercial peanut cultivation and commonly referred to as gypsum (coded as Ca-1), calcium nitrate (Ca-2), nano-calcium nitrate (Ca-3), 50% calcium nitrate + 50% nano-calcium (Ca-4), and 50% calcium sulfate + 50% nano-calcium (Ca-5). Calcium sulfate (gypsum, Ca-1) was soil-supplied during the seedbed preparation as recommended, while the other calcium applications (Ca-2, Ca-3, Ca-4, and Ca-5) were exogenously sprayed three times at 30, 45, and 60 days after sowing. The soil of the experimental site was alkaline, with a high pH of 8.6. The results revealed significant differences among cultivars, calcium applications, and their interactions. The soil-supplied gypsum Ca-1 displayed lower agronomic performance on all recorded growth, leaf nutrient content, yield traits, and quality parameters. On the other hand, the foliar-supplied calcium, particularly Ca-4 and Ca-5, displayed superior effects compared to the other simple calcium forms. Ca-4 and Ca-5 produced significantly higher seed yield (3.58 and 3.38 t/ha) than the simple recommended form (Ca-1, 2.34 t/ha). This could be due to the difficulty of calcium uptake from soil-supplied calcium under high soil pH compared to the exogenously sprayed nano-calcium form. Moreover, the superior performance of Ca-4 and Ca-5 could be caused by the mixture of fertilizers from the synergistic effect of calcium and nitrate or sulfate. Furthermore, the effect of nitrate was applied in nano form in the Ca4 and Ca-5 treatments, which contributed to improving nutrient uptake efficiency and plant growth compared to the other treatments. The peanut cultivar Giza-6 showed superiority for most measured traits over the other two cultivars. The interaction effect between the assessed cultivars and calcium applications was significant for various traits. The cultivar Giza-6 showed a significant advantage for most measured traits with the mixture of 50% calcium nitrate + 50% nano-calcium (Ca-4). Conclusively, the results pointed out the advantage of the exogenously sprayed nano-calcium form combined with calcium nitrate or calcium sulfate for promoting growth, leaf nutrient content, yield, and quality traits of peanut, particularly with high-yielding cultivars under sandy soil with high pH.

Indexed as

calcium fertilizerhigh pHnanoscale fertilizeroilpeanuts yieldpodprotein

Identifiers

PMID37514213
PMCPMC10384398
OpenAlexW4383723137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.