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.

The increased incidence of glyphosate-resistant weeds has led to an exponential increase in the use of glufosinate on glufosinate-resistant corn, cotton, and soybean crops. Field experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 to evaluate peanut response to glufosinate at 25 and 60 d after planting, corresponding to vegetative (V3) and reproductive (R4) growth stages, at 1.2, 4.7, 18.9, 75.5, and 302 g ai ha−1 representing 1/514 to 1/2 of the labeled rate of 604 g ha−1. Peanut injury and canopy and yield reductions from glufosinate were <10% when applied at 1.2, 4.7, and 18.9 g ha−1. However, at 75.5 and 302 g ha−1 peanut injury ranged from 24% to 72% at the V3 exposure timing and 33% to 54% at the R4 exposure timing. Similarly, glufosinate applied at 75.5 and 302 g ha−1 reduced peanut canopy width by 10% to 23% at the V3 exposure timing and by 43% to 57% at the R4 exposure timing. Averaged across exposure timing, peanut yield was reduced by 15% and 61% when glufosinate was applied at 75.5 and 302 g ha−1, respectively. Averaged across rates, peanut yield reduction was 18% at the V3 exposure timing, with glufosinate at 298 g ha−1 required to cause an estimated 50% reduction in yield. Peanut yield was reduced by 20% when glufosinate was applied at the R3 peanut growth stage, whereas glufosinate applied at 243 g ha-1 caused an estimated 50% reduction in yield. There was no difference in normalized difference vegetative index (NDVI) values between untreated plants and peanut exposed to glufosinate at 1.2, 4.7, and 18.9 g ha−1. However, peanut exposed to glufosinate at 75.5 and 302 g ha−1 was distinguished from untreated plants with lower NDVI values. Based on the Pearson correlation coefficient, the best timing for assessing potential yield reduction based on injury was between 2 and 4 wk after treatment.

The commercialization of crops that are resistant to 2,4-D plus glyphosate provided an opportunity to growers to apply the herbicide postemergence. However, the potential drift injury of these herbicides to peanuts grown near crops that are resistant to 2,4-D plus glyphosate is concerning. Field experiments were conducted in 2019 and 2020 to evaluate peanut response when exposed at 25, 50, and 75 d after planting (DAP) corresponding to vegetative, flowering, and pod development stages, respectively, to reduced rates of 1/512×, 1/128×, 1/32×, and 1/8× of the labeled rate of 2,4-D plus glyphosate (i.e., 1,077 + 1,132 g ae ha−1, respectively). 2,4-D plus glyphosate was more injurious to peanuts when exposed at 25 DAP compared with 50 and 75 DAP. Similarly, greater canopy height (12%) and canopy width (16%) reductions were observed at 25 DAP compared with 50 and 75 DAP exposure timings (3% to 9%). This result indicates that peanut is more sensitive to 2,4-D plus glyphosate exposure at the vegetative growth stage than at the flowering and pod development stages. However, yield reductions (13% to 16%) were not different between 25, 50, or 75 DAT exposure timings. Regression analysis indicated a linear response for peanut injury, canopy height, width, and yield reduction with an increasing rate of 2,4-D plus glyphosate. The highest rate of 2,4-D plus glyphosate (1/8× of the label rate) resulted in 38%, 22%, and 23% peanut injury, canopy height, and width reduction at 4 wk after treatment, and 33% yield reduction. There was a correlation between peanut injury and yield reduction, with Pearson’s rho values ranging from 0.70 to 0.73. The findings suggest that peanut injury rating data after 2,4-D plus glyphosate drift can be useful for estimating potential yield losses.