Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) response to low‐rate applications of selected herbicides at vegetative and reproductive growth stages

Abstract

Off‐target drift of herbicides can seriously reduce peanut (Arachis hypogea L.) growth and yield and is of great concern to growers who will need to manage sensitive crops near new herbicide‐tolerant crops. Field experiments were conducted in 2021 and 2022 with 25% labeled rates of dicamba, glufosinate, glyphosate, lactofen, and paraquat to simulate drift on peanut. The objective was to evaluate the effects of low‐rate application of the herbicides on peanut injury and yield reductions and to determine if unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) imagery‐based normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) provides accurate estimation of peanut injury from the herbicides applied at vegetative (V3) and reproductive (R3) growth stages. Peanut suffered greater yield reduction (33%) when exposed to the herbicides at R3 than at V3 growth stage (19%) across all herbicides applied. The order of herbicides that induced yield reductions in peanut was glyphosate > glufosinate = dicamba > paraquat = lactofen. Regardless of exposure timing, NDVI values generated from UAV imagery could not differentiate paraquat or lactofen injury from the weed‐free check. However, NDVI values could differentiate between injured and weed‐free check plants up to 2 and 4 weeks after treatment (WAT) for dicamba at R3 and V3 exposure timing, respectively, up to 4 WAT for glufosinate, and 8 WAT for glyphosate. NDVI from aerial imagery may be helpful to accelerate the detection of injury in large hectarages with greater accuracy compared with visual injury rating, which can be influenced by individual estimation bias.

Effect of Different Cultural Treatments on Branching and Yield of Groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)

“…According to the observations taken during the systematic conduction of the experiment with good maintenance of the experimental plots, we have concluded that as the branching of groundnut increases, the yield also increases, respectively. However, the extent of increase in yield and branching varies for different treatments and those differences in the yield obtained were given below: The number of branches led to an increase in yield based on different types of treatments in different experiments were reported in findings of Shashidhar VR, et al [3], Gowthami V, et al [4], Nigam SN, et al [5], Ali FM, et al [6], Avinasha BL, et al [7], Nagar R, et al [8], Oppong SD, et al [9], Thilini SPLNK, et al [10], Gawas D, et al [11], Magagula N, et al [12], Sathiya K, et al [13], Mohanty P, et al [14], Ibrahim II, et al [15], Yilmaz M, et al [16], Iddrisu A, et al [17], Singh N, et al [18], El Naim AM, et al [19], Seijo G, et al [20], Maleki SJ, et al [21], Michael CY, et al [22], Sanders TH, et al [23,24], Veeramani P, et al [25].…”