Arachis hypogaea L

International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 Available online at http:// www.ijappjournal.com ISSN 2051-1914 ©2013 VictorQuest Publications

Determination of Yield and Yield Components and Seed Quality of Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) at Different Harvest Times 1,2

Öner Canavar

1

, Mustafa Ali Kaynak

1- Adnan Menderes University, Faculty of Agriculture, Crop Science Department. Aydın – 09100 Turkey. 2- Currently Address: Humboldt University, Agriculture and Horticulture Faculty, Crop Science Department. Berlin – 14195 Germany. *Corresponding author: Öner Canavar Abstract The objective of this work was to investigate the effects of early or late harvest times on the changing yield and yield component and the seed quality of peanuts. It was determined that harvest time had statistically significant effects on plant height, primary branch number, primary branch length, per plant pod number, per plant yield, 100 seed weight, shelling percentages, pod yield, fresh and dry weight, harvest index, oil content, protein content, carbohydrate and ash ratio andoleic/linoleic acid ratio. The highest pod yield was determined by the third harvest times in both years, because of having a high podper plant yield, per plant pod number, 100 seed weight, shelling percentage and harvest index. The protein and oil ratios were increased by delaying the harvest time, whereas the carbohydrate ratio decreased. In particular, it was revealed that the oleic/linoleic acid ratio increased because of increasing seed size and the amount of oleic acid throughout the delay in the harvest. As a result of this study although fourth and fifth harvest times were observed in terms of the highest 100 seed weight, there were problems due to the harvest lost and the formation of substances that threaten human health such as aflatoxin in the delayed harvest times. Therefore, there is no point waiting to take a very high pod yield at late harvest times. It was suggested that earlier cultivars or earlier planting and harvest times should instead be used for pod yield and healthy crops. Key words: Peanut, Harvest time, yield, liquid chromatography, seed quality Introduction The peanut is a complex food source with high energy value, due to the relatively high protein, oil and fiber content. Peanuts also have chemical characteristics that parallel recent discoveries in nutrition which have been found to be beneficial to human health. Recently, resveratrol has received attention from the research community due to possible health benefits. According to the FAO statistical database for the year 2011, the world’s annual peanut production is around 38.6 million t from the 21.7 million ha of production -1 area. The pod yield of peanuts in Aydın province is about 3.65 t ha (TUIK, 2011), which is higher than the -1 -1 average yield in the world (1.72 t ha ) and Turkey (3.54 t ha ) (FAO, 2011). Önemli (2005) pointed out that the pod yield of peanuts is a very complex entity as a result of different physiological and morphological mutual interactions at consecutively different phenological stages during the vegetative and generative periods. The pod yield of peanuts consists of different proportional contributions of the effective factor in all growth stages from emergence to maturity (Önemli, 2005). Maturity has a significant effect on flavor potential in peanuts (Pattee et al., 1995; Sanders and Bett, 1995; McNeill and Sanders, 1996; McNeill and Sanders, 1998). McNeill and Sanders (1996) noted that peanuts from mature pods have greater flavor potential than those from immature pods. Peanut seed maturation is of considerable importance to all aspects of the peanut industry. Changes in composition and cellular structure influence the processing quality of the seed (Sanders and Bett, l995; Young et al., 2004). Seed maturity is not always directly related to size in peanut seeds, however, the larger seeds from a plant tend to be the most mature. Some large pods may be immature and some mature pods may be small. Hull scrape methodology is the current method of analyzing

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013

maturity (Sanders et al., 1982; Sanders and Bett, 1995). This method is based on color changes in the mesocarp and has been shown to be the most consistent indicator of maturity and yield (Sanders, 1980; Pattee et al., 1980). According to Young et al. (1972),mature peanuts were mostly higher in stearic (18:0) and oleic (18:1) acids, and lower in linoleic (18:2) acid. Oleic/linoleic ratios, which are correlated with oil stability, were higher in mature peanuts. Results byChung et al. (1994) showed that peptide maps from immature peanut proteins contained peptides different from those from mature peanut proteins. This difference in peptide patterns indicates that proteins in mature and immature peanuts were structurally different. Overall oxidation and the formation of painty, sour and bitter sensory attributes in Virginia-type peanuts were shown to be significantly higher in classes of immature peanuts (McNeill and Sanders, 1998). The formation of specific carbohydrates and free amino acids as peanuts reach full maturity could be the limiting factor with regards to peanut flavor potential (Rodriguez et al., 1989; Pattee et al., 1995). According to Arıoğlu (1999), when the harvest is done at an early time, since the peanut pod isnot fully filled, the pod yield can be low. However, when the harvest is at a late time, the peanut pod can remain in the soil because of decay in the gynophores of the peanut, and therefore, the pod yield of peanut is decreased with an increased loss of harvest. Therefore, the number of pods per plant of all cultivars was significantly decreased in harvests after late planting (6-20 June) (Laurence, 1983; Gardner and Auma, 2003; Calışkan et al., 2008). The objective of this study were: 1) to quantify the relationship of yield and yield components, 2) to identify the correlation among the seed quality parameters such as oil, protein, carbohydrate and ash, 3) to determine the best harvest time for peanut production areas (areas like 37° 39' E 27° 52' N in the northern hemisphere), 4) to determine the lost harvest yield, if harvest time is done at an early or late time according the control harvest time. Materials and Method th

th

This study was planted on May 5 , 2008 and May 7 , 2009 at the Crop Science Department of the Faculty of Agriculture at Adnan Menderes University, Aydın, Turkey, (37° 39' E 27° 52' N in the West Aegean Region of Turkey). NC-7, which is a Virginia-type peanut cultivar, was chosen as the material in the experiment. The field experiments were conducted as a randomized design with 4 replications. The characteristics of the experiment soil are given in Table 1. The soil of the experiment area is an alkaline and loamy soil type with pH 8.1. The soil has a low salt ratio and low organic matter. The climatic conditions of the experiment area during 2008, 2009 and year-long means are given in Table 2. Aydın province has a typical Mediterranean climate.The amount of precipitation (mm) generally increased from September to November in 2008 and 2009 and in the mean of multiple years. The temperature decreased approximately from 23.9 °C to 12 °C in 2008 and 2009 and the mean of multiple years (Table 2). The mean relative humidity of November was higher than the values of September and October in all years (Table 2).Before -1 -1 -1 being planted, 49.5 kg ha nitrogen (N), 49.5 kg ha phosphate (P2O5), and 49.5 kg ha potassium (K2O) -1 fertilization were provided by applying 330 kg ha of 15-15-15 fertilizer in the field. Second nitrogen (N) 49.5 -1 -1 kg ha was provided by 150 kg ha of ammonium nitrate (33%) at blooming. Irrigations were applied to plotsduring the growing period with furrow irrigation four times in both years when necessary. Weed control was controlled and done generally by hand when necessary. 240 g/l Spiromesifen was sprayed against damage caused byTetranychusurticae Koch on4-07-2008 and 20-07-2009. Plots consisted of two rows 8 m 2 long x 2.8 m wide with inter-row spacing of a 70 cm intra-row that was 20 cm at all planting times (m = 7.14 plant). Each plot was mechanically dug, inverted and allowed to air-dry in the field for 7-13 days before harvesting. The integrity and maturity of the pods were maintained and they were placed in mesh bags to cure in ambient air until the mean seed moisture was 8% – 10%. Peanut pod mesocarp colors change with maturation from white (most immature) to yellow, orange, brown and black (most mature). Peanuts were harvested on 03-09-2008, 16-09-2008, 06-10-2008, 22-10-2008, 06-11-2008 and 11-09-2009, 24-09-2009, 08-09-2009, 22-10-2009, 07-11-2009 in accordance with the "Shellout (fruit shelled method)", which is where you analyze the color of the peanuts within the shell, determining whether the mesocarp’s color is more than 60% brown or black (Williams and Drexler, 1981; Pattee and Young, 1982;Holbrook et al., 1989;Arıoğlu, 1999). All pods from several border plants were removed by hand to obtain approximately 180–220 pods before each harvest time, from the last day of August to the last harvest time in December. In both years, the percentage of brown and black colored mesocarp was determined to be 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and 80% for the five harvest periods. In order to keep plant density constant, an extra two rows were sown to determine a more accurate harvest time for each parcel. To determine the correct harvest time, this method was used over two-day intervals from late August until December.

3792


Saturation (%) 45.2

Table 1.The characteristics of experiment soil. Structure Total Salt pH CaCO3 Organic matter (%) (%) (%) (%) loamy 0.01 8.1 1.9 low 1.5 low

Table 2. The climatic conditions during the growing season and long years mean (L.Y.M. = 1971-2005). Total Rainfall MeanTemperature (°C) RelativeHumidity (%) (mm) Months

2008

2009

L.Y.M.

2008

2009

L.Y.M.

2008

2009

L.Y.M.

May June July August September October November

17.2 21.8 27.0 71.0

17.6 9.5 36.0 20.0 99.3

35.4 13.3 3.3 2.4 11.1 42.5 91.0

21.1 27.4 29.0 29.3 23.8 18.6 14.9

21.2 26.9 30.6 30.4 23.9 21.2 13.4

21.0 26.1 28.5 27.4 23.3 18.5 12.0

47.0 38.2 37.0 44.5 53.6 60.5 71.5

49.4 40.4 39.4 41.5 54.8 59.1 74.4

56.8 49.4 49.5 54.0 56.7 63.5 69.4

L.Y.M: Long Years Mean. Plant Height (cm) was obtained by measuring each parcel from the surface to the top of the main stem of 10 plants. Primary Branch Length (cm) was obtained by measuring the length of the primary branches of -1 10 randomly selected plants. Primary Branch Number (number plant ) was obtained by counting the number -1 of primary branches of the 10 randomly selected plants. Pod Number Per Plant (number plant ) was obtained by counting the number of pods of 10 randomly selected plants at each harvest time. Per Plant Pod -1 Yield (g plant ) was obtained by the average yield of 10 plants in each plot. 100 Seed Weight (g) was obtained by the average weight of 4 x 100. Shelling Percentage (%), the fruit of each parcel, chosen by taking 500 g of shelled capsules obtained by breaking the inner grains, was weighed proportionally. Maturity (days) was calculated using the method of mesocarp color. Maturation was calculated based on when the -1 seeds on the peanut seeds are beginning to blush (Williams and Drexler, 1981). Pod Yield (kg ha ) was 2 -1 obtained per hectare by turning in 19.6 m plots of yield. Fresh Weight (g plant ): after the striped-looking uniforms of five of the plant roots were chosen and cleaned and washed with water, the roots were then cut -1 off and the fresh weight was obtained by weighing with a sensitive scale. Dry Weight (g plant ): after the above, the roots of the plants were cut and weighed and kept in an oven at 70 °C for 72 hours and identified -1 as a g plant (Calışkan et al., 2008). Harvest Index (%): the weight of a harvested peanut pod in five selected peanut plants as a percentage of the total plant weight of a peanut was obtained for each parcel during the harvest time. Carbohydrate (%): after the oil, protein, moisture and ash of the peanut seed were removed, the remaining portion is expressed as a % percentage. Ash determination steps; 5 g of ground samples were weighed after tarring the crucible. After the samples were dried for 15 min at 550 °C 5 h, the heater and furnace were kept waiting. Then all were kept in a desiccator to cool. Oil (%) was determined by grinding about 10g of groundnut seeds in a blender and they were covered with filter paper and the groundnut meal was extracted with 150 ml hexane for 5 h in Soxhlet apparatus. Firstly, 250 mL balloons were tarred. Hexane was evaporated in an oven for 30 minutes at 105 °C to rout out the hexane and the oil residue was weighed to calculate as the oil percentage in the sample. Protein (%): to accomplish this, one gram of the sample was placed in a digestion tube with 25 ml of concentrated sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Seven grams of potassium sulfate (K2SO4) and a metallic catalyst, usually copper, were then added. The digestion tube was placed into a digestion block where it was heated to boiling temperature. Digestion was usually completed after one hour at 370 °C to 400 °C. Distillation involves the separation of ammonia nitrogen. About 100 ml of water was carefully added to all tubes, and cooled ∼15 to 20 min to room temperature. This was accomplished by raising the pH with sodium hydroxide (33% NaOH 125 ml) which changes the ammonium (NH4+) ion to ammonia (NH3). It was possible to separate the nitrogen by distilling the ammonia and collecting the distillate in a suitable trapping medium. The most common method was titration of the ammonia with a standard solution of one-tenth normal hydrochloric acid (0.1 N HCl) in the presence of a mixed indicator. The mixed indicators (bromocresol green and methyl red) were available in the four percent boric acid solution. After this process the amount of nitrogen needed to be calculated and it was necessary to show how much was present in the sample. This calculation can either be performed as percent nitrogen or percent protein. For percent nitrogen: % N = 0.014 x N x (V1 – V2) x 100 / m V1 = Volume of HCI solution during Titration (ml)

3793


V2 = “ “ in Control tube (ml) N = Used concentration of HCI acid solution m = Sample weight It has been shown that protein is 16% nitrogen. We had a conversion factor for nitrogen to protein of 6.25. Hence, the percent protein was calculated as follows: Protein% = 6.25 x N%. The ratio of protein was analyzed by Kjeldahl method by AOAC 1990. Fatty acid analysis:Fatty acids of peanut oil were determined by GC-2010 gas-liquid chromatography. Firstly, 0.1 g peanut oil, 2 ml n-heptane and 0.2 ml potassium hydroxide (KOH) were weighed and mixed. After this solution was mixed for 30 seconds, there was a 30-minute waiting period until the oil subsided. 100 microliters were used to take by micro syringe from the upper layer and then it was put in a GC-2010 chromatography device. The column used was a 25m x 0.25mm ID Film Thickness 0.10 µm Perm band FFAP. Helium carrier gas was used at a linear velocity of 1 ml/m and the split ratio was 40:1. The initial column temperature was 290 °C, air flow 400 ml/s, H2 flow of 40 ml/s held for 10 min. The temperature ramp was 5 °C min until 165 °C, held for 10 min. Then the colon temperature was increased by 2 °C/m to 210 °C. The fatty acid composition was calculated by the area percent of each peak (Reed et al., 2002). The significance of harvest time effects and year interaction were determined at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels by F-test. The means of the significant (P ≤ 0.05) main effects and interactions were separated using Fisher’s protected LSD test at P = 0.05. The data were statistically analyzed using a standard analysis of variance technique for a randomized block design using TARIST software (Açıkgöz et al., 1994) and SPSS 12.0 software statistic program. Results The present study clearly showed thatthe effect of harvest time on peanut plants was statistically significant in terms of plant height, length of primary branches, number of primary branches, per plant pod number, per plant yield, maturity days, pod yield, 100 seed weight, shelling percentage, harvest index, ash and oleic acid/linoleic acid ratio ANOVA (Table 3 and 4). It was revealed that the results of both years were statistically significant except for primary branch number and primary branch length. The plant height and length of the primary branches were generally disproportionately decreased from the first harvest time to the last harvest time in both years (Table 5). The highest per plant pod number was obtained by 63.21 pod -1 number plant in the thirdharvest time in the average of both years (Table 5) (not given in Table). The pod numbers per plant increased from the firstharvest time to the thirdharvest time, while pod numbers decreased after the thirdharvest time till the last harvest (Table 5 and Figure 1). Per plant pod numbers obtained at each harvest time in 2009 were higher than those of each harvest time in 2008 (Table 5). The -1 mean per plant pod number in 2009 was statistically higher by 18.40 pod number plant than that in 2008 (Table 5). The harvest method (shell out) was as defined in the material andmethod cited. According to the average maturity day of both years, the first harvest time (mesocarp color 40% brown and black) was 120.50 days after the planting, the secondharvest time was 13 days (133.50 days) after the first harvest time, thethird harvest time (normal harvest time) was determined to be 21 days after the second harvest time, thefourth harvest time was identified as 14 days after the third harvest time and the fifthharvest time was determined to be 15 days after the fourth harvest time (Table 6) (these values not shown in Table). The 80% black and brown mesocarp color could not be obtained in this study.The highest per plant pod yield was also -1 determined by 96.61 g plant atthe thirdharvest time in the average of both years (Table 5) (not shown in Table). Per plant pod yields at each harvest time in 2009 were higher than those of each harvest time in 2008 (Table 5). Per plant pod yield statistically increased untilthe thirdharvest time, and then decreased untilthe last harvest time (Figure 1). The increases between the first harvest time and the second harvest -1 time were higher by 31.87 g plant than the increases between the others (Table 5) (not shown in Table). It was determined that the highest 100 seed weight was 94.06 atthe fourth and fifthharvest times in the year 2009. Also, the 100 seed weights of each harvest time in the year 2009 were higher than those of 2008 (Table 6). According to the mean of both years, the 100 seed weight was disproportionately increased by delaying the harvest time (Table 6 and Figure 1). Especially the increase between the secondharvest time and the thirdharvest time with regard to 100 seed weight was very high and fast by 15.40 g in 2008 and by 23.93 g in 2009 (Table 6) (the values of increases not shown in Table). The values for pod yield obtained in this study were similar to those reported in the literature. Our values showed that the highest pod yield was -1 -1 obtained by 4860 kg ha in 2008 and 5210 kg ha at the third harvest time in the year 2009(Table 6). Generally, the pod yields of each harvest time in 2009 were higher than those of each harvest time in 2008 (Table 6). The pod yield in both years increased untilthe thirdharvest time and then decreased until the -1 last harvest time. It was identified that the pod yield increased approximately by 1033 – 1300 kg ha -1 between the firstharvest time and the secondharvest time and increased by 1210 – 1860 kg ha between the secondharvest time and the thirdharvest time in both years.After the thirdharvest time, the pod yield

3794

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 -1

decreased by 813 – 934 kg ha between the third harvest time and the fourthharvest time, and decreased by -1 513 – 783 kg ha between the fourthharvest time and the fifthharvest time (Table 6)(values of increases not shown in Table). The plant fresh weight and dry weight decreased disproportionately by delaying the harvest time. Generally, the plant fresh weight and dry weight of each harvest time in 2009 were higher than those of each harvest time in 2008 (Table 7). The highest harvest index was 37.63% at the thirdharvest time in 2008, while it was 36.04% at the fourthharvest time in 2009 (Table 6 and Figure 1). According to the average of both years with regards to the harvest index, it was 34.42% at the thirdharvest time (Table 6). The harvest index increased until thethird harvest time in 2008, while it increased until the fourthharvest time in 2009 (Table 6). Generally, the harvest index increased until the thirdharvest time and then decreased untilthe last harvest times (Figure 1). It was determined that there was a very big difference in terms of the shelling percentage between the early harvest time and late harvest time in both years. The shelling percentage increased statistically untilthe thirdharvest time (Figure 1). Then although there were differences between the other harvest times, the differences were not statistically significant (Table 6) since the third, fourth and fifthharvest times were statistically the same group in terms of oil ratio in both years (Table 7). Generally, the value of oil ratio was increased by delaying the harvest time. Although there was a decreasein oil ratio between the first harvest time and the second harvest in 2008, it wasnot statistically significant (Table 7 and Figure 2). After the secondharvest time, the oil ratio was stable at the other harvest times in both years (Figure 2 and Table 7). The overall average reduction in total carbohydrate ratio was approximately 8.5% throughout the harvest time (Table 7). The highest value for total carbohydrate from early harvest time was 30.36% compared with a high value of 25.25% and 27.42% from late harvest time, respectively (Table 7). The mean carbohydrate ratio in 2008 was higher by 1.95% than that in 2009 (Table 7) (was not shown in Table). The protein ratio of peanut seed was increased by delaying the harvest time in 2009, while there was a decrease with regards to protein ratio between the third harvest time and the fourthharvest time in 2008 (Table 7 and Figure 2). The highest protein ratio was obtained at the last harvest time in both years (Figure 2). The peanut seed protein ratio at each harvest time in 2008 was higher than that at each harvest time in 2009 (Table 7). The mean ash of all harvest timesis presented in Table 8. The highest ash ratio was 2.503% and 2.673% at the latest harvest time in 2008 and 2009. Although there were many fluctuations in terms of the ash ratio of peanut seed between harvest times, generally the ash ratio showed a tendency to increase witha delayed harvest time. Table 8 shows the range of variations in the oleic/linoleic acid ratio of peanut seed as affected by harvest time. It was determined that the O/L acid ratio was decreased until the fourth harvest time in 2008,while it was increased until thefourthharvest time in 2009. According to the average of the O/L acid ratio of both years, the highest O/L ratio was 1.74% at thethirdharvest time (Table 8). There were very high differencesin terms of O/L ratio between years. The values of the O/L ratio of each harvest time in 2008 were generally higher than those of each harvest time in 2009. When we look at thecorrelation coefficientsin Table 9,pod yield positively correlated with per plant yield, per plant pod number, shelling percentage, 100 seed weight, maturity days, harvest index and oil ratio, while it negatively correlated with carbohydrate ratio. It was found that there were significant positive correlations among the per plant pod number, per plant yield, harvest index, shelling percentage, maturity days, 100 seed weight and oil ratio in this study. The analysis of variance in Table 9 shows highly significant differences in yield and yield components and seed quality between samples. Generally, a negative correlation was found between carbohydrate and oil ratios, protein, maturity days and pod yield. No correlation was found between oil ratio and protein ratio.

3795


Table 3. Result of year combined variance for year and harvest time. Variation Source

d.f.

Year Error1 Harvest time Year x Harvest Error 2

1 6 4 4 24

P.H. (cm) 636.325** 1.460 43.240** 30.508** 1.764

P.B.L (cm) 42.148 23.683 111.824** 55.212** 9.261

Calculated of mean square P.B.N P.P.P.N (number) (number) 2.172 4145.296** 0.489 47.116 0.846** 803.034** 0.177 89.645 0.156 69.263

P.P.Y -1 (g plant ) 14766.343** 85.834 2493.933** 364.051 260.507

100 S.W (g) 76.204** 2.687 1917.738** 25.791** 0.454

M.D (day) 30.625** 0.625 5439.975** 1.375 0.958

P.Y -1 (kg ha ) 37291.174** 207.156 63457.919** 5702.984** 68.933

**, *Significant at P < 0.01 and 0.05, respectively; ns – non significant; d.f.: degree of freedom P.H: Plant Height; P.B.L: Primary Branches Length; P.B.N: Primary Branches Number; P.P.P.N: Per Plant Pod Number; P.P.Y: Per Plant Yield; M.D: Maturity Days; P.Y: Pod yield; 100 S.W: 100 Seed Weight.

Table 4. Result of year combined variance for year and harvest time. Variation Source

d.f.

Year Error1 Harvest time Year x Harvest Error2

1 6 4 4 24

S.P (%) 348.100** 2.579 1042.155** 195.049** 1.924

HDX (%) 128.953** 6.936 239.285** 69.008** 6.808

F.W -1 (g plant ) 375160.098** 2913.976 173567.709** 28946.276** 5589.383

Calculated of mean square D.W Oil Protein -1 (g plant ) (%) (%) 3462.204** 293.276** 104.717** 227.608 4.253 2.265 6947.213** 56.601** 14.569** 1182.748ns 30.646** 3.509ns 773.822 5.459 1.632

Ash (%) 0.066** 0.004 0.088** 0.028** 0.001

C.R (%) 34.040** 1.772 29.558** 15.394ns 6.945

O/L 331.368** 0.001 0.656 11.153** 0.001

**, *Significant at P < 0.01 and 0.05, respectively; ns – non significant; d.f.: degree of freedom S.P: Shelling Percentage; HDX: Harvest Index; F.W: Fresh Weight D.W: Dry Weight; C.R: Carbonhydrate Ration; O/L: Oleic/Linoleic acid ration. Table 5. The effect of harvest time on plant height, primary branches length, primary branches number, per plant pod number, per plant yield of peanut in 2008 and 2009 years. Harvest Time

1.H.T 2.H.T 3.H.T 4.H.T 5.H.T Mean LSD (Y)0.05 LSD (H.T)0.05 LSD (Y xH.T)0.05

2008 32.66 33.66 33.66 32.00 31.00 32.60 0.936 1.372 1.940

Plant Height (cm) 2009 31.51 24.93 23.00 23.00 20.66 24.62

Primary Branches Length (cm) 2008 2009 48.00 55.23 49.00 53.83 48.00 46.20 46.00 45.00 41.33 42.33 46.47 48.52 ns 3.143 4.444

Primary Branches Number (number) 2008 2009 10.33 10.33 10.66 11.33 10.33 10.66 10.66 11.33 10.66 11.33 10.53 10.99 ns 0.576 ns

ns: non-significant, Y: Year, H.T: Harvest Time

3796

Per Plant Pod Number (number) 2008 2009 28.00 52.77 45.00 64.53 54.66 71.77 43.66 64.37 45.33 55.03 43.33 61.70 5.314 12.154 ns

Per Plant Yield -1 (g plant ) 2009 68.47 104.97 120.43 115.00 78.30 97.43

2008 35.90 63.13 72.80 63.00 60.20 59.00 7.173 23.572 ns


Table 6. The effect of harvest time on maturity days, pod yield, 100 seed weight, shelling percentage, harvest index of peanut in 2008 and 2009 years. Harvest Time


2008 59.13 68.20 83.60 92.90 93.03 79.37 1.269 0.696 0.984

100 Seed Weight (g) 2009 61.00 68.80 92.73 94.06 94.06 82.13

Maturity (day) 2009 121.00 134.00 156.00 170.00 186.00 153.40

2008 120.00 133.00 153.00 169.00 184.00 151.80 0.612 1.430 ns

2008 1966.60 3000.00 4860.00 3946.60 3433.30 3441.30 111.43 85.74 121.25

Pod yield -1 (kg ha ) 2009 3300.00 4000.00 5210.00 4266.60 3483.30 4052.0

Shelling Percentage (%) 2008 2009 33.06 56.16 56.96 62.36 69.70 69.60 71.40 71.33 70.03 71.20 60.23 66.12 1.243 1.432 2.026

Harvest Index (%) 2008 2009 18.00 23.03 23.86 29.43 37.63 31.22 26.93 36.08 29.23 33.84 27.13 30.72 2.039 2.694 3.810

ns: non-significant, Y: Year, H.T: Harvest Time

Table 7. The effect of harvest time on raw matter, dry matter, oil ration, protein ration, carbonhydrate ration of peanut in 2008 and 2009 years. Harvest Time


FreshWeight -1 (g plant ) 2008 633.13 449.33 279.30 309.33 245.86 383.40 41.793 77.206 109.186

2009 773.33 672.41 575.00 506.66 358.00 577.08

Dry Weight -1 (g plant ) 2008 187.16 202.53 140.86 168.33 151.00 169.98 11.680 28.727 ns

2009 196.20 234.86 182.50 198.00 131.66 188.64

Oil (%) 2008 31.50 29.43 37.20 38.30 38.24 34.93 1.597 2.413 3.810

2009 36.67 41.66 40.66 41.07 41.74 40.36

ns: non-significant Y: Year, H.T: Harvest Time

3797

Protein (%) 2008 22.46 25.07 26.63 24.63 27.60 25.28 1.165 1.319 ns

2009 20.92 21.60 22.35 22.40 22.94 22.04

Carbonhydrate (%) 2008 32.82 30.74 26.96 28.30 24.35 28.63 1.031 2.772 ns

2009 27.89 26.10 26.77 26.53 26.15 26.68


Table 8.The effect of harvest time on ash and oleic acid / linoleic acid ratio of peanut in 2008 and 2009 years. Harvest Time


Oleic/Linoleic ratio

Ash (%) 2008 2.308 2.313 2.468 2.390 2.503 2.396 0.048 0.031 0.044

2009 2.287 2.493 2.398 2.537 2.673 2.477 0.012 0.021 0.037

2008 1.84 1.83 1.77 1.75 1.81 1.80

2009 1.59 1.58 1.70 1.68 1.64 1.64

Y: Year, H.T: Harvest Time

Table 9. Correlation coefficients between harvest time and oil, protein, yield and yield components. Pod yield P.P.Y P.P.P.N S.P H.S.W HDX Oil Protein Car. M.D Pod yield 0.71** 0.77** 0.78** 0.62** 0.75** 0.59** 0.07 -0.47** 0.39* P.P.Y 0.93** 0.51** 0.39** 0.63** 0.53** 0.29 -0.34* 0.20 P.P.P.N 0.54** 0.38* 0.59** 0.52** -0.28 0.35* 0.25 S.P 0.85** 0.76** 0.64** 0.27 -0.63** 0.79** H.S.W 0.69** 0.57* 0.33* -0.51** 0.94** HDX 0.54* 0.18 -0.45** 0.62** Oil -0.17 -0.81** 0.53** Protein -0.38* 0.41** Carbonhydrate -0.53** P.P.Y: Per Plant Yield; P.P.P.N: Per Plant Pod Number; S.P: Shelling Percentage; H.S.W: 100 Seed Weight; M.D: Maturity Days; HDX: Harvest Index; Car: Carbonhydrate ratio; M.D: Maturity Day.

3798


-1

Figure 1. The influence of harvest time on 100 seed weight (g), shelling percentage (%), harvest index (%), per plant pod number (number), per plant yield (g plant ) of peanut in 2008 and 2009 years. Vertical line shows errors with 5% value. 100.S.W: 100 Seed Weight; S.P: Shelling Percentage; HDX: Harvest Index; P.P.P.N: Per Plant Pod Yield; P.P.Y: Per Plant Yield

Figure 2. The influence of harvest time on oil content (%), protein content (%), carbonhydrate ratio (%) of peanut seed in 2008 and 2009 years.

3799

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 Discussion Significant differences in yield and yield component and some seed quality parameters of peanut were generally found to beaffected by harvest time. Bell and Cruickshank (1996) indicated that a 20 °C and lower temperature can negatively affectpeanut biomass and changesin leaf carbon dioxide. It can be assumed that the plant height and total peanut biomass, which is aherbaceous structure, was decreased by delaying the harvest time because of decreasing temperature and many rainy days during the delayed harvest time in the region of the study area. The values of plant height and primary branch length obtained in our study were higher than the results of Baydar and Yüce(1997) and Canavar and Kaynak (2008). In parallel, the fresh weight and dry weight of the peanut were also decreased by delaying the harvest time. Henning et al (1979) explained that the peanut plant maturity, apparent photosynthesis and photosynthetic capacity of all leaves decreased with plant age during this stage. Consequently, the peanut biomass could be destroyed by many environmental factors,due to the exposure to low temperatures, daily sunshine duration and incident solar radiationat the delayed harvest time.The effects of the harvest time showed that the per plant pod numbers obtained at the first and secondharvest times were lower than that of the thirdharvest time, because of the very high percentage of immature pod number, which was at the early harvest time (mesocarp color 40% and 50%). Since the peanut pod also stayed a very long time underground atthe delayed harvest time, the molder pod number was increased by delaying the harvest time after the thirdharvest time. Therefore, th th the harvest loss was very high at fourth and fifthharvest times, which werethe 170 and 185 days after the planting date. Thus, the peanut pods should be harvested before October and November in peanut production areas. Similar conclusions were also obtained for early and late harvest times by Timannavar et al. (2003). It was also identified that the determination of the fifthharvest time, which was 80% black and brown of the mesocarp color, was very difficult with the “Shell out” method for the NC7 (Virginia type) peanut cultivar in our study. The thirdharvest time (control harvest time) was th obtained as the 154.5 day after the planting date in the average of both years. The result of our study th was similar tothat reported by Manda et al. (2004) in whichthe normal harvest time was the 150 day after the planting date for the NC7 peanut cultivar in Southeastern Queensland. In particular, the increase of 100 seed weight of peanut seed was very quick from the second harvest time to the thirdharvest time in both years. Then the increases of 100 seed weight were very low or stoppeduntil the last harvest time. As a result, after the thirdharvest time,the size of the peanut seeds reached full stable size, and the percentage of mature seed started to increase. It was determined that the peanut seeds obtained from the early harvest time were not yet mature, while the peanut seeds obtained from the third, fourth and fifth harvest time had reached sufficient seed sizes in terms of marketing and pod yield. Similar findings were also obtained for 100 seed weight as affected by harvest time by Pattee et al. (1980) andÇalışkan et al. (2008). In parallel, the shelling percentage of the peanut seed increased to be compatible with the increase in 100 seed weight untilthe thirdharvest time because of the increasing percentage of big seeds in the peanut pod. Then the increase in shelling percentage stoppeduntil the last harvest time, which was similar to the previous research result by Çalışkan et al. (2008). This study showed that the lowest harvest index was obtained at an early harvest time in the mean of both years, because of the high biomass, plant height, low mature pod and low100 seed weight of peanut plants at early harvest time. The highest harvest index obtained in the mean of both years showed parallel compliance with the pod number and per plant pod yield because of progression to pod and defolation. The values of the harvest index in our study were lower than the results of Baydar and Yüce (1997) (50%),Özcan and Seven (2003) (38.6% – 40.2%),Suriharn et al. (2005) (32% – 46%),Kiniry et al. (2005) (33% – 53%) andÇalışkan et al. (2008) (35.6% – 40.2%). According to the result of our study, pod yield showed a positive relationship with 100 seed weight, harvest index, per plant pod number, per plant pod yield and shelling percentage, similar to the finding by Liao et al. (1989). The pod yield obtained was shown to be similar to the results of previous -1 research on the NC7 peanut cultivar byBaydar and Yüce (1997) (5322 kg ha ),Arslan (2005) (4390 kg -1 -1 ha ) andCanavar and Kaynak (2008) (4986 kg ha ). It was observed that the pod yield did not increase by delaying the harvest time, due to the high number of injured pods and high pod loss in heavy and muddy soil at late harvest time which was similar to results by Timmannavar et al. (2003); Canavar and Kaynak (2010). As pointed out by Hamidou et al. (2012), pod yield and peanut growth decreased by drought stress during flowering and pod filling time. However, the physiological basis of the stress factor effect on pod yield and seed quality of peanuts during harvest time is unclear here. As a result of these reasons, it can be considered that the pod yield of peanutwas affected by many environmental factors during the harvest time. We performed analysis to determine the oil, protein, carbohydrate, oleic/linoleic acid ratios and ash of peanut seed for samples obtained from each harvest time without classification or any color group. Also, as pointed out by Sanders et al. (1989) and Sanders and Bett (1995), maturity profiles in both years changed enough to result in a potential difference in the quality of the peanuts harvested.

3800

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 Our study showed that as seed maturity progressed, the oil and carbohdrate ratios of peanut seedwere affected with higher percentages of mature pods by delaying the harvest time. The oil ratio of peanut seed for all pods obtained at each harvest time was increased by each delayed harvest time, which was similar to the finding by Kim and Hung (1991). The highest oil ratio of peanut seed obtained inthe last harvest time by 41.7%, which was lower than that of previous research results by Savage and Keenan (1994) (44.0% – 56.0%),Çalışkan et al. (2008) (49.5% – 52.6%) andZhang et al. (2009) (51.7% – 53.1%). A higher O/L ratio which implied that the proportion of oleic acid was relatively higher than linoleic acid could also be an indicator of maturity (Young et al. 1972; McNeill and Sanders, 1998). However, there was not a very big difference among the values of oleic/linoleic acid ratio obtained from each different harvest time. Itwas determined that the oleic/linoleic ratio statistically significantly increased by increasing maturity until the thirdharvest time in the average of both years, similar to what was previously reported in runner-type peanuts (Sanders, 1980; Baker, 2002). Sanders et al. (1982) indicated with studies on oil composition changes with peanut maturation that immature peanuts seed have greater potential for lipid degradation. Thus, sized lots containing higher percentages of immature peanuts are more likely to exhibit lipid degradation off-flavors such as painty. We assumed that carbohydrate was used as synthesis for oil, protein and delaying the harvest time in our study the percentage of immature pods decreased. Thus, the carbohydrate contents of the peanut seeds were decreased, while the oil, ash and protein ratios were increased by delaying the harvest time. According to the explaination of Baker et al. (2002), increasing the O/L ratio in peanutsby delaying harvest time seems to have positive effects on peanut quality and nutritional value because of increasing the ratio of oleic acid. As it has already been said in the manuscript, if the third harvest time does not have any aflatoxin problems, it is a very suitable harvest time in terms of not only pod yield but also seed quality and against the decay in a long storage time. Also, it was especially observed in this study that symptoms of many mycotoxinsin peanut pods and seeds occuras fungus at thethird, fourth and fifthharvest times (not given in manuscript). Many previous researchfindings have explained that aflatoxin could affect and change oil, oleic/linoleic acid ratio and chemical compositions of peanut seed. Therefore, we estimated that the chemical compositions of peanut seed such as oleic/linoleic acid ratio, oil ratio, protein, carbohydrate and ash can beaffected by many factors in field conditions. As the other result of this study, our study suggested that the time between the last irrigation time and harvest time, which was 44 days from the last irrigation to third (control) harvest time, must be also considered because of the long time (not shown in table). Therefore, the last irrigation time can be studied in terms of high yield pod yield by maintaining more turgor pressure of plants to avoid aflatoxin problems in further experiments. As a result of our study it was revealed that if the harvest time of peanuts is to be made to avoid mycotoxinsat an early time, it can cause loss in terms of pod yield and commercial seed size. The determination of the best harvest time of peanuts must be very careful, because the high harvest loss, quality potential difference and mycotoxins, which threaten human and animal health, may occur at harvest time. In particular, it was suggested that the harvest of peanuts must be made in the middle of September or before this time in 37° 39' E 27° 52' Nin the northern hemisphere such as Aydın, due to the critically unbalanced weather conditions during the harvest time. Alternatively, an early peanut cultivar, which is earlier than the NC7 peanut cultivar, must be selected to grow in this region. References Açıkgöz N, Akba ME, Moghaddam A, Özcan K, 1994. Turkish data basedstatisticsprogrammer for PC. Turkey Field Crops Congress, Ege University Press.pp. 264-267. AOAC, 1990. Association of official analytical chemists: Methods of analysis, 15th ed.Washington, DC. Arıoğlu H, 1999. Yağbitkileriyetiştirmeveıslahı. Adana, Türkiye: Çukurova Üniversitesi ZiraatFakültesi Yayınları No:220, DersKitapları No:A-70. Arslan M, 2005. Effects of haulm cutting time on haulm and pod yield of peanut. Agron J. 4: 39-43. Baker GL, 2002. Flavor formation and sensory perception of selected peanut genotypes (Arachishypogaea L.) as affected by storage water activity, roasting, and planting date. PhD, University of Florida, USA. Baydar H, Yüce S, 1997. Studies on morphological and physiological aspects of the yield differences between peanut (Arachishypogaea L.) botanical varieties. Turk J Agric For.21: 141-148. Bell MJ, Cruickshank A, 1996.Effects of chilling temperatures on photosyntheticrate in Australian peanut varieties.8th Australian Agronomy Conference,Toowooba. Calışkan S, Caliskan ME, Arslan M, Arıoğlu H, 2008. Effects of sowingdateandgrowthduration on growthandyield of groundnut in a Mediterranean-typeenvironment in Turkey. FieldCropsRes. 105: 131-140.

3801

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 Canavar Ö, Kaynak MA, 2008. Effect of differentplantingdates on yieldandyieldcomponents of peanut (Arachishypogaea L.). Turk J AgricFor. 32: 521-528. Canavar Ö, Kaynak MA, 2010. Growing degree day and sunshine radiation effects on peanut pod yield and growth. Afr JBiotechnol. 9: 2234-2241. Chung S-Y, Ullah AHJ, Sanders TH, 1994. Peptide mapping of peanut proteins: identification ofpeptides as potential indicators of peanut maturity. JAgrFood Chem. 42: 623-628. FAO 2009. Fao Statistical Databases. Site adresi:http:// faostat.fao.org /site/567/Desktop Default. aspx?PageID=567 Gardner FP, Auma EO, 2003. Canopystructure, lightinterception, andyieldandmarketquality of peanutgenotypes asinfluencedbyplantingpatternandplantingdate. FieldCropsRes. 20: 13-29. Hamidou F, Halilou O, Vadez V, 2012. Assesment of groundnutundercombined heatanddroughtstress. J AgronCropSci. 199: 1-11. Henning RJ, Brown RH, Ashley DA,1979.Effects of leaf position and plant ageonphotosynthesis and 14 translocation in peanut I. apparent photosynthesis and C translocation. Peanut Sci. 1: 46-50. Holbrook CC, Kvien CS, Branch WD,1989. Genetic control of peanut maturity as measured by the hull-scrape procedure. Oleagineux. 44: 359-364. Kim NK, Hung YC,1991.Mechanical properties and chemical composition of peanuts asaffected by harvest date and maturity. J Food Sci. 56: 1378-1381. Kiniry JR, Simpson CE, Schubert AM, Reed JD, 2005. Peanut leaf area index, lightinterception, radiation use efficiency and harvest index at three sites in Texas. Field Crops Res. 91: 297-306. Laurence RCN,1983. Effects of sowingdate, spatialarrangementandpopulation onyieldandkernelweight of irrigatedvirginiabunchpeanuts. Aust J AgrRes. 23: 178-180. Liao XM, Zhang LH, Zheng LR, 1989. Correlation and partial correlation analysis of the characters of spanish type groundnut varieties.Oil Crop China. 21: 20-31. Manda A, Naidu BP, Rachaputi NC, Wright G, Fukai S, 2004.Aflatoxins and their relationship with sugars in peanut (Arachishypogaea L.). 4th International Crop Sci Congress. 625. McNeill KL, Sanders TH, 1996. Pod and seed size relation to maturity and inshellquality potential in Virginia-type peanuts. Peanut Sci. 23:133-137. McNeill KL, Sanders TH, 1998. Maturity effects on sensory and storage qualityof roasted Virginia-type peanuts. J Food Sci. 63:366-369. Önemli F,2005.The Correlation analyses of some climate values with flowering and earliness index in peanut (Arachishypogaea L.).TekirdagJ Agric Fac. 2: 273-281. Özcan M, Seven S, 2003. Physical and chemical analysis and fattyacid composition of peanut, peanut oil and peanutbutterfromÇOM and NC-7 cultivars. GrasasAceites.54: 12-18. Pattee HE, Giesbrecht FG, Isleib TG, 1995.Roasted peanut flavor intensityvariations among U.S. genotypes.Peanut Sci. 22:158-162. Pattee HE, Wynne JC, Sanders TH, Mschubert A, 1980. Relation of the seed/hull ratioto yield and dollar value in peanut production. Peanut Sci. 7: 74-77. Pattee HE, Young CT,1982. Peanut science and technology.APRES, Inc. Texas. 25pp. Reed KA, Sims CA, Gorbet DW, O’Keefe SF, 2004. Storage water activity affects flavor fade in high and normal oleic peanuts. Food Res Int. 35:769-774. Rodriguez MM, Basha SM, Sanders TH, 1989. Maturity rand roasting of peanuts as related toprecursors of roasted flavor. JAgr Food Chem. 37: 760-765. Sanders TH, 1980. Fatty acid composition of lipid differing in variety and maturity classes inoils from peanuts. Journal Series of the North Carolina Agriculture Researche Service 8: 12-15. Sanders TH, Bett KL, 1995. Effect of harvest date on maturity, maturity distributionand flavor of Florunner peanuts. Peanut Sci. 22: 124–129. Sanders TH, Shubert AM, Pattee HE, 1982. Maturity methodology and postharvest physiology.In: Peanut Science and Technology. Pattee, H.E. and Young, C.T. (eds.)Yoakum: American Peanut Research and Education Society,Inc. p. 625-627. Sanders TH, Vercellotti JR, Crippen KL, Civille GV, 1989. Effect of maturityon roastcolor and descriptiveflavor of peanuts. J FoodSci. 54: 475-477. Savage GP, Keenan JI, 1994.The composition and nutritive value of groundnut kernels.In: Smart J (ed). The Groundnut crop: Scientific basis for improvement. London: Chapman and Hall, pp. 173-213. Suriharn B, Patanothai A, Jogloy S, 2005. Gene effects for specific leaf area and harvest index in peanut (Arachishypogaea L.). Asian J Plant Sci. 4: 667-672. TimmannavarM, Umapathy PN, Shekhargouda M, Kurdikeri MB, Channveerswami S, 2003. Influence of harvesting stages on seed yield and quality in confectionergroundnut varieties.Seed Res. 31: 13-17. TUIK, 2011. http://www.tuik.gov.tr/AltKategori.do?ust_id=13

3802

Intl. J. Agron. Plant. Prod. Vol., 4 (S), 3791-3803, 2013 Williams E, Drexler JS, 1981. A Nondestructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Sci. 8: 134 – 141. Young CT, Mason ME, Matlock RS, Waller GR, 1972. Effect of maturity on thefattyacid composition of eight varieties of peanuts grown at Perkins, Oklahomain 1968. J.A.O.C.S. 49: 314–317. Young CT, Pattee HE, Schadel WE, Sanders TH, 2004. Microstructure ofpeanut (Arachishypogaea L. cv. ‘NC 7’) cotyledons during development. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 37: 439–445. Zhang J, Wang C, Tang Y, Wang X, 2009. Effects of grading on the main quality attributes of peanut kernels. Frontiers Agric China. 3: 291–293.

3803

Arachis hypogaea L

Arachis hypogaea L

Suggest Documents