Effect of Row Spacing on the Growth and Yield of Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Stands
[1]
M. A. Awal, Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Crop Botany, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.
[2]
Lija Aktar, Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Crop Botany, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh.
An experiment was conducted at the Crop Botany Field Laboratory of Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, during the period extended from November 2010 to April 2011 to study the effect of row spacing on the growth and yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea). The experiment comprised five row spacings viz. 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35 cm which was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. Plant to plant distance in a row for all the row spacing treatment was maintained as 15 cm. Result showed that row spacing had significant effect on growth and yield contributing characters such as plant height, number of branches/plant, leaf area index, dry matter accumulation, pod/plant, 1000-seed weight, pod or seed yield, biological yield and harvest index. It is evident that crop stature increased due to the closing of row spacing from 35 to 15 cm but the number of branches/plant has been decreased. Crops grown with wider row produced larger number of pod/plant, heavier seed and higher harvest index. Wider row spacing (i.e. 35 cm) although facilitated to accumulate larger dry matter/plant, however greater accumulation of biomass per unit of land was occurred at 20 cm inter row distance. Crop grown with 20 cm row spacing produced the highest seed yield (2.01 t/ha) and pod yield (2.82 t/ha), and thereafter the yield decreased gradually with widening the row spacing.
Growth, Management, Peanut, Row Spacing, Yield
[1]
Brar, K.S., Kaul, J.N. and Kaur, N. (2004). Pod production of kernel verses pod planted groundnut genotypes in relation to water soaking and intra-row spacing. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ., 41 (2): 186-190.
[2]
Gupta, S.K. (1998). Effect of plant geometry of growth and yield of mustard. India J. Agron., 33 (2): 208-209.
[3]
Hossain, M.M, Islam, A.K.M.R., Karim, K.M.R., Islam, M.S. and Islam, N. (2005). Groundnut yields as influenced by sowing date, spacing and varieties. Int’l J. Sustainable Agric. Technol., 1 (6): 12-18.
[4]
Islam, M.S., Sarkar, M.A.R., Rahman, M.S., Musa, A.M. and Dhan, S.C. (1994). Effect of plant population density on transplant aus rice under tidally flooded conditions. Bangladesh J. Agric. Sci., 21 (2): 349-353.
[5]
Jahan, M.S. (1998). Allometry, Resource Allocation and Yield in Mungbean: Effect of Population Density and Planting Configuration. M.S. Thesis in Agronomy. IPSA, Gazipur. pp. 22-29.
[6]
Johnson, R.R., Green, D.E. and Jordan, C.W. (1982). What is the best soybean row width? Australian Perspective. J. Crops and Soils, 34: 10-13.
[7]
Jyothi, M.R., Kumari, C.R., Oblamma, U. and Lingram, B. (2004). Response of early rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to spacing, irrigation and plant population levels. J. Oilseed Res., 21 (1): 171-172.
[8]
Kaushik, M.K. and Chaubey, A.K. (2000). Response of rainy season bunch groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to row spacing and seed rate. India: Agric. Res. Inform. Centre, 20 (3): 407-410.
[9]
Krishnamurthy, N., Rudraradhya, M., Paramesh, R., et al. (1994). Effect of closer spacing and nitrogen dressing for higher biomass production in Hibiscus sabdariffa. J. Agric. Sci., p. 227.
[10]
Miah, M.N.H., Karim, M.A., Rahman, M.S. and Islam, M.S. (1990). Performance of Nigersail mutants under different row spacing, Bangladesh J. Train. Dev., 3 (2): 31-34.
[11]
Nijafi, H., Khodabandeh, N., Poustini, K., Zeinali, H. and Pouredavaei, H. (1997). The effects of planting patterns and dates of planting on yield and yield components of soybean. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 28 (2): 65-72.
[12]
Nimje, P.M. (1996). Effect of row spacing, mulching and weed control on weed growth and yield of soybean (Glycine max). Indian J. Agron., 41 (3): 427-432.
[13]
Patil, H.M., Kolekar, P.T. and Shete, B.T. (2007). Effect of layouts and spacing on yield quality of bold seeded summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Int’l J. Agric. Sci., 3 (2): 210-213.
[14]
Patra, A.K., Tripathy, S.K. and Samui, R.C. (1998). Effect of sowing date, irrigation and spacing on yield components and yield of summer groundnut. Ann. Agric. Res., 19 (4).
[15]
Patra, A.K., Tripathy, S.K. and Samui, R.C. (1999). Effect of sowing date, irrigation and spacing on nodulation, dry matter and yield of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Indain J. Agron., 44 (4): 800-804.
[16]
Rahman, M.M. and Miah, A.A. (1995). Yield determinants of a promising mungbean line under various planting densities. Pertanica J. Agric. Sci., 18 (2): 119-124.
[17]
Seiter, S., Altemose, C.E. and Davis, M.H. (2004). Forage soybean yield and quality responses to plant density and row distance. Agron. J., 96 (4): 966-970.
[18]
Siddique, K.H.M., Sedgley, R.H. and Marshall, C. (1984). Effect of plant density on growth and harvest index of branches in chickpea. Cicer aerietimum L. Field Crop Res. Abs., 28: 193-203.
[19]
Sumadi, S., Pasaribu, D. and Izumiyama, Y. (1989). Soybean growth and its relationship with variety and plant population. Agric. Res. Indonesia, 9 (1): 45-48.
[20]
Tavora, F.J.A.F., Henriques-Neto, D., Silva, F.P. and Melo, F.I.O. (2002). Peanut response to plant densities and planting pattern: light interception, growth analysis and yield. Revista- Ciencia-Agronomica, 33 (2): 5-12.
[21]
Wells, R. (1993). Dynamics of soybean growth in variable planting pattern. Agron. J., 85: 44-48.
[22]
Yilmaz, H.A. (1999). Effect of different plant densities of two groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes on yield, yield components, and oil and protein contents. Turkish J. Agric. For., 23 (3): 299-308.
