Agronomy Science, przyrodniczy lublin, czasopisma up, czasopisma uniwersytet przyrodniczy lublin
Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Agronomy Science Baner text

Vol. 81 No. 2 (2026)

Articles

Field-scale evaluation of peanut genotype responses to drought: yield, quality, and the limits of physiological prediction

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24326/as.2026.5657
Submitted: January 19, 2026
Published: 03.07.2026

Abstract

Understanding genotype-specific responses to drought is essential for improving crop resilience under variable climatic conditions. In this study, we evaluated 13 peanut (Arachis hypogaea) genotypes across two growing seasons (2023 and 2024) under irrigated and dryland field conditions. Irrigation increased pod yield across genotypes, with irrigated yields reaching up to 5.8 kg per plot compared to dryland maxima of 3.9 kg per plot, depending on genotype and year. The selected genotypes represent a range of drought tolerance ratings based on prior physiological characterizations. Our objective was to assess how water availability under natural weather conditions influences agronomic performance and seed quality. Across both years, genotype × environment interactions were strong, with yield responses varying substantially between seasons; dryland yield penalties were minimal in 2023 but pronounced in 2024. Commercial pod size distribution also shifted under irrigation, with Jumbo pod yield increasing by approximately 50–100% in high-performing genotypes such as AU18-35 and GA06G relative to dryland conditions. Results from this study indicate that expected physiological
drought-response groupings did not consistently predict field-scale performance. Yield and commercial pod size were strongly influenced by environmental variability and stress timing, particularly early- versus late-season drought. These findings emphasize the importance of evaluating drought resilience under realistic field conditions to inform breeding and management strategies.

References

  1. Butts C.L., Sorensen R.B., Lamb M.C., 2016. Evaluation of a small-scale peanut sheller. Peanut Sci. 43(1), 67–73. https://doi.org/10.3146/0095-3679-43.1.67.
  2. de Camargo Santos A., Schaffer B., Rowland D. et al., 2024. Cultivating resilience: Use of water deficit to prime peanut production and improve water stress tolerance. Plant Stress 14, 100637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2024.100637
  3. Jongrungklang N., Toomsan B., Vorasoot N. et al., 2013. Drought tolerance mechanisms for yield responses to pre-flowering drought stress of peanut genotypes with different drought tolerant levels. Field Crops Res. 144, 34–42.
  4. Lamb M.C., Sorensen R. B., Butts C.L., 2020. Agronomic and economic effects of irrigation and rotation in peanut-based cropping systems. Peanut Sci. 47(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.3146/PS20-10.1
  5. Martínez‐Vilalta J., Garcia‐Forner N., 2017. Water potential regulation, stomatal behaviour and hydraulic transport under drought: deconstructing the iso/anisohydric concept. Plant Cell Environ. 40(6), 962–976. https://doi.org/10.1111/pce.12846
  6. Okello D.K., Kaaya A.N., Bisikwa J. et al., 2010. Aflatoxins in groundnuts. Management of aflatoxins in groundnuts: A manual for farmers, processors, traders and consumers in Uganda. Entebbe, National Agricultural Research Organisation.
  7. Pilon C., Snider J.L., Sobolev V. et al., 2018. Assessing stomatal and non-stomatal limitations to carbon assimilation under progressive drought in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J. Plant Physiol. 231, 124–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2018.09.007
  8. Rowland D.L., Faircloth W.H., Payton P. et al., 2012. Primed acclimation of cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) through the use of deficit irrigation timed to crop developmental periods. Agric. Water Manag. 113, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2012.06.023
  9. Ru C., Liu Y., Hu X., Wang W., 2025. Intermittent drought priming improves photosynthesis, water status, antioxidant capacity, and tolerance to drought stress in winter wheat. J. Plant Growth Regul. 44, 4316–4335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-025-11689-5
  10. Sreelatha P., 2019. Influence of growth and canopy attributes on productivity of rainfed groundnut. Doctoral dissertation, Ph. D Thesis. Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Lam, Guntur.
  11. United States Department of Agriculture, 1993. Milled Peanuts: Inspection instructions. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agric. Marketing Serv., Fruit and Vegetable Division.
  12. Williams E.J., Drexler J.S., 1981. A non-destructive method for determining peanut pod maturity. Peanut Sci. 8(2), 134–141. https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-8-2-15
  13. Xie M., Wang Z., Xu X. et al., 2020. Quantitative estimation of the nutrient uptake requirements of peanut. Agronomy 10(1), 119. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010119
  14. Zhang Q., Dang P., Chen C. et al., 2022. Tolerance to mid‐season drought in peanut can be achieved by high water use efficiency or high efficient use of water. Crop Sci. 62(5), 1948–1966. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20806
  15. Zhen X., Zhang Q., Sanz-Saez A. et al., 2022. Simulating drought tolerance of peanut varieties by maintaining photosynthesis under water deficit. Field Crops Res. 287, 108650.
  16. Zurweller B.A., Rowland D.L., Tillman B.L. et al., 2022. Soil water depletion of peanut subspecies as influenced by water‐use traits and soil water availability. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 208(6), 928–940. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12554

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.