This article was downloaded by: [University of Bath]On: 06 October 2014, At: 04:19Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science andPlant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Yield Quality Parameters and ChemicalComposition of Peanut as Affected byPotassium and Gypsum Applicationsunder Foliar Spraying with BoronAyman M. Helmya & Mohamed Fawzy Ramadanbc

a Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, ZagazigUniversity, Zagazig, Egyptb Agricultural Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture,Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egyptc Deanship of Scientific Research, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah,Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaAccepted author version posted online: 23 Jun 2014.Publishedonline: 11 Sep 2014.

To cite this article: Ayman M. Helmy & Mohamed Fawzy Ramadan (2014) Yield Quality Parametersand Chemical Composition of Peanut as Affected by Potassium and Gypsum Applications under FoliarSpraying with Boron, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 45:18, 2397-2412, DOI:10.1080/00103624.2014.929700

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2014.929700

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 45:2397–2412, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0010-3624 print / 1532-2416 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00103624.2014.929700

Yield Quality Parameters and ChemicalComposition of Peanut as Affected by Potassiumand Gypsum Applications under Foliar Spraying

with Boron

AYMAN M. HELMY1 AND MOHAMED FAWZY RAMADAN2,3

1Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig,Egypt2Agricultural Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Agriculture, ZagazigUniversity, Zagazig, Egypt3Deanship of Scientific Research, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Kingdomof Saudi Arabia

A field experiment was carried out at El-Khattara region (Sharkia Governorate, Egypt)during the 2009 season to study the effect of potassium (K) fertilization, gypsum addi-tion rates, and foliar spraying with boron (B) and combinations of them on growth,yield, yield components, oil quality, and uptake of some macro- and micronutrients bypeanut (Arachis hypogaea L. cv. Giza 6) grown on a sandy soil. Biological yield (pod+ hay) as well as hay and seed yields were increased significantly as a result of K andgypsum application, but there was no significant increase under foliar spraying with B.The greatest values of 7788, 6585, and 954 kg fed−1 for biological, hay, and seed yieldscorresponded to 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 without foliar spraying withB. For hay, the greatest value of N uptake was obtained with 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 1.0 tongypsum fed−1, whereas the greatest values for P and K uptake (70.1 and 131 kg fed−1)were obtained when 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 was applied under spray-ing with B. For seeds, the greatest value of K uptake was obtained when 20.8 kg K fed−1

+ 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1 was applied, whereas for N and P uptake the greatest values(60.8 and 15.2 kg fed−1) were obtained when 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1

were applied under spraying with B. The oil yield of peanut seeds using the Soxheltextraction method was found to be in the range of 23.1 to 35.2%. The greatest B uptakein hay was obtained without spraying with B, whereas in seeds it was obtained underspraying with B. In both of them was obtained upon application of 20.8 kg K fed−1 +0.5 ton gypsum fed−1. Apparent K recovery (AKR) and K-use efficiency (KUE) weremarkedly decreased with increasing K addition rates.

Keywords Boron, foliar spray, gypsum, K fertilization, peanuts, sandy soil

Introduction

Peanut is an important oil and protein crop, which contains about 40–50% oil, 25–30%protein 20% carbohydrates, and 5% ash, and it makes a substantial contribution to human

Received 12 July 2013; accepted 9 March 2014.Address correspondence to Mohamed Fawzy Ramadan, Agricultural Biochemistry Department,

Faculty of Agriculture, Zagazig University, Zagazig 44519, Egypt. E-mail: hassanienmohamed@yahoo.com

2397

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2398 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

nutrition (Fageria, Baligar, and Jones 1997). In Egypt, peanut was successfully cultivatedin the sandy soils. Production of oil crops in Egypt is insufficient for local consumption.Therefore, it is of great importance to improve peanut production.

Concerning potassium (K) fertilizer, Dahdouh (1999) showed that application of Kfertilizer up to 48 kg potassium oxide (K2O) fed−1 increased pod yield, shelling percentage,and seed oil percentage significantly. El-Far and Ramadan (2000) observed that applicationof 36 kg K2O fed−1 significantly increased pod weight, shelling percentage, and pod yieldfed−1. Darwish et al. (2002) noticed that adding 48 kg K2O fed−1 significantly increasedseed and oil yields fed−1. Moreover, under sandy soil conditions, peanuts may need K andmicronutrient fertilizers to improve pod production and quality (Ali and Mowafy 2003).

Concerning gypsum, Samira et al. (2000) indicated that adding 500 kg gypsum fed−1

significantly increased weight of pods plant, shelling percentage, and pod yield fed−1.Furthermore, Adhikari, Samanta, and Samui (2003) recorded a significant increase in oilyield ha−1 by increasing gypsum from 0 to 400 kg ha−1. Various researchers have shownthe importance of gypsum or calcium rate to yield of peanut (Jordan et al. 2000; Grichar,Besler, and Melouk 2004; Wiatrak et al. 2006; Roland and Christopher 2008).

Boron (B) plays a role in plant metabolism and in the synthesis of nucleic acid. Also, itis important for tissue development and facilitates sugar translocation (Gauch and Dugger1954). In this respect, Bhuiyan et al. (1997) mentioned that application of 1 kg B ha−1

increased groundnut nodulation and seed yield. Grewal, Graham, and Stangoulis (1998)found that oilseed rape shoot and root dry-matter production as well as chlorophyll contentof fresh leaf tissue were significantly influenced by B supply at early vegetative growthin a sand soil. Many investigators reported the importance of B application for improvingplant growth and yield attributes of peanuts (Brar, Singh, and Sekhon 1980; Deshpande,Paradkar, and Dubey 1986; Pal 1986; Revathy, Krishnasamy, and Chitdeshwari 1997;Sontakey et al. 1999). Darwish et al. (2002) used 1000 ppm boric acid and found thattreating peanut with 48 kg K2O fed−1 combined with spraying B gave the greatest valuesof seed yield and oil yield fed−1. Ali and Mowafy (2003) pointed out that foliar sprayingwith B slightly improved yield and its attributes as well as quality in two seasons. Rifaat,El-Basioni, and Hassan (2004) stated that B fertilization had a significant effect on theseed yield, pod yield, and seed oil content. Helmy and Shaban (2007) stated that the great-est nutrient content and uptake by peanuts were obtained when the plants were treated withK combined with foliar spraying with zinc (Zn) plus B.

Therefore, the present study was initiated to evaluate the yield parameters, K fertiliza-tion efficiency, oil quality, and nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), K, and B uptake by peanut asaffected by K fertilization and gypsum addition under foliar spraying with B.

Materials and Methods

This investigation was carried out at the Agricultural Research Station of the Faculty ofAgriculture, Zagazig University, at El-Khattara region, during 2009 to study the effect ofK and gypsum additions on yield parameters of peanut plants and some nutrients uptakewith and/or without foliar application of B. The soil of the experimental site is sandy intexture, with pH value of 8.02, organic-matter content of 7.6 g kg−1, calcium carbonate(CaCO3) content of 5.9 g kg−1, and electrical conductivity (EC) value 0.65 dS m−1. Theavailable N, P, K, and B contents were 23.3, 7.61, 25.8, and 0.31 mg kg−1, respectively, forthe upper 30 cm of soil depth.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2399

The experiment included three factors as follows:

1. Potassium fertilizer rates (K): (a) without (0 K), (b) 20.8 kg K fed−1, and (c) 41.5 kgK fed−1

2. Gypsum addition rates (G): (a) without (0 G), (b) 0.5 ton fed−1, and (c) 1.0 ton fed−1

3. Foliar spraying with B: (a) with and (b) without

Phosphorus (P) fertilizer was added to all plots before sowing at a rate of 13.1 kg Pfed−1 as superphosphate (6.8% P). Nitrogen (N) fertilizer was added to all plots at a rate of40 kg N fed−1 in the form of ammonium sulfate (20.6% N) in two equal splits, immediatelyafter thinning (20 days from sowing) and 10 days later. Potassium sulfate (40% K) wasapplied as soil application at rates of 0 20.8 and 41.5 kg K fed−1 in two equal splits 30 and45 days after sowing. Gypsum [calcium sulfate dehydrate (CaSO4·2H2O)] was applied atthe beginning of flowering stage at rates of 0, 0.5, and 1.0 ton fed−1. In addition, 21, 35,and 60 days after sowing, plants were sprayed with B in the form of boric acid (17% B) atthe concentration of 0.5%.

A split–split plot design with three replicates was followed. Potassium fertilizer levelswere assigned to the main plots whereas gypsum levels and B were allotted in the first andsecond subplots, respectively. The area of plot was 12 m2 (4 × 3 m) and included 8 rows50 cm apart, two plants hill−1, and 20 cm between hills. Giza 6 cultivar seeds were sownon May 20. Seeds of peanut were inoculated with an effective strain of (Brady rhizobiumarachis A.R.C. 601) just before sowing. The normal cultural practices for peanut fieldswere followed. At maturity, the middle three rows of each plot were harvested and airdried, except for forage yield (ton fed−1), which was recorded after harvest directly todetermine the following characteristics:

1. Pods yield (kg fed−1)2. Seed yield (kg fed−1)3. Oil yield (kg fed−1)4. Protein yield (kg fed−1)5. Shelling percentage (%) = (seed yield/pod yield) × 100

Laboratory Determinations

Sufficient amount of dried seed and hay samples were milled to a fine powder andthen digested with a mixture of concentrated sulfuric and perchloric acids for nutrientdetermination. Oilseed content was determined using the Soxhlet method (AOAC 1990).The analysis of plants and soil were determined using the methods described by Black(1965) and Chapman and Pratt (1961). Available soil manganese (Mn), Zn, and cop-per (Cu) were extracted using diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (DTPA) (Lindsay andNorvell 1978) and determined using inductively coupled plasma (ICP) spectrometer model400 (Soltanpour 1985). Available B was extracted by hot water and determined by theazomethine-H colorimetric method (Gaines and Mitchell 1979). Protein percentage wascalculated by multiplying the N percentage by the converting factor 6.25 (Hymowitz,Collins, and Walker 1972).

The obtained data were subjected to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) as describedby Snedecor and Cochran (1967). Duncan’s multiple-range test (Duncan 1955) was usedto compare means.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2400 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

Results and Discussion

Hay, Pod, and Seed Yields

According to the data in Table 1, K fertilization, gypsum, and foliar spraying with Bresulted in increase of peanut hay, pod, and seed yields. The increases were significantfor K and gypsum, whereas it was insignificant for foliar spraying with B. Such beneficialeffects of K fertilizer could be attributed to its essential role in growth and establishmentof peanut in addition to its role as an activator in the enzymatic reaction during plantgrowth. Baier and Baierova (1999) found that the increases in yield through K applicationmay be due to (i) the induction of nutrient absorption by root system, (ii) the increase inthe plant internal translocation capacity, and hence (iii) the transport of nutrients essen-tial to metabolism in active areas. These results are in agreement with those reported byDahdouh (1999), Darwish et al. (2002), and Ahmed and Zeidan (2001), who reported thatK application increased pod yield by about 40%.

Gypsum application results in highly significant increase for pod, seed, hay, and bio-logical yields. However, no significant differences could be detected between differentgypsum rates of 0.5 and 1.0 ton fed−1. The application of gypsum increased hay, pod, andseed yields by around 29.5% and 20.8% for hay yield, 10.1% and 22.4% for pod yield,and 27.9% and 24.7% for seed yields due to addition of 0.5 and 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1,respectively. This increase may be due to calcium. It is an essential part of plant cell wallstructure, provides normal transport and retention of other elements, as well as strengthin the plant (Azza et al. 2011). These results are in agreement with those obtained byGhaudhry (2001), who concluded that gypsum application to rice and wheat crops at 75%gypsum requirement enhanced the paddy and grain yields by 18 and 17%, respectively,under saline–sodic conditions. In this regard, Farook and Khan (2010) pointed out thatthe application of gypsum increased the grain yield of rice plant by 35% over the con-trol for silty loam soil and 58% for silty clay soil. Tan et al. (2000) found that gypsumhas a positive effect on increasing rice yield by 9 to 10%. These results are in agreementwith those of Ali et al. (2004), Jena et al. (2006), Azza et al. (2011), and Jena and Kabi(2012).

Regarding the influence of foliar spray with B on hay, pod, seed, and biological yields(Table 1), the results indicate insignificant increases compared to the control.

With respect to the statistical analysis, data show that the K rate (20.8 kg K fed−1)was superior to the other rates (0 and 41.5 kg K fed−1) in increasing pod and seed yields,whereas for hay and biological yields there were no significant differences between thetwo rates (20.8 and 41.5 kg K fed−1).

Regarding the influence of gypsum, the results revealed highly significant differ-ences. Among the gypsum rates there were no differences between addition rates (0.5 and1.0 ton fed−1) in increasing hay, pod, seed and biological yields. In addition, B gave aninsignificant effect in increasing peanut yields.

The greatest hay, seed, and pod yields (6585, 954, and 1484 kg fed−1) were obtainedwhen the plants were treated with 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 for hay andseed yields without foliar spraying with B. Rifaat, El-Basioni, and Hassan (2004) statedthat zinc and B fertilization had a significant effect on the seed, pod yields, and seed weightplant−1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Tabl

e1

Influ

ence

ofgy

psum

and

pota

ssiu

map

plic

atio

nun

der

folia

rsp

rayi

ngw

ithbo

ron

onpe

anut

yiel

d

Hay

yiel

dPo

dyi

eld

Seed

yiel

dB

iolo

gica

lyie

ld

Kad

ditio

nra

te(k

gK

fed−

1)

Gyp

sum

addi

tion

rate

(ton

fed−

1)

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

nW

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithB

oron

Mea

nW

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

00

4041

3794

3918

828

872

850

501

592

547

4869

4666

4768

0.5

4797

4961

4879

896

923

910

613

714

664

5693

5884

5789

1.0

4951

4163

4557

1239

1018

1129

701

753

727

6190

5181

5686

Mea

n45

9643

0644

51b

988

938

963

b60

568

664

6c

5584

5244

5414

b20

.80

4559

3444

4002

1152

995

1074

775

668

722

5711

4439

5075

0.5

6585

5142

5864

1203

1297

1250

954

902

928

7788

6439

7114

1.0

5175

5087

5131

1239

1484

1362

899

877

846

6414

6571

6493

Mea

n54

4045

5849

99ab

1198

1259

1229

a87

678

281

6a

6638

5816

6227

a41

.50

4200

5219

4710

1098

885

992

677

602

640

5298

6104

5702

0.5

5525

5712

5619

1147

958

1053

865

835

850

6672

6670

6671

1.0

5432

5700

5566

1164

996

1080

812

798

805

6596

6696

6646

Mea

n50

5255

4452

98a

1136

946

1041

b78

574

576

5b

6189

6490

6340

a

Mea

nof

boro

n50

2948

0311

0710

4875

574

961

3758

50

Mea

nof

gyps

umG

042

10b

972

b63

6b

5182

bG

154

54a

1071

ab81

4a

6525

aG

250

85a

1190

a79

3a

6275

a

LSD

at0.

05K

:∗G

:∗∗

K:∗

∗G

:∗∗

K:∗

∗G

:∗∗

K:∗

∗G

:∗∗

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:∗

∗G

×B

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

G×

B:n

sK

×G

×B

:ns

K×

G×

B:n

sK

×G

×B

:ns

Not

es.K

,pot

assi

um;G

,gyp

sum

;B,b

oron

;ns,

nots

igni

fican

t.T

heva

lues

follo

wed

bydi

ffer

entl

ette

rsar

esi

gnifi

cant

lydi

ffer

enta

tP≤

0.05

.∗ ,

∗∗Si

gnifi

cant

atP

<0.

05an

d0.

001,

resp

ectiv

ely.

2401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2402 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

Pod Shelling Percentage

Shelling percentage as influenced by K, gypsum applications, and foliar spraying with Bis illustrated in Figure 1. Meanwhile, application of K and increasing its rates resulted inincrease in shelling percentage. This may be due to the vital role of K in increasing seedweight on account of pod hulls because of its important role in flowering and pod setting(Ahmed and Zeidan 2001). Similar results were obtained by Ali and Mowafy (2003) andAli et al. (2004).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2

K1 K2 K3

With Boron 67.9 77.4 74 67.1 69.5 59.1 68 87.2 80.1

Without Boron 68.4 56.6 67.3 79.3 72.5 61.7 75.4 69.8

Shelling (%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

‡G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2

K1 K2 K3

With Boron 12.7 12.1 14.5 15 14 13.3 9.86 12.5 11.9

Without Boron 10.3 10.8 11.3 13.6 12.2 14 12.8 13 12.3

Yield efficiency

60.5

Figure 1. Shelling and yield efficiency (%) of peanut as affected by K and gypsum rates under foliarspray with B. G0, 0 gypsum; G1, 0.5 ton fed−1; G2, 1.0 ton fed−1. K1, 0 potassium; K2, 20.8 kg Kfed−1; K3, 41.5 kg K fed−1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2403

Likely, gypsum application results followed the same patterns of seed yield, whereasthe application rate of gypsum (0.5 ton fed−1) achieved the greatest shelling percentage.However, the greatest shelling percentage was obtained due to the treatment of 41.5 kgK fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 under foliar spraying with B. Ali and Mowafy (2003)pointed out that adding K fertilizer significantly increased shelling percentage. Also, foliarspraying with Zn or B and their combinations tended to improve shelling percentage ofpeanut. Ali et al. (2004) stated that the high application rate of gypsum (1000 kg fed−1)gave the greatest shelling percentage of peanut. These results are in agreement with thosereported by Adhikari, Samanta, and Samui (2003).

Yield Efficiency

Yield efficiency of plants treated with 20.8 kg K fed−1 with foliar spraying with B was thegreatest (15%), as illustrated in Figure 1.

Seed Quality

Seed Oil Content. The oilseed industry is one of the most rapidly growing agriculturalenterprises worldwide, in particular, in semi-tropical and tropical agricultural regions,providing highly nutritious human food and animal feed. Several conventional and non-conventional oilseed crops are grown including palm, olive, cotton, sunflower, canola,sesame, safflower, and soybean. Peanut seeds yield nondrying edible oil (up to 50%) ofgood composition, like olive oil. Peanut seed oil is used for cooking and margarine pro-duction, as well as in surfactant cleansing and cosmetics agents. It is comprised of about80% unsaturated fatty acids with oleic acid (C18:1), an average of 50%, and linoleic acid(C18:2) around 30% of the total fatty acids (Cecil et al. 2013).

In the present study, peanut seed kernels were found to give an oil yield in the range32.1–35.2% (Table 2). The oil content from peanut seed kernels determined in this studywas found to be greater than the value (20.8%) reported in literature from Nigeria andlower than the value (44%) reported from Turkey (Cecil et al. 2013). The differences inthe oil yield among different regions might be attributed to variations of the varieties,farming environment, ripening stage, harvesting time of the seeds, and extraction method.The oil content of peanut seeds in the present analysis was found to be greater than thoseof conventional oilseed crops, cotton (15.0–24.0%) and soybean (17.0–21.0%), whereas itwas within the range of those of mustard (24.0– 40.0%) and safflower (25.0–40.0%) seeds(Pritchard 1991).

Data also reveal that all treatments had nearly equal oil content. The greatest oilamount (35.2%) was obtained as affected by the treatment of 41.5 kg K fed−1 + 1.0 tongypsum fed−1 under spraying with B. As for oil yield, data show that the greatest oil yield(323 kg fed−1) was observed when the plants treated with 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 tongypsum fed−1 without B. The increases of oil yield and oil percentage were around 117%and 52%, respectively, compared to the control treatment (0 K and 0 gypsum).

Seed Protein Content. The results in Table 2 indicate that K fertilization, gypsum, andspraying with B as well as their interactions resulted in significant increase of proteinpercentage. Similar results were reported by Venkatesh et al. (2002), who found that proteinand protein yield of peanut seeds were significantly increased by applying of gypsum.Nasr-Alla, Osman Fatma, and Soliman (1998) reported a highly significant effect of Kon protein content of peanut seeds. However, there was a significant difference within the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Tabl

e2

Eff

ects

ofpo

tass

ium

and

gyps

umap

plic

atio

nsan

dfo

liar

spra

ying

with

boro

non

pean

utqu

ality

para

met

ers

Prot

ein

(%)

Prot

ein

yiel

d(k

gfe

d−1)

Oil

(%)

Oil

yiel

d(k

gfe

d−1)

Kad

ditio

nra

te(k

gK

fed−1

)

Gyp

sum

addi

tion

rate

(ton

fed−1

)W

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

nW

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

n

00

22.2

25.9

24.0

113

155

134

23.1

23.2

23.2

116

137

127

0.5

41.4

33.3

37.3

252

238

245

33.0

33.1

33.1

202

236

219

1.0

35.5

29.6

32.5

249

223

236

33.5

33.5

33.5

235

252

244

Mea

n33

.029

.631

.3c

205

205

205

c29

.829

.929

.918

420

819

620

.80

29.6

34.0

31.8

229

227

228

33.5

33.6

33.6

260

224

242

0.5

35.5

42.1

38.8

339

380

359

33.9

33.9

33.9

323

306

315

1.0

38.5

36.2

37.3

346

317

332

34.1

34.2

34.2

307

300

304

Mea

n34

.537

.536

.0a

305

308

306

a33

.833

.933

.929

727

728

741

.50

30.3

34.8

32.5

206

209

207

34.5

34.6

34.6

234

208

221

0.5

32.5

33.3

32.9

269

276

273

34.8

34.9

34.9

301

291

296

1.0

32.5

37.7

35.1

264

301

283

35.1

35.2

35.2

285

281

283

Mea

n31

.835

.233

.5b

246

262

254

b34

.834

.934

.927

326

026

7

Mea

nof

boro

n33

.1b

34.1

a25

225

833

.833

.925

625

425

5

Mea

nof

gyps

umG

029

.5c

190

b30

.519

7G

136

.4a

292

a34

.028

0G

233

.5b

284

a34

.327

7L

SDat

0.05

K:

G:∗∗

K:∗∗

G:∗∗

B:

K×

G:∗∗

B:

K×

G:n

sK

×B

:G

×B

:∗∗K

×B

:G

×B

:ns

K×

G×

B:∗∗

K×

G×

B:n

s

Not

es.K

,pot

assi

um;G

,gyp

sum

;B,b

oron

;ns,

nots

igni

fican

t.

2404

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2405

different K rates (0 20.8 and 41.5 K fed−1). The increases followed the order of 20.8 kgK fed−1 > 41.5 kg K fed−1 > 0 gypsum. Furthermore, the significant differences amongthe gypsum rates stated the superiority of 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 rate compared with theother levels on protein percentage. The K application rates increased protein contents byaround 15.0% and 7.0% for 20.8 kg K fed−1 and 41.5 kg K fed−1 rates, respectively.In addition, gypsum addition rates increased protein contents by around 23.4 and 13.6%for 0.5 ton fed−1 and 1.0 ton fed−1 rates, respectively. These results are in agreement withthose obtained by Helmy and Shaban (2007), who reported that K application to peanutsignificantly increased protein percentage and protein yield.

Protein Yield

Data pertaining to the effect of studied factors on protein yield “kg fed−1” are presented inTable 2. With respect to K fertilization rates, the results revealed highly significant differ-ences among the addition rates, wherein 20.8 kg K fed−1 achieved the greatest proteinyield. Concerning the effect of gypsum addition rates, data showed that no significantdifferences could be detected within treatments using 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 and 1.0 tongypsum fed−1 on protein yield. Data indicate insignificant differences between treatments.The greatest protein percentage and protein yield (42.1% and 380 kg fed−1) were obtainedwhen the plants were treated with 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 under foliarspraying with B. From the results, it can be concluded that the greatest peanut yields wereobtained when the plants were treated with (20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1)without spraying with B, whereas for pod yield as well as the seed quality it was followedthe same treatment but with B spraying.

Macronutrient Uptake

Nitrogen Uptake. From the data of Table 3, N uptake was increased significantly due tothe application of K fertilization at different rates for seeds, whereas hay was unaffected.Ahmed and Zeidan (2001) pointed out that K treatments increased significantly seed N%of peanuts by 48.5% and 47.3% compared to the control in two successive seasons. Theysuggested that the application of K improved the N% and helped in the translocation of Nto the seeds. These results are in agreement with those obtained by Bastawisy and Sorial(1998) and Dahdouh (1999). Data also revealed an ascending increase in N uptake in theorder of 20.8 kg K fed−1 > 41.5 kg K fed−1 > 0 kg K fed−1. This was also true forhay and seeds. As for gypsum, the results indicate that gypsum application significantlyincreased N uptake for hay and seeds. These increases followed the same pattern observedfor hay and seed yields; hence no significant differences among the gypsum addition ratesof 0.5 and 1.0 ton fed−1 were detected. Concerning the influence of foliar spraying withB on N uptake by hay and seeds, no increase could be detected. The greatest N uptake ofseeds and hay was obtained with the treatments of 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1

and 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1 when spraying with B, respectively.

Phosphorus Uptake. From results of Table 3, it is clear that the treatment of 20.8 kg Kfed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 jointly with foliar spraying with B gave the greatest values ofP uptake for hay and seeds. As for the K application, it was clear that for hay no significantincreases of P uptake was detected, whereas it was a significant increases of P uptakeby seeds. Also, there were significant differences among the K application rates. Likely,gypsum addition rates revealed a highly significant increase for P uptake by hay and seeds.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Tabl

e3

N,P

,and

Kup

take

(kg/

fed)

ofpe

anut

plan

tsas

affe

cted

bygy

psum

and

pota

ssiu

map

plic

atio

nra

tes

unde

rfo

liar

spra

ying

with

boro

nN

upta

keP

upta

keK

upta

ke

Hay

Seed

sH

aySe

eds

Hay

Seed

s

Kad

ditio

nra

te(k

gK

fed−1

)

‡Gyp

sum

addi

tion

rate

(ton

fed−1

)W

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

nW

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

nW

ithou

tbo

ron

With

boro

nM

ean

With

out

boro

nW

ithbo

ron

Mea

n

00

102

147

124

18.1

24.9

21.5

17.0

25.3

21.1

6.87

8.66

7.77

58.8

57.0

57.9

7.11

6.94

7.03

0.5

153

177

165

40.4

38.0

39.2

56.9

61.9

59.4

9.49

11.9

10.7

77.0

110

93.3

7.81

8.83

8.32

1.0

167

129

148

39.8

35.6

37.7

52.3

48.8

50.6

10.4

12.8

11.6

94.1

79.5

86.8

8.13

8.58

8.36

Mea

n14

115

114

632

.832

.732

.8c

42.1

45.3

43.7

8.92

11.1

10.0

c76

.682

.279

.4b

7.68

8.12

7.90

b20

.80

130

108

119

36.6

36.3

36.5

37.3

20.9

29.1

11.9

9.65

10.8

74.0

57.3

65.6

9.66

9.98

9.82

0.5

177

157

167

54.2

60.8

57.5

60.2

70.1

65.1

14.9

15.2

15.1

153

131

142

11.4

12.5

12.0

1.0

183

212

197

55.3

50.8

53.1

45.9

50.0

48.0

13.4

13.9

13.7

96.9

92.3

94.6

10.6

13.0

11.8

Mea

n16

315

916

148

.749

.349

.0a

47.8

47.0

47.4

13.4

12.9

13.2

a10

893

.510

1a

10.6

11.8

11.2

a41

.50

124

161

143

33.0

33.4

33.2

16.3

39.6

27.9

8.56

8.82

9.19

66.1

102

84.1

9.45

9.65

9.55

0.5

154

196

175

43.0

44.2

43.6

59.2

54.1

56.6

14.3

14.2

14.2

115

115

115

11.1

12.1

11.6

1.0

180

177

179

42.2

48.1

45.2

45.3

41.8

43.5

12.1

13.6

12.9

121

120

121

10.2

12.7

11.5

Mea

n15

317

816

639

.441

.940

.7b

40.3

45.2

42.7

11.7

12.2

12.0

b10

111

210

7a

10.3

11.5

10.9

aM

ean

ofbo

ron

152

163

40.3

41.3

43.4

b45

.8a

11.3

12.1

95.2

95.9

9.53

b10

.2a

Mea

nof

gyps

umG

0§1

29b

30.4

b26

.0c

9.25

c69

.2c

8.80

bG

116

9a

46.8

a60

.4a

13.3

a11

7a

10.6

aG

217

5a

45.3

a47

.4b

12.7

b10

1b

10.6

aL

SDat

0.05

K:n

sG

:∗∗K

:∗∗G

:∗∗K

:ns

G:∗∗

K:∗∗

G:∗∗

K:∗∗

G:∗∗

K:∗∗

G:∗∗

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

B:n

sK

×G

:ns

B:∗

K×

G:n

sB

:ns

K×

G:∗

B:n

sK

×G

:∗∗B

:∗∗K

×G

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:∗∗

GxB

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

×B

:ns

K×

B:n

sG

xB:n

sK

×G

×B

:ns

K×

G×

B:n

sK

×G

×B

:∗K

×G

×B

:ns

K×

G×

B:n

sK

×G

×B

:ns

Not

es.K

,pot

assi

um;G

,gyp

sum

;B,b

oron

;ns,

nots

igni

fican

t.T

heva

lues

follo

wed

bydi

ffer

entl

ette

rsar

esi

gnifi

cant

lydi

ffer

enta

tP≤

0.05

.

2406

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2407

The differences within gypsum addition rates followed the trend of K fertilization. Dataalso reveal an ascending increase in P uptake in the order of 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 >

1.0 ton gypsum fed−1 > 0 ton gypsum fed−1 for hay and for seeds. The application ofgypsum increased P uptake by around 93.8 and 82.3% for hay as well as 43.8 and 37.3%for seeds due to addition of 0.5 and 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1, respectively. Regarding thefoliar spraying with B, the increase of P uptake was significant by hay but not for seeds.The greatest uptake of P in the hay and seeds (70.1 and 15.2 kg fed−1) was observed when20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 was applied and combined with B.

Potassium Uptake. As reported in Table 3, K fertilization and gypsum addition rates sig-nificantly increased K uptake by plants. This trend was true for both hay and seeds. Therewere no differences for K uptake by hay due to K fertilization; however, it was significantfor seeds. As for the foliar spraying with B, the increase of K uptake was significant bythe seeds but not significant for the hay. The greatest values of K uptake (153 kg fed−1)was observed in the hay when plants treated with 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1

without foliar with B, whereas the greatest uptake in the seeds (13.0 kg fed−1) was recordeddue to application of 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1 with foliar spraying with B.

Apparent Potassium Recovery (AKR)

Apparent potassium recovery (AKR) parameter indicates the magnitude of fertilizer Krecovered by plant. As shown in Figure 2, the AKR was greater at K addition rate of20.8 kg K fed−1 when added as 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 1.0 ton gypsum fed−1 with B. Sahaet al. (2009) stated that agronomic efficiency (kilogram grain yield increase per kilogramof applied K), physiological efficiency of K (kilogram grain yield increase per kilogramabsorbed K from the applied K by the crop), and partial factor productivity [total grainyield (kg) kg−1 applied K] decreased with increasing K level regardless of K sources. Thisshows that application of the low rate caused an enhancement of plant growth and rates thatcaused roots to explore more soil volume and absorb more K from the soil. The apparentrecovery of fertilizer K at a low K rate (20.8 kg K fed−1) was high, giving 21.3% recovery.The smaller K recovery with the 41.5 kg K fed−1 in comparison with the 20.8 kg K fed−1

is a manifestation of a considerable expansion of the root system in the rhizosphere andmore K from the indigenous soil must have been released for plant uptake. These resultsare similar to that obtained by Alberto et al. (2013).

Potassium-Use Efficiency (KUE)

The values of potassium-use efficiency (KUE) are illustrated in Figure 2 and followed thesame trend of AKR. Therefore, it markedly decreased with increasing K addition rates.The greatest KUE (16.4 kg kg−1) was observed with the treatment using 20.8 kg K fed−1

+ 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 without B.

Micronutrients Uptake

Data in Table 4 postulate that uptake of B was increased significantly by application of Kfertilization and gypsum at different rates combined with B spraying for seeds, whereas forhay the effect of B spraying was insignificant as compared to the control treatment. It wasreported that when leaves of peanuts were sprayed by B, the movement of B from leaves

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2408 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

0

5

10

15

20

25

G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2

K1 K2

With Boron 12.3 17.3 11.9 5.6 7.93 4.99

Without Boron 14.6 17.6 21.3 6.53 7.88 9.93

Apparent K recovery (%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

‡G0 G1 G2 G0 G1 G2

K1 K2

With Boron 13.2 16.4 9.52 4.24 6.07 2.67

Without Boron 3.65 9.03 5.96 0.241 2.92 1.08

K use efficiency (kg kg–1

)

Figure 2. AKR (%) and KUE (kg kg−1) of peanut as affected by K and gypsum rates under foliarspray with B. G0, 0 gypsum; G1, 0.5 ton fed−1; G2, 1.0 ton fed−1. K1, 20.8 kg K fed−1; K2,41.5 kgK fed−1.

to pods was more probably due to the role of K in increasing absorption and transloca-tion of nutrients to the pods (Osterbuis 1994). There are significant differences among theK application rates, whereas the opposite of that was true among the gypsum rates. Thegreatest value of B uptake (224 g fed−1) in the hay was recorded in the treatment includedthe addition of 20.8 kg K fed−1 + 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 without B, whereas in the seedsthe greatest B uptake (1.69 g fed−1) was achieved with the same treatment when combinedwith B.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2409

Table 4Boron uptake (g fed−1) of peanuts plants as affected by gypsum and potassium

application rates under foliar spraying with boron

Boron uptake (g fed−1)

Hay Seeds

K addition rate(kg K fed−1)

Gypsumaddition rate(ton fed−1)

Withoutboron

Withboron Mean

Withoutboron

Withboron Mean

0 0 77.8 90.1 84.0 0.87 0.79 0.830.5 162 176 169 1.05 0.94 0.991.0 181 152 167 1.37 1.23 1.30

Mean 140 139 140 b 1.10 0.99 1.04 c20.8 0 104 92.5 98.3 1.02 1.11 1.07

0.5 224 159 191 1.22 1.69 1.451.0 175 171 173 1.26 1.66 1.46

Mean 168 141 155 b 1.17 1.49 1.33 a41.5 0 124 145 135 0.86 0.99 0.93

0.5 210 204 207 1.30 1.26 1.281.0 202 215 208 1.07 1.52 1.30

Mean 179 188 184 a 1.08 1.26 1.17 b

Mean of boron 162 156 1.12 b 1.25 a

Mean of gypsum G0 106 b 0.94 bG1 189 a 1.24 aG2 183 a 1.35 a

LSD at 0.05 K: ∗∗ G: ∗∗ K: ∗∗ G: ∗∗B: ns K × G: ns B: ∗ K × G: ∗∗K × B: ns G × B: ns K × B: ∗∗ G × B: nsK × G × B: ns K × G × B: ns

Notes. K, potassium; G, gypsum; B, boron; ns, not significant. The values followed by differentletters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05.

∗,∗∗Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.001, respectively.

Conclusion

From the aforementioned results it can be concluded that the treatment of 20.8 kg K fed−1

+ 0.5 ton gypsum fed−1 combined with foliar spraying with B proved to be the most effec-tive one and superior to the other treatments for peanut grown in sand soil. This resultedin a savings of about 21% of K fertilizer, which could reduce environmental pollution.Reducing chemical fertilizer plays a great role in protecting the environment from chem-ical pollution. The significant effect of gypsum reflects the important role, which helps inincreasing the availability of plant nutrients and nutrient uptake.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2410 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

References

Adhikari, J., D. Samanta, and R. C. Samui. 2003. Effect of gypsum on growth and yield ofconfectionery groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) varieties in summer season. Indian Journal ofAgricultural Science 73 (2): 108–109.

Ahmed, M. K., and M. S. Zeidan. 2001. Yield and quality of two peanut cultivars as affected bymethods of potassium application. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science 16 (7): 114–126.

Alberto, C. C. B., J. B. Rassini, F. C. Mendonça, and R. P. Ferreira. 2013. Alfalfa dry matteryield, nutritional status, and economic analysis of potassium fertilizer doses and frequency.International Journal of Agronomy and Applied Science 4 (3): 389–398.

Ali, A. A. G., and S. A. E. Mowafy. 2003. Effect of different levels of potassium and phosphorusfertilizers with the foliar application of zinc and boron on peanut in sandy soils. Zagazig Journalof Agricultural Research 30 (20): 335–358.

Ali, A. A. G., O. A. Zeiton, H. G. M. Geweifel, and M. A. Taha. 2004. Some factors affectingproductivity of peanut (Archis hypogaea L.) in newly cultivated sandy soil. Zagazig Journal ofAgricultural Research 31 (6): 2565–2595.

AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. Arlington, Va.: Association of Official AnalyticalChemists.

Azza, A. M. M., H. M. Mahgoub, and G. N. Abd El-Aziz. 2011. Response of Schefflera arboricolaL. to gypsum and sulphur application irrigated with different levels of saline water. AustralianJournal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5:121–129.

Baier, J., and V. Baierova. 1999. Influence of foliar fertilizers on nutrient uptake through root.Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Foliar Fertilization, 123–128.

Bastawisy, M. H., and M. Sorial. 1998. The physiological role of spraying some mineral nutrients onthe growth, flowering, abscission, endogenous auxin, and yield of faba bean. Zagazig Journalof Agricultural Research 25 (2): 271–284.

Bhuiyan, M. A. H., M. H. H. Rahman, D. Khanam, and M. R. Khatun. 1997. Effect of micronutrients(Mo and B) and rhizobial inoculum on nodulation and yield of groundnut. Legume Research 20(3/4): 155–159.

Black, C. A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis, I and II. Madison, Wisc.: American Society ofAgronomy.

Brar, M. S., B. Singh, and G. S. Sekhon. 1980. Leaf analysis for monitoring the fertilizerrequirements of peanut. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 11 (4): 335–346.

Cecil, F., F. Anwar, S. A. Shahid, and N. Ahmad. 2013. Comparison of physico-chemical propertiesbetween two varieties of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seed oil from Pakistan. Asian Journal ofChemistry 25:3271–3274.

Chapman, H. D., and P. F. Pratt 1961. Methods of analysis for soils, plants, and waters. Riverside:University of California.

Dahdouh S. M. M. 1999. Effect of K fertilization, sulphur, and spray of calcium chelate on peanut(Arachis hypogae L.) in a newly reclaimed soil. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research 26(2): 457–467.

Darwish, D. S., A. El-Garreib, M. A. El-Hawary, and O. A. Rafft. 2002. Effect of some macro-and micronutrients application on peanut production in a saline soil in El Fayum governorate.Egyptian Journal of Applied Science 17 (4): 17–32.

Deshpande, S. L., V. K. Paradkar, and S. K. Dubey. 1986. Effect of spacing and zinc application onyield of groundnut. Madras Agriculture Journal 73 (9): 521–523.

Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple ranges and multiple F test. Biometrics 2:1–42.El-Far, I. A., and B. R. Ramadan. 2000. Response of yield, yield components, and seed quality of

peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to plant density and PK fertilization in sandy calcareous soil.Proceedings of the 9th Conference of Agronomy, Minufiya University, Egypt, 1–2:453–466.

Fageria, N. K., V. C. Baligar, and C. A. Jones. 1997. Growth and mineral nutrition of field crops, 2nded. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Peanut as Affected by Potassium, Gypsum, and Boron 2411

Farook, A., and M. D. Khan. 2010. Response of mineral nutrient of rice to sulfidic material as sulphurfertilizer. Natural Science Journal 8:31–40.

Gaines, T. P., and G. A. Mitchell. 1979. Boron determination in plant tissues by the Azomethic-Hmethod. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 10:1099–1108.

Gauch, H. G., and W. M. Dugger. 1954. The physiological action of boron in higher plants: Areview and interpretation (Bulletin A-80). Ellicott City, MD: Maryland Agricultural ExperimentStation.

Ghaudhry, M. R. 2001. Gypsum efficiency in the amelioration of saline–sodic soils. InternationalJournal of Agricultural Biology 3:276–280.

Grewal, H. S., R. D. Graham, and J. Stangoulis. 1998. Zinc–boron interaction effects in oilseed rape.Journal of Plant Nutrition 21 (10): 2231–2243.

Grichar, W. J., B. A. Besler, and H. A. Melouk. 2004. Peanut (Arachis hypogaea) response toagricultural and power plant by product calcium. Peanut Science 31 (2): 95–101.

Helmy, A. M., and K. A. Shaban. 2007. Response of peanuts to K fertilization and foliar sprayingwith zinc and boron under sandy soil conditions. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research 34(4): 737–752.

Hymowitz, T. F., P. Collins, and W. M. Walker. 1972. Relationship between the content of oil, protein,and sugar in soybean seed. Agronomy Journal 64:613–616.

Jena, D., and S. Kabi. 2012. Effect of gromor sulphur, bentonite sulphur pastilles on yield and nutri-ent uptake by hybrid rice–potato–green gram cropping system in an Inceptisol. InternationalResearch Journal of Agricultural Science and Soil Science 2:179–187.

Jena, D., R. Sahoo, D. R. Sarangi, and M. V. Singh. 2006. Effect of different sources and levelsof sulphur on yield and nutrient uptake by groundnut–rice cropping system is an inceptisol ofOrissa. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science 54:126–129.

Jordan, D. L., C. W. Swann, J. F. Spears, R. L. Brandenburg, J. E. Bailey, and M. R. Tucker.2000. Comparison of Virginia and runner market–type peanut (Arachis hypogaea) grown inthe Virginia–Carolina production area. Peanut Science 27:71–77.

Lindsay, W. L., and W. A. Norvell. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for Zn, Mn, Fe, and Cu.Soil Science Society of America Journal 24 (2): 421–428.

Nasr-Alla, A. E., A. A. Osman Fatma, and K. G. Soliman. 1998. Effects of increased phosphorus,potassium, or sulfur application in their different combinations on yield, yield components, andchemical composition of peanut in a newly reclaimed sand soil. Zagazig Journal of AgriculturalResearch 25 (3): 557–579.

Osterbuis, D. M. 1994. Potassium nutrition of cotton in the USA, with particular refrence to foliarfertilization. Proceedings of the World Cotton Research Conference I,Brisbane, Australia,February 14–17, ed. G. A. Constable and N. W. Forrester, 133–146. Melbourne, Australia:CSIRO.

Pal, P. K. 1986. Impact of rhizobial strains and micronutrients on grain yield of peanut (Arachishypogaea). Environmental Ecology 4 (4): 721–724.

Pritchard, J. L. R. 1991. Analysis and properties of oilseeds. In Analysis of oilseeds, fats, and fattyfoods, ed. J. B. Rossell and J. L. R. Pritchard, 80–98. New York: Elsevier Applied Science.

Revathy, M., R. Krishnasamy, and T. Chitdeshwari. 1997. Chelated micronutrients on the yield andnutrient uptake by groundnut. Madras Agricultural Journal 84 (11/12): 659–662.

Rifaat, M. G. M., S. M. El-Basioni, and H. M. Hassan. 2004. Zinc and boron for groundnutproduction grown on sandy soil. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research 31 (1): 139–164.

Roland, B. S., and B. L. Christopher. 2008. Pod yield and mineral concentration of four peanut cul-tivars following gypsum application with subsurface drip irrigation. Peanut Science 35:86–91.

Saha, P. K., M. A. M. Miah, A. T. M. S. Hossain, F. Rahman, and M. A. Saleque. 2009. Contributionof rice straw to potassium supply in rice–fallow–rice cropping pattern. Bangladesh Journal ofAgricultural Research 34 (4): 633–643.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4

2412 A. M. Helmy and M. F. Ramadan

Samira, M. A. H., A. M. El-Melegy, and M. A. Haikel. 2000. Effect of nitrogen frequency, gypsumapplication, plant density, and their interaction on growth and yield of peanut under drip irri-gation system in North Sinai. Journal of Agricultural Science, Mansoura University 25 (5):2427–2438.

Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical methods. Ames: Iowa State University Press.Soltanpour, N. 1985. Use of ammonium bicarbonate–DTPA soil test to evaluate elemental availabil-

ity and toxicity. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 16 (3): 323–338.Sontakey, P. Y., C. N. Chore, B. Nair, S. N. Potkile, R. D. Deotale, and B. Nair. 1999. Response to

sulphur and zinc as soil application in groundnut. Journal of Soils Crops 9 (2): 258–261.Tan, H., X. Rulin, Z. Liuqiang, and L. Jinping. 2000. Effect of various sulphur sources on yield

and soil sulphur balance in a rice–rice cropping pattern in Guangxi province. Better CropsInternational 14:24–25.

Venkatesh, M. S., B. Majumdar, B. Lal, and Kallashkumar. 2002. Relative performance of sulphursources on sulphur nutrition of groundnut (Archis hypogaea) in acid Alfisol of Meghalaya.Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 72 (4): 216–219.

Wiatrak, P. J., D. L. Wright, J. J. Marois, and D. Wilson. 2006. Influence of gypsum application onpeanut yield and quality. Crop Management 5 (1): doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0223-01-RS.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

ath]

at 0

4:19

06

Oct

ober

201

4