Benghal dayflower and sicklepod are weeds of economic importance in peanut in the southeastern United States due to their extended emergence pattern and limited effective herbicides for control. Field studies were conducted near Jay, Florida, in 2022 and 2023, to evaluate the effect of planting date and herbicide combinations on Benghal dayflower and sicklepod control in peanut crops. Peanut planted in June was exposed to a higher Benghal dayflower density than peanut planted in May. Sicklepod density was similar between May and June planting dates at 28 d after preemergence and early postemergence herbicide applications, but density was greater in peanut that was planted in June, 28 d after the mid-postemergence application. A preemeergence herbicide application followed by (fb) an early postemergence application of S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor controlled Benghal dayflower 84% to 93% 28 d after early postemergence in peanut that was planted in May, but control was reduced to 58% to 78% in the crop that had been planted in June. Regardless of planting date, a preemeergence application fb S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence provided <80% sicklepod control 28 d after early postemergence. Imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB applied postemergence improved Benghal dayflower control to at least 94% 28 d after mid-postemergence, but sicklepod control was not >85%. Regardless of the planting date, paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence was required to achieve ≥95% sicklepod control. However, herbicide combinations that included paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor reduced peanut yield when planting was delayed to June. In fields that are infested with Benghal dayflower and sicklepod, it is recommended that peanut be planted in early May to minimize the potential impact of these weeds and to increase peanut yield. Late-planted peanut required more intensive herbicide applications to obtain the same peanut yield as the May-planted peanut.

Sicklepod is one of the most difficult to control weeds in peanut production in the southeastern United States due to its extended emergence pattern and limited effective herbicides for control. Growers rely on preemergence herbicides as the foundation of their weed control programs; however, postemergence herbicides are often needed for season-long weed control. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of planting pattern and herbicide combinations for sicklepod control in peanut crops. Due to rapid canopy closure, twin-row planting improved late-season sicklepod control by 13% and peanut yield by 5% compared with a single-row pattern. A preemergence application of fluridone, flumioxazin, or fluridone + flumioxazin provided 76% to 89% control of sicklepod 28 d after preemergence. Regardless of the herbicide applied preemergence, paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence was required to achieve ≥90% sicklepod control 28 d after early postemergence. All preemergence herbicide treatments followed by (fb) S-metolachlor or diclosulam + S-metolachlor applied early postemergence provided <90% control 28 d after early postemergence. A mid-postemergence application of imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB controlled sicklepod by 67% to 79% prior to peanut harvest, and biomass reduction was unacceptable (<80%), resulting in difficulty in peanut digging. The highest peanut yield was observed when paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor was applied early postemergence fb imazapic + dimethenamid-P + 2,4-DB applied mid-postemergence. Based on the results of this study, a herbicide combination of paraquat + bentazon + S-metolachlor is an important early-season tool for controlling sicklepod in peanut crops. The results also showed that a twin-row planting pattern improved late-season sicklepod control but did not reduce herbicide input to protect peanut yield.

Carrier water quality is an important consideration for herbicide efficacy. Field and greenhouse studies were conducted from 2021 to 2023 to evaluate the effect of carrier water pH and hardness on imazapic efficacy for sicklepod control in peanut crops. In separate field experiments imazapic was applied postemergence at 0.071 kg ai ha−1 with carrier water pH levels of 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9; and hardness levels of 0 (deionized water), 100, 200, 400, or 500 mg L−1 of CaCO3 equivalent. In greenhouse experiments, imazapic was applied to sicklepod that was either 10 cm, 15 cm, or 20 cm tall at similar carrier water pH levels and hardness levels of 0, 100, 200, 400, or 800 mg L−1 of CaCO3. In the field study, sicklepod control, density, and biomass reductions were lower with carrier water pH 5 or 9 compared with pH 7. In the greenhouse study, control was not different among carrier water pH levels when imazapic was applied to 10-cm-tall sicklepod; however, when applied to 15- or 20-cm-tall sicklepod, control was at least 25% greater with acidic (pH 5) compared to alkaline (pH 9) carrier water. Results from the field study showed that carrier water hardness ≤500 ppm did not reduce the efficacy of imazapic to control sicklepod. In the greenhouse study, regardless of sicklepod height, carrier water hardness of 800 mg L−1 reduced sicklepod control by 15% and biomass reduction by 17% compared with deionized water (pH 7). The effects of carrier water pH and hardness on imazapic efficacy did not compromise peanut yield in the field study. However, this study indicates that both acidic and alkaline carrier water pH and hardness (800 mg L−1 CaCO3 L−1) have the potential to reduce imazapic efficacy on sicklepod, and appropriate spray solution amendments maybe be needed to maintain optimum efficacy.

Research from the 1980s reported sweep cultivation being a cost-effective component in an integrated system to manage weeds in peanut. Previous weed management research conducted on organic peanut indicated that repeated cultivation with a tine weeder was an effective component in that production system. Studies were conducted in Tifton, GA, from 2014 through 2017 to determine whether tine weeding can be integrated with herbicides in conventional peanut production to supplement herbicides. Experiments evaluated a factorial arrangement of eight herbicide combinations and two levels of cultivation using a tine weeder. Herbicides were labeled rates of ethalfluralin PRE, S-metolachlor PRE, imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE, ethalfluralin PRE + imazapic POST, S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, ethalfluralin PRE + S-metolachlor PRE + imazapic POST, and a nontreated control. The herbicides chosen were based on knowledge of the weed species composition at the research sites and their common use in peanut. Cultivation regimes were cultivation with a tine weeder (six times at weekly intervals) and a noncultivated control. Benefits of tine weeding supplementing control from herbicides varied according to herbicide and weed species. For example, annual grasses were effectively controlled (88% to 97%) by ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor and did not need cultivation to supplement control provided by the herbicides. However, imazapic alone did not effectively control (54% to 75%) annual grasses and needed supplemental control from cultivation with the tine weeder. Similarly, imazapic effectively controlled (84% to 93%) smallflower morningglory and did not require cultivation to supplement control from the herbicide. However, cultivation with the tine weeder improved smallflower morningglory control (76% to 95%) when supplementing ethalfluralin or S-metolachlor. Peanut yields did not respond to any of the herbicide combinations integrated with cultivation using the tine weeder. During the time period when peanut was cultivated, there was greater total rainfall and more days of rainfall events in 2014 and 2017 compared with the other years. Rainfall and wet soils reduced the performance and weed control benefits of the tine weeder. This highlights the risk of depending on cultivation for weed control.

Studies were conducted from 1995 to 1997 near Tifton, GA, to evaluate shallow tillage implements and tillage frequency for stale seedbed weed control in peanut. Tillage implements evaluated were a power tiller, disk harrow, field conditioner, and sweep cultivator. Plots for each implement were tilled once or twice prior to planting peanut. Results from midseason weed counts and peanut yield showed similar responses among implements and frequency of tillage. These results indicate no advantage of any shallow tillage implement for stale seedbed weed control, although peanut yields were generally greater in plots with tilled stale seedbeds than in the nontilled control. The implement of choice should be based on cost of operation and compatibility with the overall peanut production system.