Yield components of peanut as affected by microbial fertilizers and growth stages

References

• Awal, M. A., and L. Aktar. 2015. Effect of row spacing on the growth and yield of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) stands. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 3 (1):7–11.
   Google Scholar
• Caliskan, S., M. E. Caliskan, and M. Arslan. 2008. Genotypic Differences for Reproductive Growth, Yield, and Yield Components in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. 32 (5):415–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z., Y. Li, Y. Peng, V. Mironov, J. Chen, H. Jin, and S. Zhang. 2022. Feasibility of sewage sludge and food waste aerobic co-composting: Physicochemical properties, microbial community structures, and contradiction between microbial metabolic activity and safety risks. The Science of the Total Environment 825:154047. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darakeh, S. A. S. S., W. Weisany, M. Diyanat, and R. Ebrahimi. 2021. Bio-organic fertilizers induce biochemical changes and affect seed oil fatty acids composition in black cumin (Nigella sativa Linn). Industrial Crops and Products 164:113383. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2021.113383.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayan, A., N. Sari, and F. Ozogul. 2018. The effects of different plant activators on protein, lipid and fatty acids in snack-seed pumpkin. International Letters of Natural Sciences 72:1–6. doi:10.18052/www.scipress.com/ILNS.72.1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan, J. Q., C. B. Chu, S. H. Wu, D. P. Zhou, and Z. F. Jiang. 2013. Effects of bio-fertilizers on soil microbes and fruit quality of peach. Acta Agric Shanghai 29 (1):51–4.
   Google Scholar
• FAO. 2022. Food and agriculture data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC. [2022/24/11]
   Google Scholar
• Gohari, A. A., and N. S. A. Niyaki. 2010. Effects of iron and nitrogen fertilizers on yield and yield components of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in. Astaneh Ashrafiyeh, Iran. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences 9 (3):256–62.
   Google Scholar
• Gul, V., and E. Ozturk. 2021. The effect of different microbial fertilizer doses on yield and yield components in coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.). Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus 20 (4):59–67. doi:10.24326/asphc.2021.4.5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, D., T. Yao, H. Li, M. Chen, Y. Gao, C. Li, J. Bai, and M. Su. 2022. Effect of reducing chemical fertilizer and substitution with microbial fertilizer on the growth of Elymus nutans. Acta Prataculturae Sinica 31 (4):53–61. doi:10.11686/cyxb2021036.
   Google Scholar
• Huang, B., J. Li, Q. Wang, M. Guo, D. Yan, W. Fang, Z. Ren, Q. Wang, C. Ouyang, Y. Li, et al. 2018. Effect of soil fumigants on degradation of abamectin and their combination synergistic effect to root-knot nematode. PLoS One 13 (6): E 0188245. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0188245.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kadmiri, I. M., N. E. Mernissi, S. E. Azaroual, M. E. M. Mekhzoum, A. E. K. Qaiss, and R. Bouhfid. 2021. Bioformulation of microbial fertilizer based on clay and alginate encapsulation. Current Microbiology 78 (1):86–94. doi:10.1007/s00284-020-02262-2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusvuran, A., and S. Kusvuran. 2019. Using of microbial fertilizer as biostimulant alleviates damage from drought stress in guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba (L.) Taub.) seedlings. International Letters of Natural Sciences 76:147–57. doi:10.56431/p-x0z5sx.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Y., X. Xu, H. Fu, M. Zhao, and W. Chen. 2020. Effects of microbial fertilizer on apple fruit quality. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 446 (3):032102. doi:10.1088/1755-1315/446/3/032102.
   Google Scholar
• Long, C., S. Guangzheng, Y. Tuo, C. Qiang, K. Wenjuan, and J. Yongmei. 2016. Effect of chemical fertilizer partly replaced by microbial fertilizer on maize growth and soil microorganism in arid area. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment 7:108–13.
   Google Scholar
• Luo, Y. L., G. Tian, D. M. Zhang, R. J. Hao, and C. H. Wang. 2015. Effects of biological bacterial manure on soil nutrient and nitrate-N accumulation in greenhouse. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 31 (13):224–8. doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb14120113.
   Google Scholar
• Oliveira, W. S., N. P. Stamford, E. V. N. Silva, T. S. Arnaud, C. G. Izquierdo, and T. Hernandez. 2021. Microbial fertilizer from PK rocks on lettuce nutrients and soil attributes in consecutive crops. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 56:e01371. doi:10.1590/s1678-3921.pab2021.v56.01371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.
   Google Scholar
• Şahin, C. B., M. Yilmaz, and N. İşler. 2022. Determination of oil quality and fatty acid compositions of some peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes grown in mediterranean region. Turkish Journal Of Field Crops 27 (1):142–8. doi:10.17557/tjfc.1095649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şahin, C. B., M. Yilmaz, R. Yildiz, and N. İşler. 2023. Comparison of quality and yield components of peanut market types using PCA. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Tarım Ve Doğa Dergisi 26 (3):610–8. doi:10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1031864.
   Google Scholar
• Shin, E. C., R. B. Pegg, R. D. Phillips, and R. R. Eitenmiller. 2010. Commercial Runner peanut cultivars in the USA: Fatty acid composition. European Journal of Lipid Science and Technology 112 (2):195–207. doi:10.1002/ejlt.200900141.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamford, N. P., F. Felix, W. Oliveira, E. Silva, S. Carolina, T. Arnaud, and A. D. Freitas. 2019. Interactive effectiveness of microbial fertilizer enriched in N on lettuce growth and on characteristics of an Ultisol of the rainforest region. Scientia Horticulturae 247:242–6. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.12.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stamford, N. P., E. V. N. da Silva, W. S. Oliveira, M. S. Martins, A. S. Moraes, J. A. Barros, and M. I. Freitas. 2020. Benefits of microbial fertilizer in interspecific interaction with textile sludges on cowpea in a Brazilian Ultisol and on wastes toxicity. Environmental Technology & Innovation 18:100756. doi:10.1016/j.eti.2020.100756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TUIK. 2022. Crop production statistics. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/. [2022/11/24]
   Google Scholar
• Ucar, O. 2021. Effects of microbial fertilizer and vermicompost applications on the yield and yield related parameters of broad bean (Vicia faba L.) under eastern mediterranean highland agroclimatic conditions. Legume Research 44 (7):838–41. doi:10.18805/LR-622.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan, X., J. Wang, X. Hu, B. Yu, B. Gao, Z. Li, J. Chen, M. Zhang, and X. Liu. 2021. Contrasting effects of microbial fertiliser and organic fertiliser on soil bacterial community in coal mine dump of Inner Mongolia. Chemistry and Ecology 37 (4):384–98. doi:10.1080/02757540.2021.1886283.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, W., T. Gong, J. Wang, G. Li, Y. Liu, J. Zhen, M. Ning, D. Yue, Z. Du, and G. Chen. 2020. Effects of compound microbial fertilizer on soil characteristics and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 20 (4):2740–8. doi:10.1007/s42729-020-00340-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, M., C. B. Sahin, D. Yildiz, G. Demir, and R. Yildiz. 2022. General situation of peanut (Arachis hypogaea) production in the World and in Turkey, major problems and solution suggestions. Mus Alparslan University Journal of Agriculture and Nature 2 (1):8–17. In Turkish)
   Google Scholar
• Yol, E., and B. Uzun. 2018. Influences of genotype and location interactions on oil, fatty acids and agronomical properties of groundnuts. Grasas y Aceites 69 (4):e276. doi:10.3989/gya.0109181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou, Y., C. Xiao, S. Yang, H. Yin, Z. Yang, and R. Chi. 2021. Life cycle assessment and life cycle cost analysis of compound microbial fertilizer production in China. Sustainable Production and Consumption 28:1622–34. doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar