Growth, Yield and Seed Nutritional Composition of Groundnut (<i>Arachis hypogaea</i> LINN) under Elevated Level of Soil Salinity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of salinity on growth, yield and nutritional composition of Arachis hypogaea L. (groundnut) to evaluate its tolerance level. Plants were irrigated with 0 (control), 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200 mM NaCl solution. Mortality 30% and 50% occurred only at 150 and 200 mM concentrations respectively. Salinity significantly reduced shoot length, collar diameter, leaf area, root length and relative growth rate (RGR). Number of leaves, branches, roots, primary branches and root nodules/plant declined with increasing NaCl concentration. Fresh and dry mass of plant parts were significantly lower under saline soil than in control, which culminated in reduced total biomass. Leaf total chlorophyll decreased significantly from 100 mM NaCl to higher concentrations. Plants grown in saline soil had slightly higher root: shoot ratio than in control. Yield parameters decreased with increasing salt concentration except number of seeds/pod. Number of pods/plant differed from control significantly except at 25 and 50 mM NaCl. Pods produced at 200 mM lacked seeds. Salinity reduced seed mineral content except phosphorus (P), while percentage sodium (Na) increased with increasing salinity. Cl - and Na + accumulated in the seeds of salt-treated plants, which resulted in elevated level of percentage ash. Percentage fibre was not affected while carbohydrate, protein and lipid were reduced by soil salinity but at a non-significant level. Arachis hypogaea can tolerate and produce reasonable yield up to 50 mM NaCl concentration, but not fit for soil above 150 mM NaCl.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".